RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (40) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:42   

Acartia,
Quote
All that is occuring is a difference of opinion on how best to follow Lizzie’s intended wishes.


No, because the moderators are deliberately acting against Lizzie's clear wishes. They know that Lizzie doesn't support censorship,  but they simply don't care.

I published a non-rule-violating OP.  The moderators asked me to change it, removing the accusation.  I did so, despite the fact that I hadn't violated any rules.

Their response?  They refused to publish the modified OP and suspended me for 30 days.

I corrected the supposed rule violation.  They punished me for doing so, using an authority they do not have: that of suspending people.

30 days of censorship, in which my account was completely disabled, when I had cooperated by modifying my OP.

It was a blatant abuse of moderator power, top to bottom.

--------------
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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1444
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:44   

Patrick says
Quote
First, keiths hasn't refused to support his claims.  He has provided links to what he says is that support.  Whether or not you agree that his evidence supports his claims, saying that he hasn't tried is not true.
That isn't supporting his claims. Follow the link yourself. I provided it upthread. I can't see anything that justifies calling Joshua Swamidass a liar or a charlatan. He needs to identify the statements and explain why he thinks they are the statements of a liar and a charlatan. Go on, have a look for yourself.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 3057
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:44   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 09 2018,10:42)
Acartia,
 
Quote
All that is occuring is a difference of opinion on how best to follow Lizzie’s intended wishes.


No, because the moderators are deliberately acting against Lizzie's clear wishes. They know that Lizzie doesn't support censorship,  but they simply don't care.

I published a non-rule-violating OP.  The moderators asked me to change it, removing the accusation.  I did so, despite the fact that I hadn't violated any rules.

Their response?  They refused to publish the modified OP and suspended me for 30 days.

I corrected the supposed rule violation.  They punished me for doing so, using an authority they do not have: that of suspending people.

30 days of censorship, in which my account was completely disabled, when I had cooperated by modifying my OP.

It was a blatant abuse of moderator power, top to bottom.

Keep whining.  Your transformation into Joe Gallien is almost complete.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"Global warming can't be real because it still gets cooler at night"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"

Whizz-dumb from Joe Gallien, world's dumbest YEC

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1444
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:50   

Patrick writes:

   
Quote
Second, even if his claims are utterly unsupported, you and at least two other admins handled the situation very poorly.  As I noted above, a reasonable steward of TSZ who is aligned with Elizabeth's goals for the site would have behaved something like this:

   
Quote
A member makes a post that doesn't violate any existing rules, but an admin thinks Elizabeth might not want to publish it.  The admin contacts Elizabeth by email with a link to the actual post and asks for her opinion.  If Elizabeth agrees, the admin makes the post unavailable and has a quiet word with the member to explain the situation.  The admin updates the rules page.  The member has the option to rewrite and resubmit the post within the new rules.


Interestingly, while catching up on the Moderation Issues thread, I noticed that there was an issue with a racist comment that was handled similarly to how this should have been.
And during that episode, Lizzie reempasized that she expects admins to act on their own initiative. So I did. And as you say, I handled it badly. I should have switched the OP back to draft status immediately on seeing it. Hindsight is wonderful.

  
Patrick



Posts: 635
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,11:02   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 09 2018,11:50)
Patrick writes:

   
Quote
Second, even if his claims are utterly unsupported, you and at least two other admins handled the situation very poorly.  As I noted above, a reasonable steward of TSZ who is aligned with Elizabeth's goals for the site would have behaved something like this:

     
Quote
A member makes a post that doesn't violate any existing rules, but an admin thinks Elizabeth might not want to publish it.  The admin contacts Elizabeth by email with a link to the actual post and asks for her opinion.  If Elizabeth agrees, the admin makes the post unavailable and has a quiet word with the member to explain the situation.  The admin updates the rules page.  The member has the option to rewrite and resubmit the post within the new rules.


Interestingly, while catching up on the Moderation Issues thread, I noticed that there was an issue with a racist comment that was handled similarly to how this should have been.


And during that episode, Lizzie reempasized that she expects admins to act on their own initiative.

The important difference being, in this case, Elizabeth was available and gave you explicit instructions on how she wanted you to handle the situation.  You ignored those and abused your admin privileges.

Quote
So I did. And as you say, I handled it badly. I should have switched the OP back to draft status immediately on seeing it. Hindsight is wonderful.


You had 30 days to fix your failure to follow Elizabeth's instructions and instead you doubled down and abused your admin privileges in your treatment of me as well as keiths.

You owe him an apology.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1444
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,11:20   

Quote
he important difference being, in this case, Elizabeth was available and gave you explicit instructions on how she wanted you to handle the situation.  You ignored those and abused your admin privileges.
I acted as I saw fit as events unfolded. Lizzie could have reversed my decision at any time.

 
Quote
You owe him an apology.


I think that would be premature. Should keiths establish that Joshua Swamidass is indeed a liar and a charlatan, I'll reconsider. Has Patrick found any evidence to support those allegations yet?

Would Patrick suggest that if keiths is unable to support his allegations against Joshua Swamidass, he might consider an apology?

  
Patrick



Posts: 635
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,11:39   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 09 2018,12:20)
Quote
he important difference being, in this case, Elizabeth was available and gave you explicit instructions on how she wanted you to handle the situation.  You ignored those and abused your admin privileges.

I acted as I saw fit as events unfolded. Lizzie could have reversed my decision at any time.

She was in and out of network connectivity.  She gave you clear instructions.  You failed to follow them, choosing instead to act on a personal grudge.

You have demonstrated that you can't be trusted to support TSZ's goals, even when explicitly told how to do so by the site owner.  You are not fit to be an admin of the site.

Quote
 
Quote
You owe him an apology.


I think that would be premature. Should keiths establish that Joshua Swamidass is indeed a liar and a charlatan, I'll reconsider. Has Patrick found any evidence to support those allegations yet?


You owe keiths an apology for your abuse of your admin privileges and ignoring Elizabeth's clear instructions.

Quote
Would Patrick suggest that if keiths is unable to support his allegations against Joshua Swamidass, he might consider an apology?


Of course.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1444
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,12:29   

In response to my
Quote
Would Patrick suggest that if keiths is unable to support his allegations against Joshua Swamidass, he might consider an apology?


Patrick answers
Quote
Of course.


Good. How long need we wait for either support for the allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan or an apology in view of the fact such evidence doesn't exist?

  
Patrick



Posts: 635
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,17:06   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 09 2018,13:29)
Good. How long need we wait for either support for the allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan or an apology in view of the fact such evidence doesn't exist?

That's up to keiths.  My understanding is that he will not be responding on TSZ until Elizabeth returns.  He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments.  That has a chilling effect on participation.

In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing.  You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths.  He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days.  You have behaved badly throughout this situation.  The least you can do at this late date is admit it.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,20:23   

Patrick:
Quote
That's up to keiths.  My understanding is that he will not be responding on TSZ until Elizabeth returns.  He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments.  That has a chilling effect on participation.


That's correct.  The moderators have brazenly abused their privileges, and I have no intention of participating further until there is a grown-up in the room who can prevent further abuses.

And of course, I supported my charge of lying in my comments at Peaceful Science.  Not only that, I wanted to discuss the issue further.  

That's precisely why I created the TSZ thread, and it's why I linked to the discussion at Peaceful Science.

The moderators banned me for 30 days, preventing the discussion from happening.


And now Alan has been caught lying (again), falsely claiming that I didn't even attempt to support my accusation.

He truly is unfit to be a moderator.

--------------
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: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,20:49   

Alan,

You are ignoring the elephant in the room and hoping to distract others from noticing it. No such luck. The elephant is there, and it's obvious.

That elephant, of course, is your unfitness to be a moderator.

Three years ago you admitted the following, in a rare moment of candor:
Quote
@ walto

Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

But you haven't learned to curb it.  In the three years since then, the problem has only gotten worse -- far worse.  It's chronic.

Your behavior in the ALurker debacle was indefensible, as are your abuses and lies in the current kerfuffle.  And those are just two examples from a long history of petulance and abuse.  There are plenty of others. (Remember "Because I can, Keiths"?)

You don't possess the minimal integrity, maturity, and self-control to be a moderator.

You're not qualified for the job, and you can't be trusted with that responsibility.   You've proven that to us, again and again.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 09 2018,18:50

--------------
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

  
Patrick



Posts: 635
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,06:30   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 09 2018,21:49)
Three years ago you admitted the following, in a rare moment of candor:
Quote
@ walto

Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

But you haven't learned to curb it.  In the three years since then, the problem has only gotten worse -- far worse.  It's chronic.

keiths,

I looked up the comment you quoted and found it here.  In context, I believe that Alan was trying to be humorous and discount your accusation without directly addressing it.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1444
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,06:44   

Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 09 2018,12:06)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 09 2018,13:29)
Good. How long need we wait for either support for the allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan or an apology in view of the fact such evidence doesn't exist?

That's up to keiths.    He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments.  That has a chilling effect on participation.

In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing.  You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths.  He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days.  You have behaved badly throughout this situation.  The least you can do at this late date is admit it.

   
Quote
That's up to keiths. My understanding is that he will not be responding on TSZ until Elizabeth returns.
Why can't he do it here? Remember, he published an OP at TSZ that calls Joshua Swamidass a liar and a charlatan and has so far provided no evidence to support those scurrilous allegations.

Why cannot keiths either

1. provide evidence that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan. Following the link keiths claims I didn't follow produces no such evidence as Patrick must have confirmed, had he also followed that link.

2. Simply acknowledge he has no supporting evidence fo alleging that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan and apologise to Dr Swamidass for making those unfounded allegations.

   
Quote
He knows he can't trust you, Neil, or DNA_Jock not to modify or remove his comments.  That has a chilling effect on participation.
Yes that question mark was a mistake. As I said, with hindsight, I should have simply switched the OP to draft status without bothering to exchange comments with keiths. Fortunately, that issue should not happen again if all TSZ members share the same role as contributor, a change I've suggested. This will mean any new OP will need an admin to publish it. As we now have six admins, that will be a strong safeguard against bias.    
Quote
In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing.  You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths.  He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days.  You have behaved badly throughout this situation.  The least you can do at this late date is admit it.
I disagree on the "wasn't allowed to modify his post". He tried to circumvent admins efforts in dealing with the defamatory post by publishing it as a comment. The modification essentially amounted to substituting "falsehood" for "lie".

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1444
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,06:53   

Anyway, I think that's enough repetition from me. To all AtBC readers, thanks for your indulgence. Feel free to drop in at TSZ, any time.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,10:42   

Patrick,

If you look at the full context, he was actually being sincere about the lying problem, and not just in that one comment.  You'll also notice that he hasn't denied it here, though I've brought it up more than once.

It doesn't really matter either way.  As this thread reiterates, his lying problem is real, and so is his abuse of moderator privileges in service of a personal grudge.  Whether he owns up to the problem is secondary.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 10 2018,08:43

--------------
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: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,11:08   

Alan,

Quote
Why can't he do it here?


You censored the discussion at TSZ by suspending me.  I refuse to reward your censorship by discussing it here, rather than at TSZ, where the discussion belongs.

Quote
I disagree on the "wasn't allowed to modify his post".


Then you're denying the obvious.  

I modified it, removing both the accusation of lying and the reference to Swamidass as a "charlatan".  Neil refused to publish it.  You backed him, and you subsequently suspended me for 30 days -- the most severe penalty ever, short of a permanent ban, and at a blog where the owner is opposed to censorship.

It was shameful behavior -- an antagonistic response to a conciliatory move, based on a personal grudge, and it was censorship. You abused your moderation powers and inflamed the situation when you should have been working to de-escalate it.

--------------
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: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,11:19   

Alan:
Quote
He tried to circumvent admins efforts in dealing with the defamatory post by publishing it as a comment.


Neil refused to publish my modified OP, so I did exactly what I am entitled to:  I raised the issue in the Moderation Issues thread.

Neil responded by guanoing my comments out of Moderation Issues -- yet another abuse of moderator powers.

You, of course, didn't object.

Neither did you object when Neil gave the real reason for refusing to publish, which had nothing to do with the rules.

Stop digging your hole deeper, Alan.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 10 2018,09:19

--------------
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: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2018,11:27   

Alan,

Quote
The modification essentially amounted to substituting "falsehood" for "lie".


Which makes all the difference in the world, because it allows for the possibility that the falsehoods are not deliberate.

I de-escalated, removing the accusation of lying.  You responded by imposing the most draconian punishment ever seen at TSZ, short of a permanent ban.

You deliberately inflamed the situation when you should have been working to calm it.  You broke the rules and abused your privileges,  in service of a personal grudge.  You ignored Lizzie's aims and indulged your own worst tendencies.

And you once again created a huge, unnecessary moderation kerfuffle.  And Lizzie, once again, has to step in and clean up your mess.

--------------
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

  
Patrick



Posts: 635
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2018,09:40   

[quote=Alan Fox,Sep. 10 2018,07:44][/quote]
Quote
Quote
In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from doing the right thing.  You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths.  He wasn't allowed to modify his post, as Elizabeth directed, and you grossly exceeded your authority by banning him for 30 days.  You have behaved badly throughout this situation.  The least you can do at this late date is admit it.


I disagree on the "wasn't allowed to modify his post".


Then you're disagreeing with reality.  keiths attempted to revise his post and was prohibited from doing so by Neil.

Quote
He tried to circumvent admins efforts in dealing with the defamatory post by publishing it as a comment. The modification essentially amounted to substituting "falsehood" for "lie".


That substitution changes the meaning and should have been allowed, per Elizabeth.

Everything you've written here is nothing more than an attempt to distract from your behavior.  You should apologize for flouting Elizabeth's instructions and abusing your admin privileges in order to take your personal animosity out on keiths.

  
Patrick



Posts: 635
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2018,09:42   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 10 2018,07:53)
Anyway, I think that's enough repetition from me. To all AtBC readers, thanks for your indulgence. Feel free to drop in at TSZ, any time.

Running away doesn't change the fact that you ignored Elizabeth's explicit instructions, violated several TSZ rules,  and abused your admin privileges to settle a personal score.  You owe both keiths and Elizabeth an apology.

It's past time to stop running from your poor behavior.  Man up.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2018,07:45   

Quote
Which makes all the difference in the world, because it allows for the possibility that the falsehoods are not deliberate.


Quote
1. Falsehood, fib, lie, untruth refer to something untrue or incorrect. A falsehood is a statement that distorts or suppresses the truth, in order to deceive: to tell a falsehood about one's ancestry in order to gain acceptance. A fib denotes a trivial falsehood, and is often used to characterize that which is not strictly true: a polite fib. A lie is a vicious falsehood: to tell a lie about ...

-Bing


If it's incorrect, but represents a person's sincere belief, it qualifies for Lizzie's version of protected speech. Disagree with the argument, but do not characterize the arguer as insincere.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 13 2018,11:22   

petrushka/midwifetoad:
Quote
If it's incorrect, but represents a person's sincere belief, it qualifies for Lizzie's version of protected speech.


You're confused about the actual issue here.  

This dispute has nothing to do with whether Swamidass violated the rules or whether his statements are "protected speech" at TSZ.  For one thing, he made his statements at Peaceful Science, not at TSZ, so the TSZ rules do not apply.  Second, it isn't just sincere statements that are protected at TSZ.  Insincere statements and outright lies are also protected.  They're not desirable, of course, and Lizzie doesn't encourage them, but they aren't prohibited by the rules.  It's easy to see why.  The endless moderation kerfuffles are bad enough as it is.  Just imagine what it would be like if the the moderators could guano statements merely because they considered them to be false!

So the rules -- for good reason -- don't punish false statements, whether deliberate or not.  Yet they do punish people who truthfully point out another commenter's dishonesty.  

Dishonesty hinders discussion and makes it less productive. It's a good thing when dishonesty is pointed out publicly, because that's generally unpleasant for the dishonest person, and it tends to discourage future lying.  (Alan clearly didn't enjoy having his lies pointed out in this thread.)

People who truthfully point out dishonesty are doing a service to TSZ.  The rule punishes them for it and thereby encourages more dishonesty.  It's a bad rule.

You seem to like the rule.  But in any case, whether or not you happen to like the rule, it's irrelevant to the current dispute.  I did not accuse a fellow commenter of lying, so I did not violate the rule.  I did not accuse the commenter 'swamidass' of lying.  I accused Joshua Swamidass of Peaceful Science of lying. The fact that he made his real life identity easy to discover was his doing, not mine.  I did not link the two.

My original OP did not violate any rules.  I modified it anyway, removing the accusation of lying.  The moderators still refused to publish it, and Alan suspended me for 30 days, despite the fact that I had violated no rules.

Abuses don't get much more blatant than that. Alan knows he can't defend his behavior, so he's running away from the discussion.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 13 2018,09:25

--------------
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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,09:51   

Quote
So the rules -- for good reason -- don't punish false statements, whether deliberate or not.  Yet they do punish people who truthfully point out another commenter's dishonesty.  

Dishonesty hinders discussion and makes it less productive. It's a good thing when dishonesty is pointed out publicly, because that's generally unpleasant for the dishonest person, and it tends to discourage future lying.


Apparently you don't like Lizzie's rules.

There is nothing preventing you from pointing out factual errors.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,09:53   

Should I point out that you lied when you said "falsehood" doesn't imply intention?

Asking for a friend.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,10:45   

petrushka/midwifetoad:
Quote
Apparently you don't like Lizzie's rules.

Correct, and I've explained why.  They punish honesty and reward dishonesty, thus creating a perverse incentive for more dishonesty.  That's undesirable.

Quote
Should I point out that you lied when you said "falsehood" doesn't imply intention?

You'd be incorrect.  Lies are falsehoods, but falsehoods are not necessarily lies.  Hence this article title: When should a falsehood be called a lie?

And it's why Maggie Haberman took so much flak a few months ago for a tweet that began:
Quote
Trump told two demonstrable falsehoods this AM...


People were upset with her for using "demonstrable falsehood" instead of "lie".  There would be no reason to get upset if they meant exactly the same thing.  They clearly don't.

You'd know this if you had just done a little Googling.

Note something else that's quite interesting:  You just accused me, incorrectly, of lying.  But I haven't called for you to be punished or censored.  Instead, I've simply presented evidence showing that you're wrong.

That's how it should be at TSZ.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 14 2018,08:54

--------------
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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,11:53   

Everyone can have a private definition of a word. I would take the dictionary over a political screed.

So we are clear that you don't like Lizzie's rules. It's okay not to like them, but I do like them.

And I am sad that you don't like them, because I think your disdain for comity makes you an ineffective interlocutor.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,13:29   

petrushka:
Quote
Everyone can have a private definition of a word. I would take the dictionary over a political screed.

Then you've made another mistake, because the dictionary -- in this case Macmillan's  -- confirms that I'm correct:
Quote
falsehood

NOUN FORMAL

1. [COUNTABLE] a statement that is not true

It doesn't have to be intentional to be a falsehood, petrushka.  

Lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 14 2018,11:31

--------------
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

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,13:59   

petrushka:
Quote
So we are clear that you don't like Lizzie's rules. ]It's okay not to like them, but I do like them.

The difference is that I've explained why I don't like them:  they punish honesty and reward dishonesty.  If someone is impeding the discussion by being dishonest, and another person truthfully points that out, the latter should not be punished for his or her honesty.  

You disagree.  I'd be interested in hearing your argument.

Quote
And I am sad that you don't like them, because I think your disdain for comity makes you an ineffective interlocutor.

I don't disdain comity, but I do disdain dishonesty.

I'm still interested in hearing your response to this, from earlier in the thread:
Quote
I also look forward to your explanation of why no one at TSZ should accuse Donald Trump of lying, since that would amount to "discussing other people's shortcomings directly."

Why shouldn't people speak the truth about Donald Trump?  He is a liar, and that has consequences for our nation.  There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.  There is no reason to suppress that truth.

ETA:  And just a reminder that neither my original OP, nor the modified version, violated Lizzie's rules.  So the shortcomings of the rules are irrelevant to the main issue being discussed here, which is the abuse of moderation privileges by Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 14 2018,12:08

--------------
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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,17:03   

The simplest form of my argument is that name calling is an ineffective form of argument, even if the names are clinically accurate.

That's Lizzie's position; she calls it an experiment; and she pays for the site.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 406
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,17:23   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 30 2018,17:47)
 
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,17:10)
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.

"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks"

 
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,19:21)
Well, that's interesting.  No one at TSZ -- including Alan himself -- was willing to defend Alan's behavior after the ALurker fiasco.  In fact, Alan was forced to issue a humilating apology for it, and he was so ashamed of it afterward that he prematurely closed the Moderation Issues (4) thread in an attempt at sweeping his disgrace under the rug.

But you, Occam's Aftershave, actually think Alan's behavior was acceptable for a moderator?

I'm curious.

1. Can you please provide a link to where "Alan was forced to issue an humiliating apology" and an additional link where Alan appears "so ashamed"?

2. Were any posts deleted or hidden from view in the Moderation Issues (4) thread? Were posters unable to continue the conversation in Moderation Issues (5)? If not, how did closing the thread sweep anything under the rug? Maybe I'm missing something and the Uncommonly Dense Thread (5) here at AtBC swept the previous 4 under the rug?

3. 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.

--------------
"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"

  
  1172 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (40) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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