@ Jakob aka Fixed Cross,
How would you call somebody who is posting here since four years with two different usernames, one supporting “the other”?
How would you call somebody who is - in a way which implies that he isn’t quite the master of his senses at that time - accusing people frequently of being crack-addicts?
And how would you call somebody who arranged such a shitstorm as you did, only because somebody challenged his pride?
Jakob, You confirmed your name, how is that a lie? If you did not create a link somehow then how could he know it? All you had to do was ignore your name. Instead you chose to confirm. And your post about James trying to get you to destroy yourself says more about you than it does about him. James did not behave with positive decorum but, neither have you. Childish behavior is what has been going on. You could have at anytime in 3 years ignored him.
DID ANYONE NOTICE IN WHAT CAPACITY JAMES CHOSE TO REVEAL MY NAME??
[size=100]MORONS![/size]
How the fuck can you not see the intent behind it? How can you convince yourself that this was not a deliberate act of malice?
You can not be serious.
ignore.
Mithus -
I can scarcely imagine your conniving little mind manages to convince itself. I can imagine you “verkneukelend” over your deceit, in the expectation that people will fall for it. A chance to beat on Fixed Cross! We can not let that lie. I suppose you crawled from under one of the rocks at KTS.
ignore.
I will have to get more realistic about the amount of people here who are strictly vulture. I’ll try a new tactic and add everyone who I catch making a point of lying to my foe list.
Another ILP thread that becomes a dogfight.
The moderators have to keep an eye on certain posters who have caused problems in the past. They have to skim threads and intervene before a thread goes completely out of control.
Here’s a sample of the sort of replies I gave in that thread.
Then this lie or deceptive suggestion followed:
This is very oobviosuly only intended to sabotage and confuse – James is nowhere near as stupid as to seriously conclude this from what I wrote.
Kris has never followed any of these discussions in science and technology, that is more than obvious – she comes running in at the momnent she smells fire, and starts to point fingers and adopt her spinleless holier than thou tactics.
Many of you may not realize this about philosophy, or about science – it has consequences.
It is one thing for you to not take yourself the least bit serious – another to conclude that nothing can be serious, and that all anger is just sensationalism or testosterone.
I also realize that those who have nothing to offer are quick to take offense in any pride a thinker has in his work. Such type of audience wishes only to see failure, evidently, as that is the only thing that can be of worth to it – any accomplishment or gift to mankind is an offense to the ones who would prefer to see man plummet back to the ape-kingdom, where they might have a chance at something.
Now to follow a discussion one has to post? Did I condemn just you? Is that what you read?
I know, I have moderated in the past. I have also stopped moderating due to mods not being neutral. A one or two time criminal is not always habitual, yet, when treated as a present criminal, the human mind will often give up and become what they are chronically accused of.
Moderators are human and just as prejudice as anyone. There is no training just general rules and forms. I can be as bad and knowing this is another reason I quit.
Don’t get paranoid.
I’m not interested in you, neither as Fixed Cross, nor as Jakob.
Get some help.
…and did I mention a bit delusionally paranoid as of late.
It is not up to Carleas, moderators, me, Jakob, or anyone else as to whether his name is private information. It is not. And it is not because he proudly published it. If he later decides that he doesn’t want anyone to know it, he must find a means to inform everyone to make a secret out of it.
There has been no breach of privacy. If that was my interest, I have much much more potentially condemning information than merely his name. He published his name himself. He now deludes himself into me being on an insidious mission for years to destroy him. He destroyed himself over the past year or so with the help of his “friends”.
He now contrives what he calls my deceptions. But look at the huge and relevant chuck he left out of the quote that he just used in such an effort. Who is really attempting to deceive whom.[tab]
[/tab]
I have not crossed any privacy line nor written rule. This is strictly an issue of the sanity in governing and/or moderating and their selective willingness to be lured into preemptive condemnation. This is the only question:
Jakob, how can you seriously blame James, of all people???
And to think that I once held that JSS would be fit for a moderator 
This is why I’m afraid to vote in politics. I always try to see the best in people. Translation? I’m naive and can be easily fooled.
Making ad hominem attacks usually indicates either 1) You’re uninterested in serious discussion and/or 2) You’re incompetent and try to hide it behind insults, having no real argument.
There’s a reason why it’s shunned in academic circles.
Wiz - if you don’t get that from what is public record, then there is only one way to find out; engage him and study his RM together with him for as long and intensely as I have. That is roughly 3 and a half years covering in detail the fields of logic, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, law and philosophy.
I can not say I have learned nothing from him! But more often than with anyone else who is deeply intelligent, what he taught me is quite opposite to what I finally concluded.
My attitude towards him started changing after I had understood his Stopped Clock Paradox. Or if he claims I have not understood it, after being able to solve it in a way that made sense to me.
Why did my attitude begin to change then? I was only aware of a vague disappointment at the time. Now I see I had lost the confidence that RM represents power.
I was able to disprove Relativity by arriving at the necessary existence of a neutral reference frame from the premises of RM. Bt it did not feel like a victory. Existence had lost its mystery and all the powers that we have as mankind were invalidated. It did not matter to James that Relativity works; there was an error to it he said, and this is how we solve it;
In the years before I dared to engage, I read all the Sopped CLock Paradox I could find on ILP and the rest of the internet. The oldest one on this board doesn’t come up in a google search, it involves people with actual scientific schooling; people I used to distrust in the time I was friends with James. I now see that I have been duped; so also with the thread about the island and the eyes, where phyllo, Silhouette, FJ and Carleas gave James a run for his money but to no avail. Their arguments weren’t good enough - to my eyes. They were formal arguments; James’ arguments are always practical. I liked that. But there is a strange twilight zone between formality and certainty in which practicality turned out to not be the ultimate answer.
James leads you into the dark and promises you he’ll light a torch at one point. Me he promised that I would be the torch. He had seen my 'cardinal sin; -
But he had missed that I had already set myself alight and was wandering happily around in search of faces to illuminate. He was one of them. He chose to be my teacher - great! Nothing more interesting, at least online, than a man of thought and experience who freely spends his wisdom. So I started to learn.
After a while I began to notice that the main point he’d make about VO is that it is valid in so far as it corresponds to RM, and that it would be earth shattering once it did so completely. But the problem has always been that the assertion of Affectance as a universal nature is equally problematic as the premise of Will to Power as one. The WtP is more accurate, but it is still inadequate in describing actual entities.
This has always been the cause of the war: what is entity? Implied; what are we? Some go so far as to eliminate entity all the way out of the equation. You must follow your instincts on this one.
This all doesn’t explain your anger.
You started the attack. So why?
Total 100% fantasy. The rest of that post is perhaps 90%. I have never made such promises to you or anyone else. And “chose to be my teacher”??? You ask questions. I give explanations, just as I do with pretty much anyone. The rest is just your story telling fantasy. I specifically told you to stop treating me like I am some kind of holy, all-knowing guru.
But this is actually the problem;
Jakob came here from his little nest looking for a personal fight with a chosen personal enemy. His “friends” have been trying to talk him into this from day one years ago. And he begins with accusations that he cannot even begin to support partially about RM but quickly turns to me;
All but the last one were things that his “friends” have been trying to get him to believe literally since the first day we met. Each represent another “poor innocent, righteous me has been abused”, even though there is zero evidence of it. But the last one is the only one relevant to this thread;
In addition, all of those are false personal attack accusations, not merely ad homs, but lies. There are written rules against such. Yet there is no moderator reaction to the violator, only to the one being violated. And most recently with strong threats.
This is the post where you used Jakob’s surname? (which has now been replaced by ‘*’’ by the moderators?)
Jakob can’t be trusted.
He constantly demonstrates his dishonesty.
He is corrupted by pride and vanity.
Personally, I’d welcome his absence.
And as James said, it’s rich that people can directly and repeatedly threaten another’s life, and the mods don’t bat an eyelid, yet when someone references something that already exists in the public domain, threats of banning immediately follow.
Mods must have a hard on for Jakob.
Didn’t read whole thread but as to this:
The answer is a resounding no.
There are forums who might consider this a “real life infraction” and ban you, but only because forums are private and therefore free to set whatever rules they want to. Legally the person would have no recourse.
We discussed this in the “My KTS adventure thread” if you care to read.
That’s the one. And you can just do a search on Value Ontology and immediately see the link yourself. No one has to dig for it. It’s been there for years.
That post contains no philosophical or scientific argument. There was no reason to use Jakob’s surname. Your purpose must have been to suggest that you have personal information about him which you are prepared to reveal.In other words, you were trying to intimidate him.
So to answer your question:
It was an inappropriate response on your part.