complaint

Jar wrote:

quote:

---

Remember, part of the training of all Good Commie Agitators is to create situations where the power of the state is brought down upon the very people supporting it. They are good at this. It is their sole weapon (other than creating terror).

​

If you let a Commie Agitator trick you into crossing the line while he remains safely straddling, it is you who get's hammered.

---

1 This is an outright lie.2 Its a deliberate and vicious attack on my character and motives3 It serves as excuse for failing to address the points I raise.Please respond to this blatant and outright abuse.

quote:

---

I thought you might have learned. Attacking the messenger is not going to be allowed.

---

This is all the more hypocritical as Jar has the arrogance to say elsewhere: "I thought you might have learned. Attacking the messenger is not going to be allowed."Edit: And of course the nonsensical furore over Wikipedia demonstrates again that attacking the messenger is to be condoned.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-27-2005 06:12 AM

quote:

---

This is so funny. This guy takes online forums way, way too seriously.

---

No, I take INSULTS quite seriously.I also take consistency seriously, and the administration of this board is hopelessly inconsistent. And its getting worse.Supporting your argument is a basic element for which Arachnophilia should be held to account. Acknowledging the existance of rival theories is a basic step for which RAZD should be held to account.And yet *I* am on the recieving end of this abuse. It is a complete sham, while racist attacks are ignored. I am asking the moderators to get their act together, behave consistently, and to refrain from indulging in the same abuses they claim to condemn.

quote:

---

Is Jar directly addressing YOU, Contra? I see no mention of your name. Personally, you can be a bit annoying at times, but I have enjoyed much of your input.

---

Come on this playground sophistry. Don't play dumb.This is a clear and deliberate violation of the forum guidelines. Please take the appropriate action you keep insisting you should take.

I specifically request a response from Percy as to why this complaint has not been actioned.

quote:

---

If the discussions here and the way you feel treated here are causing you distress then it may be time to take a break.

---

I've taken several, but this seems unversally interpreted as "running away from the issue".We have here a blatant example of an administrator flagrantly flouting the forum guidelines, as frequently occurs. You can choose one of two consistent positions - either accept similar responses by posters, or discipline you administrators.Which is it to be?

quote:

---

Eta was suspended yesterday.

---

I'm not sure how you think that stregthens your case. If the general frequency of suspensions has increased, but violations by moderators remain unaddressed, then that only demonstrates the double standard more clearly.

quote:

---

It is the judgment of the moderators that you're violating the guidelines. The guideline violations of others do not justify further violations. In other words, you're responsible for your own violations, don't blame them on someone else.

---

Fine. This thread is about guideline violations by an administrator. What relevance does the above have?The remarks by Jar are in the first instance deliberate misrepresentations of fact, and secondly, blatantly intended to be insulting. In that aim they succeeded. Both of these are against the forum guidelines. I have the raised the matter as a complaint. What are you going to do about it?This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-03-2005 10:30 AM

quote:

---

I don't agree with your assessment, so I'm not going to do anything.

---

So, the forum guidelines are valueless, empty documents, and what really counts is your assesment.Fine. But then stand on the formality of your guidelines as justifying your position if you yourself feel neither bound nor guided by them.b Any moral authority which you may have carried based on the application of consistent process has just been binned.Clearly, the guidelines are not in fact guidelines, but a stick to beat people with.

So, still too ashamed to reply, I take it?

quote:

---

Contra, let me explain something to you in perhaps wider terms than you have thought of it in the past.

---

You are most grievously mistaken, Schraf.

quote:

---

When you clearly violate the forum guidelines, numerous times, you have nothing but contempt and excuses and rationisations and criticism for the moderators when they tell you to stop. You seem to think that you don't ever do anything wrong, you never break the forum guidelines (or are justified because others do) and that all the insults you sling are justified.

---

I responded appropriately to such allegations as were made. I point out to you, again, that when you turn a blind eye to racism and Islamaphobia, or outright lies about certain political ideas, you yourself have abandoned the principled ground from which to launch this criticism. If you will not back up your espoused principles with action, why are you then surprised when others don't take your public piety seriously?All you are doing is asserting that the moderators freedom to be abusive should be totally unconstrained by consistency, legitimacy or process. And worse, using the moderators powers to suspend posting as a mechanism for evading the responsibility to actually produce a supportable reason.

quote:

---

Then, when someone insults you, or maybe insults you, you complain bitterly about moderator inaction and unfair treatment.

---

No, thats fiction Schraf. Look it up, I dare you. I have ONLY complained about such action BY a moderator. When I have received insults, I have responded in kind. I don't cry to mummmy, I can fight my own battles - but seeing as you will not let me defend myself, all I can do is complain here. This is entirely a situation of your own making.

quote:

---

Perhaps if you didn't chronically ignore moderator requests to follow the guidelines you would get a better hearing from them.

---

Lets remember that YOU are using this as an excuse to justify NOT applying your forum guidelines. Just like you have failed to apply those guidelines on many prior occassions. It has been and remains outright hypocrisy, demonstrably so becuase when I DO bring matters to your attention, as you ask that I do, you turn round and give me the finger.So what is it that you want exactly? You don't want me to respond myself, and you will not apply the forum guidelines instead. (although this is still the wrong way round; Jar should have been reprimanded BEFORE, not AFTER, I specifically complained. Thats what happens to non moderators normally, is it not?).

quote:

---

Contra, before I became a moderator, you and I had a very long conversation in which it took me at least 8 posts to get you to budge even a little tiny bit about the effectiveness of you calling someone a "fuckwit".

​

Just what do you think "responding appropriately" is?

---

Responding appropriately is calling a spade a spade and a fuckwit a fuckwit.

quote:

---

Would you like to have a try at being a moderator yourself so you can show us perfection in action yourself?

---

No. It is precisely because I will make errors that I decline such positions.

quote:

---

Don't insult people. Don't freak out on people every 10 minutes. Adhere to rule #3 of the forum guidelines.

​

That's what we want.

---

And IF you apply your principles consistently, that is what you will get. But as long as you do NOT apply your principles consistently - and lets recall, your argument here is tyo justify why you are NOT going to discipline Jar - then you have no basis to expect that.Live by the sword, die by the sword - you cannot claim to have guidelines and then ignore their violations merely because the violator is a moderator. If that is what the "guidelines" are for, then admit it.

quote:

---

That is all the forum moderators want, contra. Really.

---

Prove it. This thread was raised as a complaint about an insulting and abusive post. Prove your principles by actually acting on them. Shit or get off the pot.

quote:

---

I want you to stop bleating "it's not fair" like a five year old child. Life isn't fair; get over it.

---

No no, remember - I'm not bleating "its not fair", others are bleating that when called upon to show their sources, or challenged on the misrepresentation of facts. All *I* have asked the moderators to do is stick by their alleged prinmciples, and they have refused.

quote:

---

That said, I think the "Good Commie Agitator" portion is a good and valid description of you. I personally would go so far as to look upon it as being a compliment.

---

Well unfortunately I cannot give you a truly appropriate response becuase that would get me suspended again, at least.It is most certainly not a compliment given the abundantly apparent ignorance of what a commie agitator does. So here's a little helpiong hand for you: I am most certainly NOT here as an agitator. I am here as a private citizen who cut his philosophical teeth on the crticism of religion and therefore has an abiding interest in the topic.But your insistence on interpreting my words according to some ignorant TV stereotype of alleged commie agitators makes that rather difficult. Get a clue, please. Thats axactly why Jar is being purposefully abusive - he is advancing factually false claims as an excuse for actually having to deal with my arguments. You are playing the man and not the ball.

quote:

---

The strangeness of the Contracycle situation, as I see it, is that you very much tend to get into ugly clashes over social/economic/government issues with other members, despite the fact that they often may have considerable agreement with your positions.

---

Then clearly you have failed to understand what our respective positions are. Maybe you should start actually reading what I say rather than dismissing it according to stereotype?

quote:

---

My impression is that there is no pragmatist in Contracycle. In that, you exhibit a mindset simular to a religious fundementalist - My way is right, the opposite way is wrong, and there is no gray area in between.

---

Well, your impression is wrong. Or at least, MY impression is that most of my correspondants on these issues are dogmatic fanatics unable to even consider any other opinion. Remember, these disputes are about the factual content of certain books - there IS no gray area in this matter. Insisting that it is an issue of "my opinion" is grossly absurd. And then, assuming that becuase I will not compromise on these matetrs of FACT and public record means I am fanatical is outright ridiculous.

quote:

---

I suggest you start a new "Coffee House" topic, titled something like "Contracycle's SocioEconomic Position". Do a nice, fairly detailed message 1 about that of the topic title.

---

Why? Is that on topic for the EVC?I mean its nonsense, you know what my position is, I'm a Marxist. Why would I want to type out the whole of capital, or worse, give you a summary and claim it was my own work? There is nothing secretive or conspiratorial about any of this. If you want to know, look it up - thats the way these things work. On the other hand, if you want to discuss it with me, I will be happy to answer your questions. And despite having made that offer many times, very few questions have been asked.Nonetheless, this "good commie agitator" nonsense IS nonsense, it is abuseove, it is a sterotype, it is a gross and public violation of the board guidelines by a moderator.It is time you started plucking out logs from your eye, Moose.

quote:

---

Contra, you absolutely do very frequently come across as a commie agitator. Very much so. And it's not because Jar made that comment that I think this. I have thought that for years.

---

Well then you have been mistaken for years. I was just as forthright when I was a teenager arguing with ministers, long before I had any knowledge of Marxism at all.Your expectations are colouring your perceptions. I was quite correct.

quote:

---

LOL!!!

​

You opinion of these books is the only one in the world that is correct, apparently.

​

OK, I understand. LOL!

---

Yep, see? You don;t even bother to think about it - you just leap to silly assumptions.MY OPINION is totally irrelevant. The FACTs of the text of a publicly available document are not subject to my opinion or anyone elses.Again whats so striking abouit this is you are surrendering your intellect. You've criticised posters for quote-mining yourself, IIRC. Are you know backtracking on the view that a persons words can be examined objectively if written or recorded? Are you willing to accept that your opinion of a book by Dawkins say, as someone who has read it, is qualitatively indistinguishable from the opinion of someone who has not read it?Thats nonsense Schraf, and both you and I know it. And it was nonsense when both Hambre and Paisano made factually incorrect claims as to the content of Capital. Note, not erroneous in mu opinion, not an error of interpretation, nothing of tyhe sort: they claimed that text exists which does not exist.Do you doubt me? Presumably you do. SO PRACTICE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF. I have not asked you to believe ME, ever. Matters of public record are NOT subject to my opinion, your opinion, Hambres opinion, or Paisano's opinion.

quote:

---

It is most definitely not at all true that you restrict yourself to the content of books in your disagreements with people.

---

Of course it is not - I have many disagreements with many people about many things. So what? That is irrelevant to the fact that you stood by and did nothing while a public resource was deliberately misrepresented, and then you presume to hold ME responsible for providing the correction. An now, here, you're arrogant enough to presume that I don't even know the content of books I have read!You are NOT living up to your guidelines. You are NOT behaving in an intellectually honest manner. You are culpable of dogmatically supporting the ignorant over the informed, and then holding a grudge against the informed becuase they caught you out. This is the behaviour of an adolescent, not an adult.

quote:

---

And thusly do you demonstrate my point.

---

Spoken like an abusive parent: "I'll give you something to cry about"