Rebutting xanadu's personal attacks on me
#31
Posted 29 May 2006 - 08:29 PM
Just a thought...
#32
Posted 29 May 2006 - 08:31 PM
#33
Posted 29 May 2006 - 08:38 PM
Just a thought...
I strongly disagree. If we forget history, we are all the more likely to repeat it.
People can't throw feces at other individuals to advance a hidden commercial agenda and expect to get away with it.
It doesn't matter if you are trying to increase sales at UN or Canaca. Note that Canaca doesn't hold a leadership role here and accuse owners of other hosting companies of making personal threats. Nor does Canaca pretend to be a doctor.
Edit by jaydfox: Adam asked me to edit a portion of this comment. The new text is in italics for reference.
Edited by jaydfox, 29 May 2006 - 10:21 PM.
sponsored ad
#34
Posted 29 May 2006 - 09:04 PM
All this drama does nothing to raise the image of the nootropic area of the forums that had already been dragged through the mud with the LM fiasco, and might do more to rehash the issue in people's minds of seperating that part of the forum.
Just a thought...
I strongly disagree. If we forget history, we are all the more likely to repeat it.
People can't throw feces at other individuals to advance a hidden commercial agenda and expect to get away with it.
It doesn't matter if you are trying to increase sales at UN or Canaca. Note that Canaca doesn't hold a leadership role here and accuse owners of other hosting companies of murder to maintain market share. Nor does Canaca pretend being a doctor.
Umm, yeah. That was my point. The fact that this type of stuff is going on, that there are fights about it, etc. in the noo area is part of the reason people feel as they do about it. But, I really don't care one way or the other about it, and so I will post some funny pics in the hopes that people ignore the fighting and degenerate this thread into a funny-pic-athon.
Ok, now that I have sufficiently slowed down the page for anyone with a slow connection, my job is done here.
#35
Posted 29 May 2006 - 09:11 PM
BTW, that "Hold Dat" punch is pretty crazy. I abhor real violence (I like fake violence, i.e., movies, games, etc.), so it kinda makes me sick to think that guy got hit like that, even if he "deserved" it (no way to tell from context). But it's still a crazy shot.
Edit: Heh, fixed it. Used a span with "nowrap" to keep the airquotes attached to the text (image really), and a margin of -4px to move the image down to the proper location. Works in IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.5.0.3, no warranties for other browsers.
Edit 2: Deleted post to which the previous edit referred.
Edited by jaydfox, 29 May 2006 - 10:49 PM.
#36
Posted 29 May 2006 - 11:53 PM
Hold Dat cut ⊢ honest violence ⊢ minimal scope
Useless gossipy sociological lesson of the day.
[tung]
#37
Posted 29 May 2006 - 11:56 PM
#38
Posted 30 May 2006 - 12:23 AM
#39
Posted 30 May 2006 - 12:42 AM
#40
Posted 30 May 2006 - 03:28 AM
Ad hominems, however, will strictly not be tolerated. You are strongly advised to exercise strong self-moderation if you are to have the opportunity to defend your ideas and character. This is the last warning I can give you on such matters after which the moderators here will act according to their obligations and view of what is appropriate content. This is the last time I will intervene.
Once more: if you have a legitimate rebuttal, exercise it, but only once you are sure it does not contain an ad hominem attack.
Wow. I did not see this.
The bottom line is the issue of accountability for your actions and statements. Matter of presentation is irrelevant when you are right and everyone else is wrong on an issue as pertinent as the issue of medical misrepresentation at an institute whose mission is to fight involuntary death. When I was banned from here, I was banned for ranting about an issue that is now of *sudden* importance (some other stuff too, I don't quite recall). Yes, my presentation was crazy (I was crazy) and I see that now it was best to have banned me at that time.
It might mean something if an issue could be addressed differently or perhaps better, but when you are wrong, you are wrong. And when it might affect adversely the mission of this organization, accountability should be no joke if this organization should be taken seriously.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
-Martin Luther King
We learned who the leaders are here during and after the LM thing. I saw Bruce, a lot of prometheus, a lot of Jay, Don, Mind, Opales, Dukenukem, a bit of Rebo too, and that's about it (*I might have forgotten someone -- wait, was I just getting covered in LM's feces or could you perhaps see me in there?). Maybe there was some more stuff going on that I did not see behind the scenes, but it was these guys who did something -- or took a stand -- during and after to help clean up the mess. Why did everyone else up there disappear when it mattered most?
What are you saying, dude? I clearly addressed xanadu's ad hominems against me. Then I addressed his clear insults and addressed his insults to the members and leaders of this organization, with citations. Nothing could be more legitimate that addressing unsubstantiated, unmoderated (for months now!) baseless attacks and ad homs -- during the middle of a crisis -- still available to any reader interested in clicking on the topic. What kind of standard is that to set? Shouldn't those baseless attacks be removed; especially if they are baseless and outlawed in the constitution of this organization?
Of course I understand if folks thought this or that and think differently now. But those attacks xanadu made were never addressed once -- and still remain unmoderated. It is a bit of a double standard to all of the sudden be so serious about the issue of ad homs when some are sitting right in front of our faces -- and have been for months, unmoderated. During the middle of that terrible thoughts topic, I saw no leader moderate any of those extremely harsh ad homs. Oh, the rules don't apply because it was Adam Kamil. Well, whoops, he "happened" to be right. I must still be a bad guy if you leave ad hominems just sitting there. Let's just ignore the past because it was ugly? Let's not forget history, accountability, and the importance of recognizing our past mistakes.
I was trying to resolve these issues. Perhaps xanadu had me mixed up with someone else? That's what I was trying to do. If I failed, please show me how I can approach it differently.
I hold strongly to what I said. I am requesting xanadu to explain why he attacked me, or hold to the only other theory he offered.
Otherwise, I disagree with the leadership stance on the issue.
Jay: It is irrelevant about what folks thought/think here about me in my opinion. Leadership or not. Yes, some should be embarrassed for carrying Edward's torch for so long, and they should apologize to the public and be accountable, especially if they expect to be re-elected.
I am accountable and apologize for all of my mistakes, no matter how embarrassing -- as soon as I recognize them. And I have no designs on any political position here.
I expect the same from anyone else.
Peace.
Edited by nootropikamil, 30 May 2006 - 04:25 AM.
#41
Posted 30 May 2006 - 06:49 AM
Peace.
#42
Posted 30 May 2006 - 12:16 PM
Adam the past is the past and any attack on your character doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth. Have a little confidence about your worth here at the institute matey.
Continuing this topic and going on and on about it is probably doing you more harm than good.
#43
Posted 30 May 2006 - 05:25 PM
Continuing this topic and going on and on about it is probably doing you more harm than good.
That's easy to say when your name isn't involved and you don't make your identity public. I didn't say anything until I noticed that xanadu has continued to integrate personal attacks into his posts.
Edited by nootropikamil, 30 May 2006 - 05:38 PM.
#44
Posted 30 May 2006 - 05:40 PM
zoolander makes his identity public. He is the lead singer of that band, Amphetish, and is a Ph.D. student from Melbourne. I am sure anyone who cared could easily find out his name. (I won't state it here in case he doesn't want me to, but I found it quite easily in about 30 seconds)
Sorry, zoolander if I am stating anything that you didn't want me to, but I think most people know that stuff about you already anyway.
#45
Posted 30 May 2006 - 05:53 PM
#46
Posted 30 May 2006 - 06:08 PM
But no ad homs on anyone else, okay? Let's try to be consistent with application of laws. Otherwise, it looks a lot like discrimination.
#47
Posted 30 May 2006 - 06:22 PM
Adam, you made your point, xanadu declined engagement, case closed. If you have particular instances of violations by xanadu against you, then forward them to leadership and we'll review them.
BTW, Graeme's profile should be added to the leadership page shortly.
#48
Posted 30 May 2006 - 06:53 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users