RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (41) < ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,22:57   

petrushka,

Pointing out someone's dishonesty is not mere "name calling".

Tony,

I'm traveling right now (to see this) and won't be able to respond until tomorrow night or Sunday.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 14 2018,20:57

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2018,19:46   

Tony M. Nyphot:
Quote
What in Occam's comment indicates what he might think about Alan's behavior one way or another? Perhaps it was only a personal observation about your behavior and says nothing at all about Alan.

Tony,

This isn't difficult.  

I wrote:
Quote
For any readers who aren't already aware of how sleazy and corrupt Alan Fox is, these three comments are a good place to start.

Not one person at TSZ was willing to defend Alan's behavior in that debacle.  He is unfit to be a moderator.

Occam's Aftershave responded:
Quote
"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks"

OA obviously thought my characterization of Alan and his behavior was incorrect, or he would have had no reason to claim that I was "protesting too much."

As for Alan's apology, you can find it here, in context.

Note that the apology only came after Lizzie got involved, via email.

And regarding his abuse in closing the Moderation Issues (4) thread, note that every other time a Moderation Issues thread was closed, there was a legitimate reason for it.

Not this time.  Alan gave the following ridiculous excuse for closing the thread:
 
Quote
As I believe all outstanding specific queries have now been addressed I’m closing comments in this thread. You will see there is a fresh, new moderation issues page, number 5. My hope is that we can avoid Lizzie having to step straight into an enormous shit-pile of mod issues so to provide a venue for more general ideas regarding how the rules etc could be improved, I (with Neil’s input) will be posting a new OP shortly.


Of course, Moderation Issues threads are not closed when "all specific queries have been addressed." They're left open for future moderation issues.  Second, Alan closed the thread in the middle of a vigorous, ongoing discussion.  Third, closing an old Moderation Issues thread and opening a new one does not make the old moderation issues go away, so it doesn't leave less for Lizzie to deal with.  Alan's excuse was bogus.

The real reason?  He couldn't erase the evidence of his disgrace, so the next best thing was to close the thread so that people would be less likely to read about it.  He even admitted that he was trying to "draw a line", in the following exchange:

keiths:
Quote
What is wrong with you, Alan? You already disgraced yourself in your handling of the ALurker affair, in which you abused your moderator privileges multiple times.

Now you’re doing it again, closing the old Moderation Issues thread for no valid reason. You’re doing it purely out of self-interest. Shameful.

Alan:
Quote
 
Quote
keiths: You’re doing it purely out of self-interest

In what way? If you insist, you can carry on here. I’m suggesting that a line is drawn. I’m not surprised you disagree. Disappointed, not surprised.

keiths:
Quote
keiths:
Quote
You’re doing it purely out of self-interest.

Alan:
Quote
In what way?

In the most painfully obvious way.
Quote
If you insist, you can carry on here. I’m suggesting that a line is drawn.

Of course you are, because you disgraced and humiliated yourself on the other side of that line. So you’ve tried to sweep all of that away, against TSZ’s interests and for your own benefit.

Just one more item in the long list of Alan's moderation abuses.  He's a huge liability to TSZ.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 16 2018,17:49

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
clamboy



Posts: 267
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2018,20:41   

J-Mac's behavior at TSZ is that of pissy little queen, according to those who can recognize it as such.

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2019,16:29   

I once made my email address available on TSZ.  That was unwise, albeit occasionally interesting.  Over the weekend I was informed (not by Gregory, for the record) that Joshua Swamidass doxxed Gregory at TSZ.  That appears to actually be the case.

I wasn't going to say anything, but I still think that keiths is owed an apology by three of the admins there.  They immediately jumped on him hard given the slightest pretense of an opportunity.  Swamidass' comment, on the other hand, has been up since Saturday with no consequences despite Elizabeth's clear rules against doxxing.  The hypocrisy is palpable.

Interestingly, the date of Swamidass' comment is six months to the day since Elizabeth asked for feedback on her admins' behavior.  She hasn't returned since.  I'm starting to think that TSZ isn't her neglected site -- it's her experiment.

Edited by Patrick on Feb. 07 2019,14:07

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2019,12:44   

For the past few days I’ve been hearing about more admin abuse at The Skeptical Zone.  I tried to ignore it, but I find myself still invested.  When Elizabeth was active at TSZ, under her benevolent dictatorship it was one of the best discussion sites I've seen since Usenet deteriorated.  While ID is moribund and discussions of it increasingly uninteresting, TSZ could be that high quality again if Elizabeth’s vision were followed.  I’d be saddened if it continued its current downward spiral.

As briefly as possible, here's what I've been pinged on over the past few months:
1) Three admins (Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock) abused their privileges to settle a personal score with keiths.  The details are a couple of pages back in this thread:  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7304;st=1110#entry269299  The named admins edited other people's posts, removed comments, ignored Elizabeth’s explicit instructions on how to handle the issue, banned keiths for 30 days, and placed me in pre-moderation.  None of what they did is allowed by the rules and much of it is explicitly prohibited.  Alan ran away from the discussion here.

2) DNA Jock admitted to moving comments to Guano that didn't violate any rules:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-5/comment-page-41/#comment-240437  This is the most minor of the complaints I heard, but it's part of a pattern of admins ignoring the rules.

3) Neil abused his privileges to close an active thread:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/munging-id/comment-page-5/#comment-244706  This is not allowed by the rules.

4) Joshua Swamidass threatened to dox Gregory:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-5/#comment-244795 and not one admin said a word.  He then followed through on his threat:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-6/#comment-244917  The unredacted version stayed up for days until someone responded to Gregory's complaint.  Even then, Swamidass was let off with a warning.  The double standard demonstrated by the difference in response to this bannable offense and keiths' post that didn't violate any rules is striking.

5) Finally, Alan removed Mung as an admin, a mere eight minutes after Mung undid the previous admin abuses by changing keiths' status:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-13/#comment-249845  There is nothing in the rules that allows anyone other than Elizabeth to take this serious an action.  Alan, in collusion with Neil and DNA Jock, has basically staged a coup.  He has taken TSZ far from Elizabeth’s goals and vision.

Mung provided a detailed explanation of the situation:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250558  FifthMonarchyMan provided a succinct summary of why this abuse by the admins was particularly bad (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250657):  “I don’t think any other rational theist would be willing to play along given the current dynamics that exist in which minority moderators are forced to be a token and a lackey for ‘the man’.”  DNA Jock demonstrated his inability to see it in the following comment, so FFM made it more clear (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-18/#comment-250670):  “Look, if you don’t trust a moderator to moderate with out your explicit approval then he is not being a moderator……… you are being a moderator and he is being your lackey.”

Interestingly, it appears that Mung was the only admin interested in following the rules about doxxing.  DNA Jock admits that he refused to enforce Elizabeth’s clear rules (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-18/#comment-250675):  “My defending swamidass from Mung’s campaign to get him banned . . . .”  Once again it is FFM who points out DNA Jock’s bias (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-18/#comment-250677):  “It fits the narrative exactly.  You see Swamidass as a ‘house’ theist.  He does not act like the ‘field’ theists and that lets you feel good about how inclusive you are being.”

It’s clear that the heading at the top of TSZ’s Moderation Issues thread is a lie:  “We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.”  Alan does what he wants at TSZ, Elizabeth’s explicit directions, rules, and most importantly vision for the site be damned.

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2019,12:46   

J-mac asks the hard but obvious question (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250628):  “So, should TSZ fold then?”

If Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock remain as admins, that question will answer itself.  As I noted previously, the arbitrary abuse of admin privileges does far more to reduce participation in a forum than the occasional rude comment.  Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with those privileges.  They owe apologies to keiths, Mung, and Elizabeth specifically and the TSZ community generally.

(Note that I’m only criticizing their abuses of admin privileges.  When I was active at TSZ, I made a point of reading all of their posts and comments, DNA Jock’s especially.)

To answer J-Mac’s question, I would not like to see TSZ fold.  I find Elizabeth’s goals and vision for the site to be admirable.  They are worth working to achieve.  There are three immediate steps that Elizabeth could take to realign with those.  First and most important, remove Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock as admins.  They’ve demonstrated that they are not supportive of Elizabeth’s vision and cannot be trusted to be unbiased.  As replacements, she could do worse than keiths and Mung, both of whom have demonstrated far more dedication to Elizabeth’s goals.

Second, increase the breadth of topics to include everything mentioned in the first two paragraphs of the "About this site. . .” page:  “My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high.”  There used to be a subset of posts discussing philosophy.  Those and additional topics should be encouraged.  IDCreationism is dead, but TSZ can live on.

Third, attract more new participants.  Replacing the abusive admins is one part of that, but the front page of the site needs to be more appealing.  J-Mac might have asked a good question, but his posts and those of some others make TSZ look like a crank site.  Let anyone post, but by default show only the highest quality posts to new visitors.  This is as simple as a switch on the page that flips between “Featured” and “New”.  Yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth about what gets featured, but like porn, most people know crankery when they see it.

Elizabeth’s vision is worth supporting.  I'd hate to see The Skeptical Zone become just another version of UD.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2019,13:58   

Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 24 2019,11:46)
J-mac asks the hard but obvious question (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-6/comment-page-17/#comment-250628):  “So, should TSZ fold then?”

If Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock remain as admins, that question will answer itself.  As I noted previously, the arbitrary abuse of admin privileges does far more to reduce participation in a forum than the occasional rude comment.  Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with those privileges.  They owe apologies to keiths, Mung, and Elizabeth specifically and the TSZ community generally.

(Note that I’m only criticizing their abuses of admin privileges.  When I was active at TSZ, I made a point of reading all of their posts and comments, DNA Jock’s especially.)

To answer J-Mac’s question, I would not like to see TSZ fold.  I find Elizabeth’s goals and vision for the site to be admirable.  They are worth working to achieve.  There are three immediate steps that Elizabeth could take to realign with those.  First and most important, remove Alan, Neil, and DNA Jock as admins.  They’ve demonstrated that they are not supportive of Elizabeth’s vision and cannot be trusted to be unbiased.  As replacements, she could do worse than keiths and Mung, both of whom have demonstrated far more dedication to Elizabeth’s goals.

Second, increase the breadth of topics to include everything mentioned in the first two paragraphs of the "About this site. . .” page:  “My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high.”  There used to be a subset of posts discussing philosophy.  Those and additional topics should be encouraged.  IDCreationism is dead, but TSZ can live on.

Third, attract more new participants.  Replacing the abusive admins is one part of that, but the front page of the site needs to be more appealing.  J-Mac might have asked a good question, but his posts and those of some others make TSZ look like a crank site.  Let anyone post, but by default show only the highest quality posts to new visitors.  This is as simple as a switch on the page that flips between “Featured” and “New”.  Yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth about what gets featured, but like porn, most people know crankery when they see it.

Elizabeth’s vision is worth supporting.  I'd hate to see The Skeptical Zone become just another version of UD.

Just my singular opinion as an outsider:

I don't feel that Neil, Alan and Jock have abused their duties.

Perhaps you could create a poll and find out if the majority of users feel the same way you do.

While keiths has provided educational and informative posts that I enjoy, his incessant whining, personal attacks, and obsessive need that his interpretations of events be the "right" ones make up the majority of his comments, drowning out anything positive he has to contribute. For me personally, he has become one of the reasons I no longer frequent TSZ. Your enabling of this tiresome behavior during his boycott contributed to that as well.

As far as Mung, he's essentially a pedestrian troll and I question if his maneuvers as an administrator were nothing more than conscious machinations to stir up conflict. So congratulations to both you and keiths for aiding and abetting. I'm sure Mung is quite gleeful with the outcome. I have no problem with his removal as an admin given his actions.

Maybe it's just a personal revelation, but FMM, PooDooDoo, and J-Mac don't park their priors at the door, rarely post in good faith, and contribute little content worth discussing per the aims of TSZ. To be honest, I feel keiths frequently inhabits their province despite being much smarter. I find that sad.

Again...my own personal impressions and nothing more.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2019,14:42   

Tony M Nyphot:
Quote
I don't feel that Neil, Alan and Jock have abused their duties.

Then you either haven't been paying attention, or you have a very odd notion of what their duties are.

The abuses are obvious.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 466
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2019,16:14   

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 25 2019,13:42)
Tony M Nyphot:
   
Quote
I don't feel that Neil, Alan and Jock have abused their duties.

Then you either haven't been paying attention, or you have a very odd notion of what their duties are.

The abuses are obvious.

Do not assume or question whether I have been paying attention or not. I have followed along and read through the moderation threads. What notions I have about their duties may or may not be odd, depending on who is interpreting what is happening.

As I alluded to in my previous comment, I'm sure you believe your interpretation is the "right" one and subsequently that their "abuses" are obvious.

Unfortunately, yours isn't the only interpretation and you seem to be unable to accept that. You're better than that and I'd rather see you spend your time creating educational content.

Regardless of whether your interpretation is right or wrong, I'm trying to hint that your method of approaching the subject lessens having anyone care and, for me at least, detracts from TSZ as a whole.

Again, that's just my opinion and that's all it is, but I have a gut feeling I'm not the only one that feels that way.

I'm curious if the results of a poll of TSZ users about admin "abuses" would match up with your interpretation.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2019,16:30   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 25 2019,14:58)
Just my singular opinion as an outsider:

I don't feel that Neil, Alan and Jock have abused their duties.


Please go through my enumerated points above and see how your feelings align with the empirical evidence.  If you think I've mischaracterized their behavior, I'm interested in the details of what, exactly, I've gotten wrong.

Quote
Perhaps you could create a poll and find out if the majority of users feel the same way you do.


The evidence exists, there is no need for or value to a poll.  Realz before feelz.

Quote
While keiths has provided educational and informative posts that I enjoy, his incessant whining, personal attacks, and obsessive need that his interpretations of events be the "right" ones make up the majority of his comments, drowning out anything positive he has to contribute. For me personally, he has become one of the reasons I no longer frequent TSZ. Your enabling of this tiresome behavior during his boycott contributed to that as well.


That "tiresome behavior" was in response to the admins abusing their privileges to settle a personal score with keiths.  They deserved to be called out on that.  TSZ is supposed to be better than UD.

What conclusion do you draw from the difference in response to keiths, who didn't break any rules, and Joshua, who committed one of the bannable offenses?

Quote
As far as Mung, he's essentially a pedestrian troll and I question if his maneuvers as an administrator were nothing more than conscious machinations to stir up conflict. So congratulations to both you and keiths for aiding and abetting. I'm sure Mung is quite gleeful with the outcome. I have no problem with his removal as an admin given his actions.


What actions specifically?  Undoing the abuse of keiths?  Attempting to enforce the rules against doxxing?

Quote
Maybe it's just a personal revelation, but FMM, PooDooDoo, and J-Mac don't park their priors at the door, rarely post in good faith, and contribute little content worth discussing per the aims of TSZ.


I agree.  I even wrote a post about it.

Quote
To be honest, I feel keiths frequently inhabits their province despite being much smarter. I find that sad.


We don't all agree with or enjoy interacting with everyone on a forum.  That does not excuse the admins ignoring Elizabeth's explicit instructions, breaking her rules, and failing to uphold her vision.

Quote
Again...my own personal impressions and nothing more.


I appreciate the response.  I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on the specifics I raised above.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2019,23:04   

Tony M Nyphot:
Quote
Do not assume or question whether I have been paying attention or not. I have followed along and read through the moderation threads.

Note the word 'or' in my sentence:
Quote
Then you either haven't been paying attention, or you have a very odd notion of what their duties are.

Tony:
Quote
What notions I have about their duties may or may not be odd, depending on who is interpreting what is happening.

As I alluded to in my previous comment, I'm sure you believe your interpretation is the "right" one and subsequently that their "abuses" are obvious.

Like Patrick, I invite you to justify your interpretation in light of the actual evidence.

For example, in the aftermath of the ALurker debacle, not one person was willing to step forward to defend Alan's behavior.  Not even Alan himself.  

You could be the first.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11161
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2019,18:29   

"..No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2019,11:01   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2019,19:29)
"..No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

You made me look!

Quote
Anyone who things that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies.


You disruptive bastard.  If you can't see how that breaks the rules (while outing someone doesn't), you should ask Barry Arrington to explain it to you.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11161
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2019,15:57   

Quote (Patrick @ April 01 2019,11:01)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2019,19:29)
"..No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

You made me look!

 
Quote
Anyone who things that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies.


You disruptive bastard.  If you can't see how that breaks the rules (while outing someone doesn't), you should ask Barry Arrington to explain it to you.

Things/ thinks. I’ll blame autocorrect :(

ETA - "anyone" is "a personal attack." You can't make this up. Better not go after racism in case we offend any of our racists.

Edited by Richardthughes on April 01 2019,16:00

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,02:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 01 2019,10:57)
Quote (Patrick @ April 01 2019,11:01)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2019,19:29)
"..No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

You made me look!

   
Quote
Anyone who things that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies.




You disruptive bastard.  If you can't see how that breaks the rules (while outing someone doesn't), you should ask Barry Arrington to explain it to you.

Things/ thinks. I’ll blame autocorrect :(

ETA - "anyone" is "a personal attack." You can't make this up. Better not go after racism in case we offend any of our racists.

Come off it Rich. It was directed at phoodoo, the only person in the thread who mentioned "blinking lights".

@ Patrick

Thanks for the Barry Arrington comparison. How many UD accounts has he blocked? The one banned member (that's you, Joe Gallien) was blocked with your instigation and agreement. You, keiths and Rich (I think of you as the three misogynists) are free to participate as is everyone else, apart from Joe.

ETA and ALurker if he is still around!

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,08:59   

[quote=Alan Fox,April 02 2019,03:54][/quote]
 
Quote
Thanks for the Barry Arrington comparison.

You could take it as a warning.  Your behavior resembles his more and more while resembling Lizzie's less and less.
 
Quote
(I think of you as the three misogynists)

For someone so concerned with libel when keiths writes something, you're very ready with the unfounded accusations.  I'd suggest you support your claim, but we know from this thread that you'll run away rather than risk being proven wrong.
 
Quote
You, keiths and Rich . . . are free to participate as is everyone else, apart from Joe.]

No, I'm not.  You put me in pre-moderation despite the fact that I broke no rules.  You've demonstrated that you can't be trusted with your admin privs.  I won't be participating at TSZ until Lizzie reins in your abuses.

Edited by Patrick on April 02 2019,10:00

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11161
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,10:12   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2019,02:54)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 01 2019,10:57)
   
Quote (Patrick @ April 01 2019,11:01)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2019,19:29)
"..No question now what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

You made me look!

     
Quote
Anyone who things that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies.




You disruptive bastard.  If you can't see how that breaks the rules (while outing someone doesn't), you should ask Barry Arrington to explain it to you.

Things/ thinks. I’ll blame autocorrect :(

ETA - "anyone" is "a personal attack." You can't make this up. Better not go after racism in case we offend any of our racists.

Come off it Rich. It was directed at phoodoo, the only person in the thread who mentioned "blinking lights".

@ Patrick

Thanks for the Barry Arrington comparison. How many UD accounts has he blocked? The one banned member (that's you, Joe Gallien) was blocked with your instigation and agreement. You, keiths and Rich (I think of you as the three misogynists) are free to participate as is everyone else, apart from Joe.

ETA and ALurker if he is still around!

Hi Alan.

"I think of you as the three misogynists" as we'd prefer you replaced with a woman (Lizzie) that is amusing.

Moderation is a thankless task and like a referee, even when done well someone is upset. You're not paid to do this etc. so this is me understanding those things.

Phoodoo: "That you are impressed with blinking lights, is a surprise to no one." - I am the subject of "blinking lights"

Rich: "Anyone who things (sic) that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies." - If I thought that's all it was I shouldn't be here.

What is wrong with that interpretation? Oh right: It doesn't let Alan clutch his pearls.

Or a more nuanced version. Yes it's another sci fi Allegory - Frank Herbert's classic Dune:

 
Quote
"A duke's son must know about poisons," she said. "It's the way of our times, eh? Musky, to be poisoned in your drink. Aumas, to be poisoned in your food. The quick ones and the slow ones and the ones in between. Here's a new one for you: the gom jabbar. It kills only animals."

Pride overcame Paul's fear. "You dare suggest a duke's son is an animal?" he demanded.

"Let us say I suggest you may be human," she said.


It's also painful that "Anyone who thinKs that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies." is true. But we'd hide it down the memory hole at TSZ. That's simply regressive.

You probably don't like the comparison to UD, but half the posts are now shitty apologetics from a very small cast of characters. But you do have 6(!) vibrant threads griping about the shit moderation.

This is partly ID's fault for imploding. TSZ can keep working on how many angels can dance on with a pinhead.

Edited by Richardthughes on April 02 2019,12:31

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,15:01   

Quote
Hi Alan.

Hi Rich.

 
Quote
"I think of you as the three misogynists" as we'd prefer you replaced with a woman (Lizzie) that is amusing.
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor. I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage.

 
Quote
Moderation is a thankless task and like a referee, even when done well someone is upset. You're not paid to do this etc. so this is me understanding those things.
I wouldn't do it for money if the task were thankless. I do it because I enjoy it. Also I'm an internet addict. There is a point at which the enjoyment is outweighed.

 
Quote
: "That you are impressed with blinking lights, is a surprise to no one." - I am the subject of "blinking lights"

Rich: "Anyone who things (sic) that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies." - If I thought that's all it was I shouldn't be here.

What is wrong with that interpretation? Oh right: It doesn't let Alan clutch his pearls.
Not sure it's me who's the drama queen here. I moved a comment that you confirm was directed at phoodoo that contains no other substance to guano, along with a comment by phoodoo, and you flounce. I think that was an over-reaction. but your choice.

 
Quote
It's also painful that "Anyone who thinKs that the significance of this is simply “blinking lights” probably should have less intellectual hobbies." is true.
It's arguable that it is fairly accurate, perhaps.    
Quote
But we'd hide it down the memory hole at TSZ. That's simply regressive.
You have to work within the rules. And you are not restricted in either reposting the substance of your comment or appealing to other admins.

 
Quote
You probably don't like the comparison to UD...
I think it is utterly fucking ridiculous but I'm open to persuasion otherwise. Explain.
 
Quote
...but half the posts are now shitty apologetics from a very small cast of characters. But you do have 6(!) vibrant threads griping about the shit moderation.
Have you noticed who is doing most of the griping?

 
Quote
This is partly ID's fault for imploding.
Well, sure. ID died a long time ago. TSZ is not the only site to be on the wane due to ID's demise. AtBC isn't exactly booming, Pandas Thumb is a shadow of its former self.  
Quote
TSZ can keep working on how many angels can dance on with a pinhead.
A site is only as interesting as its contributors. TSZ has a long list of folks who used to post. I doubt it will recover from its heyday and that might happen only were Lizzie to re-engage.  I have no indication that might happen.

You don't know what you got till it's gone.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11161
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,15:12   

" I moved a comment that you confirm was directed at phoodoo "

That's fast and loose. I was talking with Phoodoo, that doesn't necessarily mean that the post ascribes things to him - It does in fact deal with an abstraction / class. But your M.O. seems to be "assume the least charitable interpretation possible"

"you flounce. I think that was an over-reaction. but your choice."

I dunno Alan. I revist TSZ after some time, previously deterred by shit moderation. Talk of the town is shit moderation, experience shit moderation about 5 posts in. You're right, it's probably me. Best of luck at TSZ.

Edited by Richardthughes on April 02 2019,15:39

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,15:16   

Quote (Patrick @ April 02 2019,03:59)
 
Quote
(I think of you as the three misogynists)

For someone so concerned with libel when keiths writes something, you're very ready with the unfounded accusations.  I'd suggest you support your claim, but we know from this thread that you'll run away rather than risk being proven wrong.

 
Support my claim that I think of you as the three misogynists? That's what I think. Claim supported.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11161
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,15:28   

WRT: "The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor. I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage."

I had no fucking clue what you're banging on about so I went back and looked. This old comment of mine seems appropriate:

Quote
Feel free to bring in gender for no reason whatsoever and blame Patrick. Name calling too, please.


It's the internet. I'm not sure nor do I care what gender commentators are. Best of luck at TSZ.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,16:34   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2019,16:01)
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor.

Please provide links to any comments of mine that demonstrate misogyny, towards hotshoe or anyone else at TSZ or any other online forum.

While you're at it, make the same accusation over at TSZ and we'll see if DNA Jock gets the same vapors he got over keiths' post.

ETA:  Here's the last detailed comment I remember writing directly to hotshoe:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-3/comment-page-12/#comment-119333  Please point out the misogyny.

Edited by Patrick on April 02 2019,18:01

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,18:05   

Quote (Patrick @ April 02 2019,11:34)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2019,16:01)
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor.

Please provide links to any comments of mine that demonstrate misogyny, towards hotshoe or anyone else at TSZ or any other online forum.

While you're at it, make the same accusation over at TSZ and we'll see if DNA Jock gets the same vapors he got over keiths' post.

ETA:  Here's the last detailed comment I remember writing directly to hotshoe:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-3/comment-page-12/#comment-119333  Please point out the misogyny.

@ Patrick: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-127219 and environs

  
Patrick



Posts: 661
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,19:05   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2019,19:05)
Quote (Patrick @ April 02 2019,11:34)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2019,16:01)
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor.

Please provide links to any comments of mine that demonstrate misogyny, towards hotshoe or anyone else at TSZ or any other online forum.

While you're at it, make the same accusation over at TSZ and we'll see if DNA Jock gets the same vapors he got over keiths' post.

ETA:  Here's the last detailed comment I remember writing directly to hotshoe:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation-issues-3/comment-page-12/#comment-119333  Please point out the misogyny.

@ Patrick: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....-....-127219 and environs

Let's see:

- I asked Neil to determine if one of hotshoe's comments should be Guano'd because I knew hotshoe had complained about my previous decisions.

- I told hotshoe "You’re capable of writing incisive, interesting comments. This bullshit is beneath you."

- I posted a meme directed at Mung in response to a comment by Rich.

- I agreed with her about a comment made by keiths.

Yeah, I'm a monster.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,20:41   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 02 2019,13:16)
Quote (Patrick @ April 02 2019,03:59)
 
Quote
(I think of you as the three misogynists)

For someone so concerned with libel when keiths writes something, you're very ready with the unfounded accusations.  I'd suggest you support your claim, but we know from this thread that you'll run away rather than risk being proven wrong.

 
Support my claim that I think of you as the three misogynists? That's what I think. Claim supported.

Ha ha.  "I didn't accuse you of being misogynists.  I just said that I think of you as misogynists."

Alan couldn't backpedal fast enough.

Unfortunately for him, he'd already written this:
Quote
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor. I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,21:03   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2019,13:12)
I dunno Alan. I revist TSZ after some time, previously deterred by shit moderation. Talk of the town is shit moderation, experience shit moderation about 5 posts in. You're right, it's probably me.

Heh.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,21:44   

Patrick asks Alan to point out the supposed misogyny.

Alan links to a comment from hotshoe that neither demonstrates, nor even attempts to demonstrate, that she was being treated misogynistically.

He also makes a vague reference to "the environs" of that comment without pointing out any misogyny therein.

In support of his "three misogynists" accusation, he writes
Quote
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor.


...as if disagreeing with a woman were synonymous with misogyny, and as if her being the "last female contributor" meant that we should treat her differently from everyone else at TSZ.

Quote
I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage.


As if hotshoe were some delicate flower who, being female, needed special protection from the likes of Alan, of all people.

She was frustrated because she didn't get her way.  She left of her own volition.  It wasn't misogyny, which is why Alan can't point to any.

Edited by keiths on April 02 2019,19:47

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,22:29   

Here's the exchange that set hotshoe off:
Quote (hotshoe @ June 10 2106, 6:30 pm)
A sign that keiths is almost certainly wrong here is that keiths is asserting something fifthmonarchyman admires as a “good job”.

OF course it’s possible that when Dumb says “X”and Dumber says “Good job about X, Dumb” that they have coincidentally happened to hit on something that’s actually smart and correct.

But probability is no, they’re just being mistaken together.

I responded:
Quote (keiths @ June 10 2016, 7:03 pm)
Well, Dumbest, you’re certainly welcome to step in and set me and Dumber straight.

Hotshoe, given a taste of her own medicine, demanded that my comment be guanoed.  But not hers, of course.

I commented:
Quote (keiths @ June 10 2106, 7:41 pm)
Too funny. Hotshoe labels me and fifth as “Dumb and Dumber”, but she can’t take it when I refer to her as “Dumbest”.

Hypocrisy, thy name is hotshoe.

Glen Davidson dryly noted:
Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 10 2016, 7:45 pm)
But you used the superlative, not the comparative.

It makes all the difference.


And no sign of misogyny in any of it.

Edited by keiths on April 02 2019,20:31

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11161
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2019,23:19   

Quote (keiths @ April 02 2019,21:44)
Patrick asks Alan to point out the supposed misogyny.

Alan links to a comment from hotshoe that neither demonstrates, nor even attempts to demonstrate, that she was being treated misogynistically.

He also makes a vague reference to "the environs" of that comment without pointing out any misogyny therein.

In support of his "three misogynists" accusation, he writes
Quote
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor.


...as if disagreeing with a woman were synonymous with misogyny, and as if her being the "last female contributor" meant that we should treat her differently from everyone else at TSZ.

Quote
I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage.


As if hotshoe were some delicate flower who, being female, needed special protection from the likes of Alan, of all people.

She was frustrated because she didn't get her way.  She left of her own volition.  It wasn't misogyny, which is why Alan can't point to any.

The misogyny of lower expectations.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2019,00:06   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2019,21:19)
Quote (keiths @ April 02 2019,21:44)
Patrick asks Alan to point out the supposed misogyny.

Alan links to a comment from hotshoe that neither demonstrates, nor even attempts to demonstrate, that she was being treated misogynistically.

He also makes a vague reference to "the environs" of that comment without pointing out any misogyny therein.

In support of his "three misogynists" accusation, he writes
Quote
The reference was to your, Patrick and keiths's constructive dismissal of hotshoe, TSZ's last female contributor.


...as if disagreeing with a woman were synonymous with misogyny, and as if her being the "last female contributor" meant that we should treat her differently from everyone else at TSZ.

Quote
I regret missing that episode till it was too late to salvage.


As if hotshoe were some delicate flower who, being female, needed special protection from the likes of Alan, of all people.

She was frustrated because she didn't get her way.  She left of her own volition.  It wasn't misogyny, which is why Alan can't point to any.

The misogyny of lower expectations.

Yes, and a failed attempt at "virtue signaling".  We disagreed with a woman, so we must all be misogynists, according to the self-righteous Alan.

What a twit.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
  1222 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (41) < ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]