complaint

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:

---

And of course the nonsensical furore over Wikipedia demonstrates again that attacking the messenger is to be condoned.

---

The only one "not making sense" in the Wikipedia thread was you.Do you think there is shame in being wrong, contra?Is that why you dropped out of that Wikipedia discussion as soon as you were shown evidence that you were mistaken?

quote:

---

And yet *I* am on the recieving end of this abuse.

---

Contra, if anyone wanted a lesson on how to insult others, all they would have to do is peruse a few of the threads where you have been active. You sling invective and insult just about more than anyone else here.Your protests of "Oh, oh, poor me is getting insulted!" would perhaps carry more weight if you weren't usually the one starting the slinging.

quote:

---

It is a complete sham, while racist attacks are ignored.

---

Yeah, it really is a big sham.I don't even know why you hang around because everybody is so fake.

quote:

---

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.

---

And what happens if we never do better than we are right now?Are you going to volunteer to be a moderator?Maybe you could show us all how it's done?

Contra, let me explain something to you in perhaps wider terms than you have thought of it in the past.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.Then, when someone insults you, or maybe insults you, you complain bitterly about moderator inaction and unfair treatment.The message you are sending is that you want the moderators to let you flagrantly break as many forum guidelines as you want to but keep everyone else from so much as looking at you crosseyed.Perhaps if you didn't chronically ignore moderator requests to follow the guidelines you would get a better hearing from them.

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?).

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

At this point, I am neither going to condemn or condone the larger content of the quotation that the above was extracted from.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.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.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.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.Moose

quote:

---

I responded appropriately to such allegations as were made.

---

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?

quote:

---

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?

---

Our moderation is not perfect, it's true.We aren't paid professionals, you know. This is a completely volunteer gig.What do you expect for a completely free site?Would you like to have a try at being a moderator yourself so you can show us perfection in action yourself?

quote:

---

So what is it that you want exactly?

---

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.

quote:

---

You don't want me to respond myself,

---

Yes, you can respond, but within the forum guidelines, including rule #3.That is all the forum moderators want, contra.Really.

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.

And thusly do you demonstrate my point.

quote:

---

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

---

You can choose to violate rule #3, but as long as you understand the cosequences, it's all OK.The problem is, you moan and whinge about the consequences.Long term evidence of violation of the guidelines, a lack of productive contribution to discussion, and a tendency to bog down every thread a member participates are things that moderators monitor very carefully.

quote:

---

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

---

So, those of us who volunteer for this unpaid position should display perfection at all times?

quote:

---

And IF you apply your principles consistently, that is what you will get.

---

Are you expecting perfection from unpaid, volunteer imperfect human moderators?That is unreasonable, completely unreasonable.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, because moderation is not perfect, you get to be rude to people?Two wrongs DO make a right, I understand now!

quote:

---

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.

---

So, you DO expect moderators to be perfect, even though we are human, and this gig is completely volunteer.

quote:

---

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.

---

Do you mean this abusive and insulting post?These were some of the indults in that one:"I have no reviewed the thread for the second time, and located clear evidence of RAZD's dishonesty""Recapaitulation of mating basics for kindergarten ommitted.""Of all the arrogant bullshit...""Play like an adult.""I suggest you actually review your own writings or acquire a reputation for lying deliberately."

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.You may think it is a stereotype, but there is a reason most stereotypes were "turned into" stereotypes in the first place.It's because there is a common characteristic within the members of a group.You often fit the description of a "commie agitator".

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL!!!You opinion of these books is the only one in the world that is correct, apparently.OK, I understand. LOL!

quote:

---

And then, assuming that becuase I will not compromise on these matetrs of FACT and public record means I am fanatical is outright ridiculous.

---

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