Posts by Sarah Garcia46

Ashley Lopez75 said:Didin's arguments (...) She takes everything personally.

Regarding her networking with those other two, you hit the nail on the head. I would simply add that she seeks these connections out of sheer insecurity regarding certain parts of the curriculum (for instance, recent topics like liquid metathesis or the work of Katičić—though there have been plenty of others). She feels compelled to maintain good relations with them just to shield herself from their criticism, which we already know can be quite vicious.

She hands out reprimands to everyone else indiscriminately, failing to see that she is actually protecting a few select people. In her view, the greatest sin one can commit within a group is to undermine its authority (and even if this Social Science community is virtual, it is still a collective).

In fact, I am posting this here rather than on the main SS board because I am still trying to play it safe. A situation where every moderator acts with true integrity is nothing short of a Borgesian fantasy.

Furthermore, her primary tactic is that of a "barroom quip": she prioritizes delivering a quick, seemingly clever retort to create the illusion of having answered, regardless of whether the response is superficial or built upon flawed intuition and pure sophistry.

Sarah Morgan2 said:I remember reading that, but that appeal was completely ignored by the moderator, just like most others. 🙄

Given the current circumstances, I think Sarah Garcia46 is the best choice for a sub-moderator/linguist. In fact, she’s been warning us about the critical state of the Social Science sub-forum for quite some time (as her quote above shows). This proves that beyond her undeniable expertise, she possesses the character and the sensitivity required for an urgent resuscitation of Social Science.

That said, I won't stop looking for a high-quality sub-moderator who could also elevate other areas of Social Science. For now, we only have our fellow forum member Lila_sun.

So, you claim to remember my text from nine months ago? Where have you been all this time? Did you need to go through a full pregnancy first?

Every single one of you acts as a sub-moderator here at Social Science; you just need to write two or three constructive lines once a week (or even daily) to identify and explain a phenomenon you agree or disagree with. You don't need to churn out eight long posts in a single day (she will know which ones I mean), just a few concise sentences will suffice. If you had distributed the energy you poured into this specific thread into your daily contributions to Social Science, I believe the platform would be much improved.

To paraphrase: "Don't ask what Social Science can do for you; ask what you can do for Social Science."

bluerider2 is a master at this, and no one will do it better than her. Provided she has your help.

One specific individual is constantly disrupting the rhythm of the Social Science department. She is tolerated, and nobody dares to challenge her simply because she is unpleasant—or perhaps because she is supposedly a "distinguished professor."

I will say this again: the writings and influence of Paul Price34/Dementia are passing by here almost unnoticed. Can we truly move forward without clarity? Define his exact position and role within the Social Science department, and then you will have the key to everything. Until that is done, this entire discussion is futile.

Jerry Roberts15 said:Specific complaints?
I honestly think someone who actually tracks this PDF systematically—someone with enough free time to deal with such trivialities—could pull together and document a massive amount of stuff...
As an occasional (and increasingly rare) visitor, the most glaring examples I can point to involve Stitch, who clearly knows his stuff and carries real editorial authority, but always stayed at those untouchable heights and too often resorted to mocking, belittling, or insulting people... you can find piles and piles of posts like that in the Language Advisor from a year or two ago, maybe three...

Dear Abby? A worthy successor... undeniably brilliant, but absolutely zero manners. That level of ego points to just one thing: incurable frustration... No one has the right to just lash out at entire professions, whole institutions, and especially distinguished figures and scientists who have given so much to this country and its culture (I’m thinking of Anić here, despite all his flaws)... If you want to help people with your vast knowledge, fine, great... then show some patience and tolerance toward the ignorance of people who aren't being obnoxious, but are just asking questions politely and civilly... They should be praised for that, because it’s harder to offer knowledge than to mock and insult...
A little tip: take a look at how many decent, cultured people are here—also holding degrees and credentials 🤣—who patiently and unselfishly help out and answer even the most trivial questions from the "plebs"

The moderation... given everything I just said and a whole lot more that I don't have the energy to list: it's bad... and I'm worried that the moderator herself, aside from her obvious favoritism toward certain people, is increasingly showing an intolerance and hypersensitivity to any kind of criticism

Nine months ago on the "Language Advisor," I published this reflection (April 11, 2008):

"This space should be a place where kindness, friendship, and solidarity are nurtured. We have young people coming here who need to see cooperation and goodwill modeled as a way of life. Should we not view the mistakes of the youth with sympathy, seeing them as mere stepping stones on the path to wisdom? Instead, we see the exact opposite—rudeness, discomfort, and arrogance. This creates an environment where people shy away from participating due to tactless interactions and aggressive, irrational ideas."

Thomas Stewart4 said:Specific, you say?

I suppose "specific" means when someone starts swearing. bluerider2 doesn't swear. The methods used to harass people here are far more insidious.

Anyone who disagrees with something or—heaven forbid—questions the infallibility of bluerider2 and her little group, gets ruthlessly belittled until they give up. They take words out of context, swap out arguments, throw in all sorts of insinuations... I've been there...

... and I gave up. Because life becomes unbearable when people twist every word you say, and then you try to correct them back to what you actually meant, and they twist it again... two, three, a hundred times if necessary... It’s just endless chains of posts.

Specifically: you have to follow entire threads just to figure out what's actually happening. But that's already actual work.

I went through the thread today and added one post where I accepted a valid criticism. Just because I spoke up. I have nothing against that kind of feedback: that's what conversation should be for—pointing out mistakes, oversights, or gaps in knowledge. After all, who doesn't have them?

Excuse me, I hear Abby doesn't have any. Excuse me, and bluerider2 undoubtedly doesn't either. I won't even mention certain mindless individuals who also lack them.

As things stand, and I doubt anything serious will change, there's no point even trying to participate in the conversation over at bluerider2's.

Exactly. And there is no desire here to mention those "senseless individuals" either. In fact, one of them is constantly disrupting the rhythm of Social Science. That is, of course, "Dementia praecox," a clone of "Paul Price34," whom LJES issued a lifetime ban to (in the "Asian Women" thread).

She is tolerated, and no one dares to oppose her because she is unpleasant (or perhaps because she is supposedly an "eminent professor"). Is it not surprising that you haven't noticed she is the very ulcer on Social Science?

Is there a way to adjust my settings so that posts from a specific author no longer appear in my feed? I believe the feature is called an "ignore list." If this is possible, could someone kindly explain how to do it? Thank you.