RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (41) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
clamboy



Posts: 277
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2018,21:43   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 27 2018,12:03)
And we're back in the game!

Thank you!

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2018,05:12   

Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 27 2018,16:43)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 27 2018,12:03)
And we're back in the game!

Thank you!

Maybe I spoke too soon. Apparently we need up to 24 hours for the new IP address to propagate over DNS.

  
Lethean



Posts: 246
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2018,06:02   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2018,10:06)
                       
Quote (clamboy @ Aug. 24 2018,20:31)
What the...what??

                         
Quote
I agree with these conclusions. I do not go along with the view that human evolution has proceeded from a crude primitive condition to increasingly sophisticated modern culture. I believe that some very ancient human cultures have matched and even exceeded modern humans in their technological sophistication.

I’m fairly confident this post will generate much criticism. I look forward to this so long as it relates to the evidence and an attempt is made to back it up.

This entry was posted in Evolution by CharlieM.




Finally, an excuse to share this image that's been hiding in my bookmarks awaiting the day it would be relevant.




In the end, after the dubious arguments about artifacts and dating errors evaporate, this crap typically boils down to the proponent of such theories making much ado about how well humans made a pile of rock fit together with a generous dose of incredulity that culminates in a very firm "nobody can explain that." There will be no argument or support for "exceeded modern humans in their technological sophistication" whatsoever.

Then there's this gem, proving life is nothing if not indistinguishable from performance art.

                     
Quote
Robert Byers
August 28, 2018 at 1:48 am

                         
Quote
CharlieM:
Should cultures be judged solely on the intellectual status of individuals within that culture?

                   
Quote
Robert Byers:
there is no evidence for other human types exceeding out intellectual status.


No. It should be their relationship to jesus christ and then a moral standard. then a intellectual one. i was responding to a claim of human types with greater intellect then us.


You know, that relationship with Jesus that goes back millions of years.

Just kidding. Probably few missed what Robert really meant by "out intellectual status" vs. "other human types." But just in case anyone did, it was the superiority of white Christian people. According to Robert and people of his ilk anything that appears older and hairier than your average population of black folk simply aren't related to us.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
Patrick



Posts: 664
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2018,14:19   

Alan Fox has chosen to further abuse his admin privileges at TSZ rather than step back, let go of his ego, and do what's right for the site.  Here's an email I sent to Elizabeth explaining the latest insults to her goals:

Quote
Elizabeth,

I apologize for bothering you on your holiday and am not requesting any response until you return.  I would like to make you aware of two additional issues that have arisen at TSZ in the past couple of days.

1) DNA_Jock has been moving comments from the Moderation Issues thread to Guano.  These comments were directly related to moderation issues.  My understanding is that no comments are to be moved from that thread.  Worse, he has failed to include a link or even mention that the comments were moved.  This violates the TSZ ethos.

2) Alan has placed me in pre-moderation.  I requested that he cite the rule I violated and the authorization for any admin to take that action against any TSZ member.  Despite being active since that request, he has not deigned to respond.

The behavior of Alan, DNA_Jock, and Neil over the past month has not been aligned with your stated goals for TSZ.  They have demonstrated nothing but personal animosity, disdain for other members, egotism, and petty authoritarianism.  They have behaved nothing like the example you set.  Whatever decisions you make about rule changes when you return, these three admins need to go.  They have abused their privileges and lost any trust they may have previously earned.

I have copied Alan on this email to demonstrate how people should discuss issues transparently and in good faith.  I will no longer be participating at TSZ until this situation is resolved.  While I’m sure that pleases your rogue admins, no one should be subject to their arbitrary and unjustified abuse of authority.

A full explanation of the issues that preceded this latest failure to do what is best for the site, along with my recommendations to recover, is available in my comment on the Summary thread.  I look forward to your return.

Sincerely,

Patrick


I'm curious to see what changes she makes on her return.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2018,18:59   

I wrote my own email to Lizzie earlier today.  I'll follow Patrick's lead and post it here:

Quote
Subject:  Alan Fox's escalating abuses

Hi Lizzie,

Sorry to bring this to your attention while you're on holiday, but the censorship situation with Alan Fox has deteriorated even further.  He has now placed Patrick -- your trustworthy former moderator -- in pre-moderation, in yet another abuse of his moderation privileges.

And that's in addition to his illicit 30-day suspension of me.  My account has been disabled for the last 27 days, so that I cannot post.  We're not talking about pre-moderation here; my account is completely disabled, so that I cannot even post.  Only Patrick's principled intervention -- posting my comments for me -- has allowed them to appear.

The Squawk Box conversation has been going badly for Alan, and he seems determined to interfere with it.

Please intervene.  All it will take is a single sentence from you, putting an end to Alan's censorship of Patrick and me.  

This is a crucial time for TSZ.  We need an open discussion of the problems at TSZ and their potential solutions, but that cannot happen as long as Alan continues to play the mini-Arrington.

Regards,
Keith S


It's sad and ironic that TSZ -- which was founded largely in response to the moderation abuses of Barry Arrington at Uncommon Descent -- should now find itself beset from within by three corrupt mini-Arringtons:  Alan Fox, Neil Rickert, and DNA_Jock.

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 529
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2018,19:05   

Those who are most in need of being moderated tend to be the least likely to recognize that need…

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2018,20:27   

Cubist:
Quote
Those who are most in need of being moderated tend to be the least likely to recognize that need…


True.  Barry Arrington doesn't think he needs to be moderated, and neither do the three mini-Arringtons at TSZ.  But they need it far more than the people they purport to moderate.

Edited by keiths on Aug. 29 2018,18:29

--------------
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: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,04:04   

Apologies to Wesley and AtBC members but let me just correct a couple of factual errors.

1. The admin who moved your relayed comments from Keiths was me, not DNA_Jock.

2.Whilst relaying comments from a suspended user makes a mockery of suspension, in this case, as Lizzie had asked for input on problems at TSZ, she decided to allow Patrick's comments  relaying Keiths's "emails" to "Squawk Box" (the dedicated thread for commenting on problems at TSZ) to remain (subject to not breaking any TSZ rules). When Patrick started relaying comments to other threads, I warned that such comments would not be acceptable. As he continued, I initiated pre-moderation. All Patrick's comments are posted as soon as practicable and those that contain relayed messages from Keiths go straight to "guano". So Patrick is not being censored. And, at the end of Keiths's suspension, the pre-moderation can be lifted.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,04:09   

A reminder to Keiths.

You seem to have forgotten why your account at TSZ was suspended. Using your author privileges to launch a personal and arguably libellous attack on a professional academic is not in the ethos of TSZ. Being utterly impervious to requests to desist and insisting your behaviour was acceptable is what got you where you are now.

  
Patrick



Posts: 664
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,08:19   

Alan,

This comment and this comment were moved from Moderation Issues to Guano.  Are you saying that DNA_Jock didn't move either?  If so, I apologize for the false accusation.  Regardless of who moved those (and others), it is a violation of long-standing practice at TSZ where criticism of moderation is explicitly encouraged.

Since you're chastising keiths for his behavior, let's talk about how the issue could have been handled by people who are aligned with Elizabeth's goals for TSZ.  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.

Alternatively, an admin could notice the post, irrationally overreact, misrepresent the situation to Elizabeth, pull a couple of more admins into a frantic bout of control-freakery, use the opportunity to settle a personal grudge, grossly exceed Elizabeth's authorized response, and demonstrate why none of the three admins involved can be trusted with even the minimal privileges required to manage a small blog.  Finally, follow up by blaming everything on the people who do value free speech and TSZ's goals.

As a steward of TSZ, I asked myself WWE(lizabeth)D?  I'm pretty confident that her response would be closer to the first approach.

Edited by Patrick on Aug. 30 2018,09:19

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,12:45   

Alan:
 
Quote
Apologies to Wesley and AtBC members...


Why are you apologizing?  There's an entire thread here devoted to the moderation abuses at UD, so it makes perfect sense for us to discuss the abuses of you, Neil, and DNA_Jock at TSZ.

AtBC is the perfect place to expose frauds like you guys and Barry.

More later.

Edited by keiths on Aug. 30 2018,10:47

--------------
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: 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.

Edited by keiths on Aug. 30 2018,15:15

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4386
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,18:47   

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"

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,20:21   

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?

Do tell.  Your standards must be appallingly low.

--------------
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: Aug. 30 2018,20:38   

Patrick:
Quote
Alternatively, an admin could notice the post, irrationally overreact, misrepresent the situation to Elizabeth, pull a couple of more admins into a frantic bout of control-freakery, use the opportunity to settle a personal grudge, grossly exceed Elizabeth's authorized response, and demonstrate why none of the three admins involved can be trusted with even the minimal privileges required to manage a small blog.  Finally, follow up by blaming everything on the people who do value free speech and TSZ's goals.


And even worse, my OP didn't break any rules, as Alan has admitted, and the moderators aren't authorized to suspend people for any length of time -- much less 30 days -- as Neil has admitted.

We're 28 days into an illicit 30-day suspension -- the most severe penalty ever imposed, apart from banning --  and despite offering and abandoning multiple excuses, the moderators still haven't come up with a justification for the suspension.

(I'm still laughing about DNA_Jock's failed "quasi-doxxing" excuse.)

It was pure spite.  An abuse of power in the service of a personal grudge.

Edited by keiths on Aug. 30 2018,18:39

--------------
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: Aug. 30 2018,21:57   

Alan:
Quote
You seem to have forgotten why your account at TSZ was suspended. Using your author privileges to launch a personal and arguably libellous attack on a professional academic is not in the ethos of TSZ. Being utterly impervious to requests to desist and insisting your behaviour was acceptable is what got you where you are now.

Um, no.

Let's look at what really happened:

1. The OP violated no rules, as you yourself have acknowledged.

2. My accusation of lying against Joshua Swamidass was fine.  Lizzie herself has used TSZ to publicly accuse Stephen Meyer of lying, as you know perfectly well.  No one panicked then, and no one needed to panic now.  As Patrick has pointed out, you simply used the situation as an excuse to settle a personal grudge.

3. TSZ was never in any legal danger.  First, the OP wasn't libelous, and neither was Lizzie's claim about Meyer, because Lizzie and I are able to back up our claims.  If it's true, it isn't libel.  Second, as Patrick explained to you, TSZ wouldn't have been in danger even if the OP had been libelous:
Quote
As noted early in this thread, the possibility of legal action is extremely small and, even if taken, would only result in Elizabeth having to either provide a way of contacting keiths or take down the post. She is in no legal danger.

4. You don't have the authority to suspend people at all, much less for 30 days, as Neil has acknowledged.

5. Far from being "impervious to requests", I actually modified my OP in response to them:
Quote
Alan,
Quote
Subsequently, keiths was utterly immune to any request to desist.

Oh, please.  Here's what actually happened:

Even though I disagreed that the original OP was rule-violating -- a position that you have now validated (oops) -- I went ahead and modified it so that it didn't accuse Swamidass of lying, but merely referred to his falsehoods.  The modified version can be seen here.

I submitted the modified OP.  What happened?  Neil refused to publish it, giving the following bogus reason:
Quote
I will not be publishing that. If you want to have a public fight with Dr Swamidass, you will need to find another site for it.

Thus proving that it had nothing to do with rules, and everything to do with Neil's childishness and desire to censor someone against whom he holds an intense grudge.

You guys are just pitiful.

A suspension you aren't authorized to make, based on a rule violation that didn't occur and a legal danger that doesn't exist, and a supposed "imperviousness" that is a complete fabrication.

And you've maintained it for almost 30 days, despite the fact that you can't justify it.

That's pure moderation abuse, top to bottom.  Barry would be proud.

You've made a complete ass of yourself, Alan.

Edited by keiths on Aug. 30 2018,20:19

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4386
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,22:27   

Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,20:21)
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?

Do tell.  Your standards must be appallingly low.

Funny you think doing a Joe Gallien impersonation is going to help you.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4386
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,22:29   

Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,21:57)
You've made a complete ass of yourself, Alan.

Psst...you're doing a bang-up job making a complete ass of yourself here.   Just sayin'....

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,23:21   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 30 2018,22:29)
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,21:57)
You've made a complete ass of yourself, Alan.

Psst...you're doing a bang-up job making a complete ass of yourself here.   Just sayin'....

I’m afraid that I have to agree wit OA.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 478
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,23:49   

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."?

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"

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,23:51   

OA, Acartia,

You guys aren't making much sense.

Do you think that everyone who's ever complained about moderation at UD, or posted in the BlogCzar thread, is a Joe Gallien?

Or that to complain about an illicit 30-day suspension automatically makes one an ass?

People often complain about injustices, and protest them, and that's a good thing.  

This is not a difficult concept.

--------------
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: Aug. 30 2018,23:56   

Is this an authoritarian thing?  Do you believe that moderators should never be challenged, even when they're abusing their privileges?

Or what?

Or is the idea that someone like Barry can be criticized, because he's on the "other side", but not Alan, because he's one of our own?

I'm not following your logic.  What exactly are you objecting to, and why?

Edited by keiths on Aug. 30 2018,22:10

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

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2018,08:35   

Quote (keiths @ Aug. 30 2018,23:51)
OA, Acartia,

You guys aren't making much sense.

Do you think that everyone who's ever complained about moderation at UD, or posted in the BlogCzar thread, is a Joe Gallien?

Or that to complain about an illicit 30-day suspension automatically makes one an ass?

People often complain about injustices, and protest them, and that's a good thing.  

This is not a difficult concept.

TSZ is a privately owned site and the owner has entrusted a few people to moderate it. As the site is still there, and the moderators are still there, I can only assume that the owner, in general, has supported the moderatos’ Decisions.

Constructive criticism is one thing. Your obsession with this suggests something else.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2018,11:13   

That's some pretty poor thinking, Acartia.

By your logic: UD is a privately owned site, and the moderation decisions are made by the owner, Barry Arrington.  Therefore we should all meekly accept his actions. Reciprocating Bill's decision to start the BlogCzar thread, in which he and many, many others have documented the moderation abuses at UD, reflects an unhealthy "obsession" on his part.  He, and everyone else who has contributed to that thread -- including you (oops) -- should just shut up and show respect for Barry's authority.

But of course that's ridiculous.  All of us who contribute to that thread are doing a good thing by standing up to, documenting, and generally laughing at Barry's tinpot despotism.  Likewise, Patrick and I are doing a good thing by standing up to and protesting the tinpot despotism of the current TSZ moderators.

By objecting, you are showing your authoritarian stripes.   The Authorities Must Not Be Criticized, you tell us.  Authoritarianism is not a good look on you; you might want to rethink your choice.

As for TSZ, Lizzie is absent and has been for years, apart from brief and sporadic visits.  She left behind some clearly stated aims and rules.  The moderators have been flouting those aims and rules right and left, culminating in the current illicit 30-day suspension.  

As explained above, my OP violated no rules -- as admitted by Alan himself -- and the moderators have no authority to issue suspensions, much less 30-day ones -- as admitted by Neil himself.   Their action was clearly an abuse of moderator privileges, and clearly against Lizzie's stated aims and rules. Patrick and I are protesting, and it's the right thing to do -- just as starting the BlogCzar thread was the right thing for Recprocating Bill to do.

You're objecting.  Evidently, in your world, The Authorities Must Be Obeyed, even if they are abusing their powers and issuing illegitimate 30-day suspensions.  

Unless the authority is Barry, that is, in which case you're right alongside the rest of us in protesting and mocking his decisions.

Hypocrisy, like authoritarianism, is not a good look on you, Acartia.

Edited by keiths on Aug. 31 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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2018,08:18   

I've mostly been at TZ rather than here, but the fracas there motivated me to take a look at what the same people are saying here.

The difference between what Arrington does and what happened at TZ is rather simple, even if it goes over  the heads of some.

Arrington censors ideas and content, regardless of whether they are presented with decorum.

TZ moves stuff to guano based on style of presentation. I know this is true, because I have been posting there for years without any problem with moderation.

There is, of course the problem that several of the creationists are loud, whiny, and prone to violate the rules. I cope with them by ignoring them.

On the basis that it is pointless to wrestle in the mud with pigs.

There are several highly credentialed and effected posters at TZ who encounter few problems with moderation. How is that?

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2018,10:01   

midwifetoad/petrushka,

You keep making the same bad argument, and I keep pointing out your error.  Let me repeat the following exchange, for what is now the third time:

keiths:
Quote
Not sure what your point is. Surely you’re not saying “I haven’t had a problem with moderation at TSZ; therefore there are no problems.” Are you?

petrushka:
Quote
I have tried to follow the spirit of the rules, and I have had no problems. On a few occasions I lost my temper, and my posts were moved to guano.

So, surely, I am saying there should be no problems. Yes I am.

keiths:
Quote
That’s a terrible argument. Here’s an analogy to help you see that.

You’ve talked about growing up in the South, and I know you’re especially conscious of race issues. Imagine two southern blacks having the following conversation in the 1950’s:

Black #1:
Quote
I’m happy with the way I’m being treated. I follow the rules, and I get along just fine. If a sign says “Whites Only”, I respect that.

Black #2:
Quote
You might be fine with that, but I think it’s outrageous! I’m fighting against that kind of treatment. It’s a huge problem.

Black #1:
Quote
There’s no problem. I follow the rules, and I get along just fine. You should do the same and stop complaining.

The moral should be obvious: If the logic you’re using could have been used to support discrimination in the Jim Crow South, then you’re using bad logic.


Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock are abusing their moderator privileges, ignoring Lizzie's aims, and violating the TSZ rules.  Patrick and I are protesting the abuse, for obvious reasons.

You are arguing "If the moderators haven't abused their privileges against me, then they haven't abused their privileges against anyone."

That's poor thinking, especially coming from someone who used to be a social worker.

Ponder it for a while.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 05 2018,08:08

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

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2018,10:08   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 05 2018,10:01)
midwifetoad/petrushka,

You keep making the same bad argument, and I keep pointing out your error.  Let me repeat the following exchange, for what is now the third time:

keiths:
Quote
Not sure what your point is. Surely you’re not saying “I haven’t had a problem with moderation at TSZ; therefore there are no problems.” Are you?

petrushka:
Quote
I have tried to follow the spirit of the rules, and I have had no problems. On a few occasions I lost my temper, and my posts were moved to guano.

So, surely, I am saying there should be no problems. Yes I am.

keiths:
Quote
That’s a terrible argument. Here’s an analogy to help you see that.

You’ve talked about growing up in the South, and I know you’re especially conscious of race issues. Imagine two southern blacks having the following conversation in the 1950’s:

Black #1:
Quote
I’m happy with the way I’m being treated. I follow the rules, and I get along just fine. If a sign says “Whites Only”, I respect that.

Black #2:
Quote
You might be fine with that, but I think it’s outrageous! I’m fighting against that kind of treatment. It’s a huge problem.

Black #1:
Quote
There’s no problem. I follow the rules, and I get along just fine. You should do the same and stop complaining.

The moral should be obvious: If the logic you’re using could have been used to support discrimination in the Jim Crow South, then you’re using bad logic.


Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock are abusing their moderator privileges, ignoring Lizzie's aims, and violating the TSZ rules.  Patrick and I are protesting the abuse, for obvious reasons.

You are arguing "If the moderators haven't abused their privileges against me, then they haven't abused their privileges against anyone."

That's poor thinking, especially coming from someone who used to be a social worker.

Think about it.

Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between moderation at TSZ and racial discrimination?

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2018,10:11   

Acartia:
Quote
Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between moderation at TSZ and racial discrimination?


It's an analogy, Acartia.

Can you see petrushka's error?  He is arguing "If it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."  

That's obviously false, and the Jim Crow analogy shows why.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 05 2018,08:13

--------------
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. 05 2018,10:14   

Quote
Not sure what your point is. Surely you’re not saying “I haven’t had a problem with moderation at TSZ; therefore there are no problems.” Are you?


I am saying that I haven't a problem that couldn't be fixed by following the spirit of Lizzie's rules.

I generally ignore posts that harp on the personal qualities of other posters, so I haven't noticed a big problem in moderation. If a post starts out disparaging another poster, I skip over the rest.

It's really that simple.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2018,10:24   

Quote
Can you see petrushka's error?  He is arguing "If it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."


But that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying that lots of people and lots of posts follow the spirit of addressing the argument and not the person, and do not encounter moderation.

I don't follow this closely, but I sample posts that get moved to guano, and I see few instances that I would consider mistakes.

I also see vast swaths of posts that I think should not have been posted and which could have been moved. I don't care about these , because I either ignore the poster or skip over the post. But I do see inconsistencies in moderation.

But I am not a whiner. I see nothing good come of complaining about moderation when competent people are not being censored or banned.

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

  
  1224 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (41) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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