Well, that's done.
Oct. 23rd, 2004 12:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naruki_oniAfter this, it's time to move on, I suppose. Still, I should post my side of things and make room for all the comments (don't want people mucking up other entries because they can't find a place to discuss it).
It's not been that long since Slamlander's idiocy got me disabled. That should have told me to pack my bags and clear out, but I'm one of those geeks that doesn't take signs of impending doom seriously. You know, an optimist. An idiot. ;-)
I should have known that the segment of UF that loathes being prevented from spreading stupidity were active in seeking my banishment. Every time I've been disabled, the same people come out of the woodwork to attack me like sniveling cowards. I'd say like a pack of hyenas, but that's not quite appropriate. Hyenas do stink like the opinons of those people, but hyenas aren't the cowards they've been portrayed as. They are pack hunters who will kill live animals. I don't think the feeble-willed Anti-Naruki Brigade had the sense to coordinate their attacks, despite many of them being quite smart. Perhaps that's got something to do with their internal need to justify their actions - they didn't want to admit that they were basically trying to drive me away, instead couching it in self-aggrandizing terms of "making the board a better place". Coordinating their attacks would have been too obvious, even to such as they are.
Despite what some of the whingers have indicated, I am not nor ever was in cahoots with the UF staff. I've often suspected that of people like Subbywan, for example. So had I been in cahoots, I wouldn't have had to wonder. Anyhoo, in all my behind-the-scenes dealings with the moderators, I have never been made privvy to their deliberations - only to their decisions and whatever justifications Kickstart or Illiad gave for them. And I'd make my deductions based on what I knew from the public forum and the personalities of the parties involved. I'm sure a lot of my deductions were wrong, but there's no way to prove that.
Getting back on track for once, the comment that was declared the "last straw" was innocuous. Since then, I've seen people whinging that it was a direct and knowing attack on veterans. WTF?
As far as I've gathered from the comments, some Viet Nam vets were at some point in time accused of such a thing, and now any reference to baby-eating is now automatically a reference to that, especially if it's done to a veteran. Of any war or battle or skirmish or, hell, anyone who attended a ROTC weekend training class in college. The things stupid people will come up with.
Now, just so we're absolutely clear on this: I was annoyed at DesertRat66 for making the same bullheaded slander against Kerry that he's made constantly. Everyone and their mother has debunked his statement, yet he continues to make it in total defiance of the evidence. So I've given up on trying to politely reason with him a while back. What can I do? (Everyone knows I'm not the type to leave ignorant slander alone, so don't even try to suggest that.) That's right, it's analogy time!
First, I try to reduce his argument to the basic logic as I see it: DR66 makes a patently false claim (Kerry did something bad to all veterans) and then decries Kerry for not apologizing for the thing he obviously didn't do.
Now that the logic is clear, find an analogous situation. The main criteria are:
So, of course, the first thing that occurs to me is the "hello, world" of the loaded question genre: have you stopped beating your wife?
And here's where irony and a third criterion kick in: I know that he has a wife, and more importantly, he has an ex-wife with serious issues. I'm pretty sure that he didn't beat her (given that the restraining order goes the other direction), but that is just way too personal. Someone with a passing knowledge of DR66 might conceivably take that as real, and that would spoil the analogy. No, I need something so totally over-the-top that nobody would believe it. Ah ha!
So I made that post declaring (in the exact same way he posted about Kerry) that DR66 had not apologized for killing and eating babies. There, that ought to point out his logic error to him.
Except now I find out that some people have made this incredibly stupid association of all veterans to baby eating. And DR66, apparently looking for offense, finds it where it wasn't seriously offered. Note the qualifier.
I make no bones about the fact that I've seriously tried to add some insult to him in other posts. Just as he has done to me. C'est la vie.
But there was none in that post, as many of the respondents pointed out. Kickstart among them.
Cut to yesterday and the sudden disabling and later announcement. I actually had to ask Kickstart what it was I'd done now. Imagine my surprise that I'd been banned for pointing out a logical fallacy! One that Kickstart originally agreed with!
Looking through DR66's new LJ entries this morning, I see similar hints that I somehow "knew" he was gone already, and that this post is somehow being taken as a sign of gloating.
Damn! I just got it. I was struggling to think of a backronym for LART that would allow me to strike the idiot reporter no matter where on earth he might be. Satellites come to mind, and thus lasers. So I get "geosynchronous Laser Assisted Rat Terminating satellite". He is taking "Rat" as a reference to him! OMFG, that's too much. Of course, with Slammie egging him on, it's easy to see why he might doubt me.
Well, I'm not going to apologize for things I've not done. So no apology for "deliberately trying to hurt DR66's feelings". And if I did apologize, wouldn't that be too fucking ironic, given the post that set this off?
I've explained why it was a mistaken impression on the part of DR66. I've shown how the moderators opinions suddenly and radically reversed direction overnight. What's left to discuss? Oh, yeah, my conclusion.
That makes me conclude that this decision was merely a long time coming, and they chose this opportunity to make the break. They couldn't actually show where I'd done anything wrong, but they were tired of the pseudo-hyenas constantly writing in to bitch. Plus, there is now an implied threat to anyone who dares be controversial - you "know" the rules, so we don't have to actually apply them before kicking you!
Well, they've got two fewer persons on there to keep it from turning into Canadian Teletubbies. I hope they enjoy it when Llyr's nonsense threads are the bulk of the posts.
A big warm thanks to those who showed support of me and also for those who just publically stated they didn't like where the board is going (even if you didn't support me). You are what made UF so interesting and worthwhile. You don't deserve to be overrun by the pseudo-hyena crowd. Good luck!
It's not been that long since Slamlander's idiocy got me disabled. That should have told me to pack my bags and clear out, but I'm one of those geeks that doesn't take signs of impending doom seriously. You know, an optimist. An idiot. ;-)
I should have known that the segment of UF that loathes being prevented from spreading stupidity were active in seeking my banishment. Every time I've been disabled, the same people come out of the woodwork to attack me like sniveling cowards. I'd say like a pack of hyenas, but that's not quite appropriate. Hyenas do stink like the opinons of those people, but hyenas aren't the cowards they've been portrayed as. They are pack hunters who will kill live animals. I don't think the feeble-willed Anti-Naruki Brigade had the sense to coordinate their attacks, despite many of them being quite smart. Perhaps that's got something to do with their internal need to justify their actions - they didn't want to admit that they were basically trying to drive me away, instead couching it in self-aggrandizing terms of "making the board a better place". Coordinating their attacks would have been too obvious, even to such as they are.
Despite what some of the whingers have indicated, I am not nor ever was in cahoots with the UF staff. I've often suspected that of people like Subbywan, for example. So had I been in cahoots, I wouldn't have had to wonder. Anyhoo, in all my behind-the-scenes dealings with the moderators, I have never been made privvy to their deliberations - only to their decisions and whatever justifications Kickstart or Illiad gave for them. And I'd make my deductions based on what I knew from the public forum and the personalities of the parties involved. I'm sure a lot of my deductions were wrong, but there's no way to prove that.
Getting back on track for once, the comment that was declared the "last straw" was innocuous. Since then, I've seen people whinging that it was a direct and knowing attack on veterans. WTF?
As far as I've gathered from the comments, some Viet Nam vets were at some point in time accused of such a thing, and now any reference to baby-eating is now automatically a reference to that, especially if it's done to a veteran. Of any war or battle or skirmish or, hell, anyone who attended a ROTC weekend training class in college. The things stupid people will come up with.
Now, just so we're absolutely clear on this: I was annoyed at DesertRat66 for making the same bullheaded slander against Kerry that he's made constantly. Everyone and their mother has debunked his statement, yet he continues to make it in total defiance of the evidence. So I've given up on trying to politely reason with him a while back. What can I do? (Everyone knows I'm not the type to leave ignorant slander alone, so don't even try to suggest that.) That's right, it's analogy time!
First, I try to reduce his argument to the basic logic as I see it: DR66 makes a patently false claim (Kerry did something bad to all veterans) and then decries Kerry for not apologizing for the thing he obviously didn't do.
Now that the logic is clear, find an analogous situation. The main criteria are:
- it has to be "personal", as he's not going to care about something that happens to someone else (this is true of most people who are being irrational about an issue)
- it has to be patently false, even to someone who just wanders in and has never seen DR66 before
So, of course, the first thing that occurs to me is the "hello, world" of the loaded question genre: have you stopped beating your wife?
And here's where irony and a third criterion kick in: I know that he has a wife, and more importantly, he has an ex-wife with serious issues. I'm pretty sure that he didn't beat her (given that the restraining order goes the other direction), but that is just way too personal. Someone with a passing knowledge of DR66 might conceivably take that as real, and that would spoil the analogy. No, I need something so totally over-the-top that nobody would believe it. Ah ha!
So I made that post declaring (in the exact same way he posted about Kerry) that DR66 had not apologized for killing and eating babies. There, that ought to point out his logic error to him.
Except now I find out that some people have made this incredibly stupid association of all veterans to baby eating. And DR66, apparently looking for offense, finds it where it wasn't seriously offered. Note the qualifier.
I make no bones about the fact that I've seriously tried to add some insult to him in other posts. Just as he has done to me. C'est la vie.
But there was none in that post, as many of the respondents pointed out. Kickstart among them.
Cut to yesterday and the sudden disabling and later announcement. I actually had to ask Kickstart what it was I'd done now. Imagine my surprise that I'd been banned for pointing out a logical fallacy! One that Kickstart originally agreed with!
Looking through DR66's new LJ entries this morning, I see similar hints that I somehow "knew" he was gone already, and that this post is somehow being taken as a sign of gloating.
Damn! I just got it. I was struggling to think of a backronym for LART that would allow me to strike the idiot reporter no matter where on earth he might be. Satellites come to mind, and thus lasers. So I get "geosynchronous Laser Assisted Rat Terminating satellite". He is taking "Rat" as a reference to him! OMFG, that's too much. Of course, with Slammie egging him on, it's easy to see why he might doubt me.
Well, I'm not going to apologize for things I've not done. So no apology for "deliberately trying to hurt DR66's feelings". And if I did apologize, wouldn't that be too fucking ironic, given the post that set this off?
I've explained why it was a mistaken impression on the part of DR66. I've shown how the moderators opinions suddenly and radically reversed direction overnight. What's left to discuss? Oh, yeah, my conclusion.
That makes me conclude that this decision was merely a long time coming, and they chose this opportunity to make the break. They couldn't actually show where I'd done anything wrong, but they were tired of the pseudo-hyenas constantly writing in to bitch. Plus, there is now an implied threat to anyone who dares be controversial - you "know" the rules, so we don't have to actually apply them before kicking you!
Well, they've got two fewer persons on there to keep it from turning into Canadian Teletubbies. I hope they enjoy it when Llyr's nonsense threads are the bulk of the posts.
A big warm thanks to those who showed support of me and also for those who just publically stated they didn't like where the board is going (even if you didn't support me). You are what made UF so interesting and worthwhile. You don't deserve to be overrun by the pseudo-hyena crowd. Good luck!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
That was my conclusion as well.
Date: 2004-10-23 10:32 am (UTC)It's certainly supported by Illiad's own comments that he should have done something about things sooner.
I had no idea about the babies thing. Hey, it's just like that time I was ranting about how hard it is to buy a good cracker these days and some white dude who'd been exposed to Chris Rock decided to get all offended. LOL.
I'm fine with nonsense posts, but the rest of us are going to have to work a lot harder if we want any kind of sensible debate threads.
I don't mind them, either.
Date: 2004-10-23 12:18 pm (UTC)Hopefully you guys can stop that on your own.
Crackers?
Date: 2004-10-23 01:40 pm (UTC)Honestly, I'm almost tempted to just let things go and hit rock bottom. Then maybe it will be easier to get the momentum to fix things; if anybody's around to do any fixing.
It's taken me a moment to realize your confusion.
Date: 2004-10-23 02:42 pm (UTC)It's not true, and you pontificating (and god, do you ever fucking pontificate) that it is doesn't help clear up anything.
I'm assuming DesertRat66 isn't going to be as scared of the truth as you are, so linking to his journal won't necessarily result in blank pages. One place you egged him on is here.
For the record, I find someone who selectively hides replies to be both insecure and sad. Please slap me if I ever do anything like that.
Sooooo tempted to censor your message for that.
Date: 2004-10-23 03:06 pm (UTC)Your "answer" was so full of horseshit that I would have needed Hercules to clean the stables.
What is "clear" to you is whatever lame-ass idea you imagine in your self-deluded paranoia.
Also, "the sky was green with pink dots today" is a fact that is false (barring bizarre meterological phenomena) - it is not an opinion. Your other example was an opinion. So what?
Boy were you wrong on that one.
Date: 2005-03-22 09:20 am (UTC)he he he
Too right.
Date: 2005-03-22 10:46 am (UTC)Thanks for once again proving you stick to your principles.
Date: 2004-10-23 11:26 am (UTC)He he he.
Just want the world to know...
Date: 2004-10-24 09:23 am (UTC)You responded to my post here (multiple TLRs are pretty sad, too) with "Oh? How? You can't censor shit, ol' buddy."
First, you got it backwards. I don't want to censor anyone. YOU are the one who keeps censoring things.
Second, when I went to tell you that, I found you had already deleted that post. Way to go, dipweed.
Your behavior was pretty bad on UF. Here it's only gotten worse. And more self-aggrandizing. You've "always, as a primary concern, had the welfare of the UF community at heart"? When I read that, I almost lost my lunch from laughing so hard.
The real reason you left the US is your ego wouldn't fit here anymore.
I've received more complaints about you (which is odd, since I'm not a moderator) _prior_ to your disabling than you've managed to delete posts telling you what a jackass you've been. But you're catching up. I guess that'll just make your day.
Too bad "honesty" and "integrity" in your thesaurus are only insults you hurl at others.
Slamlander is a dribbling asshole; always has been.
Date: 2004-10-24 12:43 pm (UTC)Maybe so...
Date: 2004-10-24 12:56 pm (UTC)What is annoyingly amusing is that he started in on me as soon as I got the final disabling, and he and SG keep lamenting that I have stirred up the hornet's nest.
They have been making nasty, snide little comments for quite a while, and still seem genuinely surprised that I don't like that.
That and the incredibly dishonest tactic of censorship to avoid embarrassment is why I am able to express my disgust openly without trying to be more diplomatic.
BTW, there is a thread just for Slamlander right here. After all the lies he told (to himself, apparently), it was the least I could do.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 01:22 pm (UTC)Petty, dishonest, and mean-spirited; what a shocker! :D
SG is a tool and just repeating the party line.
What to my wondering eyes should appear?
Date: 2004-10-24 02:42 pm (UTC)On a side-note, I'm not getting Naruki_oni posts in my friends view. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you didn't like me. And then I'd have to go sniveling to the mods. Or something. ;)
Hey me too.
Date: 2004-10-24 02:46 pm (UTC)I guess that explains...
Date: 2004-10-24 04:03 pm (UTC)Me, three.
Date: 2004-10-24 04:52 pm (UTC)I've noticed some of the links
Date: 2004-10-24 04:02 pm (UTC)I can't remember if he claimed it was because he was trying to "hide" the posts and screwed up. Not that that's any better - it's still trying to censor views he is too immature to handle.
Jesus
Date: 2004-10-24 07:03 pm (UTC)You calling me a communist?
Date: 2004-10-24 08:32 pm (UTC)Pfft, communist would be an upgrade
Date: 2004-10-25 06:52 am (UTC)Re: You calling me a communist?
Date: 2004-10-27 01:26 am (UTC)I read the FAQ...
Date: 2004-10-27 09:03 am (UTC)I think it's possible for you to prevent my name showing up in your list, but you'd have to work at it. It's not possible for me to affect your list, though.
believe it or not...
Date: 2004-10-27 11:55 pm (UTC)There's nothing to change.
Date: 2004-10-27 05:04 am (UTC)Re: There's nothing to change.
Date: 2004-10-27 05:52 am (UTC)Too late!
Date: 2004-10-27 06:47 am (UTC)The only one trolling here is you.
Date: 2004-10-27 09:07 am (UTC)I am more than happy to apologize when I do something wrong. So far, you are in debt to me quite a bit - though I've learned that brats like you don't pay their debts. You'll never apologize, because you'll never admit that you are in the wrong, no matter how obvious it is to everyone else.
You have made numerous posts here that are all off-topic. They are also stupid. That, dear child, makes you a stupid troll. Self-hate much?
Wrong, as usual.
Date: 2004-10-27 10:31 am (UTC)It's not your "trolling" that's so annoying, it's the fact that you are too often willfully ignorant and belligerant.
I didn't say that I've never trolled, but I bet you can pull up 1000 of my posts before you can find a real example of it. However, I could pull up a lot fewer posts to find examples of you being a jerk.
The reason is that "jerk" is a lot less well-defined than "troll". Your accusations of trolling are very easily disproven because you don't understand the definition.
And when did I accuse you of fake apologies, BTW? Please link, and I'll show you why you are wrong. Or, if you weren't wrong, I'll happily apologize.
And you are right about one thing: I'm not removing you. But you don't have to see my name if it offends you so much. RTFF. HTH. HAND.
I could link to most of your posts here...
From:Two birds with one stone!
From:You are a moron.
From:Fake apology, mind you.
Date: 2004-10-27 09:33 pm (UTC)The gullible and the idiots, of course, did believe you. And since they seem to be the ones that share your views the most, I suppose that's a happy coincidence.
How's your little He-Man Naruki Haters Club doing, by the way? :-)
Bask in the glory!
From:*snerk*
From:Too late!
Date: 2004-10-27 09:10 am (UTC)But, please, do continue to troll here, sunshine.
Holy crap.
Date: 2004-10-28 04:34 am (UTC)Three MONTHS later and you're watching Naruki's LJ? Damn. I didn't even know s/he HAD one until s/he got kicked and I wanted to have a way to still chat w/hir in a social environment. That's amazing.
Anyhow, good to see you alive and well somewhere non-censored, Naruki. Thanks for letting me in the door. :)
Glad to have you!
Date: 2004-10-28 05:36 am (UTC)As soon as DR66 started posting his stuff here (before I got disabled), Slamliar started blaming me for everything bad in his and everyone else's lives. Again.
When I got banned, I came back here and discovered all his ignorant hate posts, so I opened up my version of the Slammie issue and then went looking for more anti-Naruki stuff just by following his links.
I hit a minor goldmine at Unwashed UFies. Er, unwavering in the face of logic UFies. Um, unintelligent, uncooth, unappealing, unbelievably pathetic... Damn, nothing seems to be quite descriptive enough. Anyway, I call them UFie Rejects. That's good enough.
They are cofounded (should that have an "n" in it?) by, if you can believe this, Ozanbaka. They are desparately trying to re-create UserFriendly, but the only trained moderator they could get is the worst one to ever "help" at UF!
The roll call is a litany of losers, plus a couple of well-meaning people who don't seem to know better. The good news is that both Kickstart and I were both specifically named as being unworthy to be one of the rejects. ;-)
Slammie, as you can see here, likes to post evidence of being an illogical jerk and then delete his posts. Over there we had a few choice words and then another sorry-ass loser (the Alaskan stalker) deleted the whole thread. They make a brilliant team. For a given (and highly specious) definition of brilliant.
So that's why PolarDunce showed up here. I responded to slander in his dimwits' community, and he took it personally.
Re: Glad to have you!
Date: 2004-10-28 08:37 am (UTC)It's "uncouth," not "uncooth."
Maybe you were starting to type "uncool"? :)
Slipping?
Date: 2004-10-28 09:06 am (UTC)Thanks!
Date: 2004-10-31 04:00 pm (UTC)Then they let themselves be swayed by numerous complaints from DR66 and others . DR66 was upset over his misunderstanding, but the others were just muckrakers trying to get me in trouble no matter what they have to do (sort of like the Republicans going after Clinton).
The biggest mistake was not discussing it with me before announcing that they'd disabled me. Afterwards, I think I showed them why they were mistaken, but the announcement means they can't undo the action.
They really shouldn't make such decisions without weighing the evidence, and that means getting both sides of the story. They didn't do that until after passing sentence. Hopefully they will learn from this mistake and the board won't spiral downward.
Pity, that . . .
Date: 2004-11-03 12:44 pm (UTC)I have to say, I'm disappointed. I think the UF community as a whole will miss your input, and will be a worse place for your absence. Though I sometimes disagreed with your viewpoint (not often, but occasionally) I was always impressed that you had actually THOUGHT about your views and had some evidence to support them -- contrary to the behavior of so many people, both on UF and in the world at large. On a few occasions I even saw you apologize for mistakes, another thing that doesn't happen often in either place. I have a lot of respect for you for those reasons.
The whole DR66 thing was utter *crap* -- no one who pondered it at all could possibly think you were actually accusing him of eating babies. I have a fair amount of respect for Illiad as well, but I think in this case he made the wrong call.
In any case, if I'd been around that day I would have expressed my support for you. I wanted to let you know that you'll be missed . . . that is, if I ever have enough time to read UF on a regular basis again. I don't keep up with LJ much either, but if you don't mind, I will add you to my list -- maybe I'll catch the occasional interesting rant ;)
Danke!
Date: 2004-11-08 06:58 pm (UTC)