Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Guano.
Why do you think this is Guano, Mung?
Given that I am not an admin here at TSZ, my opinion doesn’t matter. Further, the admins here at TSZ don’t consult with me before sending posts to Guano. If they don’t think the posts are Guano we can all just go back to insulting one another.
Something you’re at least capable of doing.
Mung,
Sorry Mung, I didn’t see a reason. Care to try again?
“Reason is feminine in nature; it can only give after it has received.”
– Schopenhauer
You’ve conflated “reason” with “a reason”. Care to try again?
“The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.”
– Schopenhauer
https://www.google.com/search?q=Another+Record+Month+for+Uncommon+Descent&oq=Another+Record+Month+for+Uncommon+Descent&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.398j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Mung,
I looked at the several comments you suggested should be sent to Guano and find no clear violation of the site rules. If you wish to have them reconsidered, please explicitly reference the rule(s) you feel each violates.
Patrick, we fully understand the kind of site you want TSZ to be. And as long as you continue to moderate the site that way you’ll get the kind of site you want.
Bully for you.
Mung,
Why do you keep dodging the question, Mung?
I’m too lazy to look it up, but IIRC, there was something of the following form:
Mung: X
Somebody else: Anybody who says X is a dipshit.
Patrick is saying that the person who said “Anybody who says X is a dipshit” is just making a general statement, not singling out Mung with an ad hominem. My response is that anybody who can’t see that connection is a stupid dipshit.
I’ll mark that as a “No, I can’t.” from you regarding pointing to the rules you think were violated.
Yep.
It’s an obvious connection. Mung is right. And Patrick is an arse.
But it does match the pattern of what has NOT been guano’d previously.
I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten away with similar constructions before (something like: all christians are assholes).
And we know that some of the “other side” have also gotten away with similar constructions (all atheists are … )
Are they talking to you? No, no, they’re just casting aspersions in general. But, they add, if the shoe fits …
Mung is probably right that sort of crap should be guano’d in the name of civility and rational discourse — especially the latter, supposedly one of the things Patrick admires, and supposedly one of Lizzie’s aims.
It ain’t gonna happen, though.
Patrick moved this comment to guano:
I said:
Tom made the claim up. It is false. He has repeated that false claim several times. That is not an accusation of dishonesty, he could be mistaken, doesn’t make him dishonest. I didn’t say he lied or was dishonest, he’s making stuff up.
He made stuff up about transcription factors being made of RNA’s. That wasn’t a lie, just stupid.
I think I was within the rules to point out Tom is making stuff up.
Please restore my comment or demonstrate Tom is telling the truth.
Hey Patrick,
Seriously man, did you bother to even check if Tom is telling the truth before you guanoed my comment pointing out Tom made something up. Show where I ever said at TSZ that I was going to invite my professors to visit and adjudicate whose claims are right. If you can’t, and if Tom can’t, then how does that square with Tom’s claim. It’s a made up claim.
If I can’t call someone on something being untrue without it being called an accusation of dishonesty, especially when it is untrue, then what is TSZ coming to?
Please verify if Tom is telling the truth, have him pony up where I promised I’d invite professors to read what we’re writing at TSZ.
What you did, imho, wasn’t cool. But thank you any way for your moderation. You guanoed the other guys when they were out of line, but I think this time you made a mistake.
Oh, FFS.
Patrick being an arse plus being a hypocrite plus acting vindictive – that’s a real winning strategy.
Patrick moved this (from Dembski thread) to guano:
In context, Mung made that comment after one by Keith gloating about Post-Christian statistics in US.
Obviously I don’t think atheism is held by “idiots”. But Mung’s comment was not addressed against anyone in particular – doesn’t break any rule whatsever – and is certainly no worse than 99% of the things people say against him directly, which remain in threads.
Patrick should never be a moderator here.
Patrick’s completely unfit.
Everyone go back and read what actually happened:
1. Mung asked for posts to be Guanoed (which is fine)
2. Patrick asked Mung for teh reason they should be Guanoed (Which is fine)
3. Mung has yet to give a reason (So the posts stay put for the time being)
Feel free to correct any misinterpretations above.
hotshoe has a hard-on for Patrick.
Don’t be more of a sucking fool than you have to be,
Mung didn’t answer – maybe bored, maybe busy, maybe whatever – but walto did in fact explain why Mung was right that the comment should have been guano’d. And Patrick, who is — hypothetically – intelligent enough to be a moderator here, should have been able to see that for himself, without even needing walto’s explanation.
Here it is again, for the hard-of-thinking:
[Person A said] X
[Person B] said] everyone who ever says X is an idiot.
What B said is directly against the rules: Don’t accuse others of ignorance or stupidity. You might be foolish enough to believe it’s not against the rules because B didn’t simply say “A, you’re an idiot”. But it doesn’t take a university education to see that “A, you’re a member of a set, every one of which is an idiot” is the exact same insult in a slightly more devious form.
And then douchebag hypocrite Patrick turned around and used walto’s reasoning to pick on one of his opponents (Mung) by guanoing him comment about atheism being a position held by idiots. Guano’d on what grounds? On the grounds that it insulted keiths because keiths is a member of the set of people who hold an atheism position? OKay, then, the comment against Mung before was even more insulting and even less of a question as to whether it should be guano’d. If Patrick is too stupid to tell what’s wrong with how he behaves, then at least he has some small excuse, but I don’t think Patrick is stupid. I think he’s a venal little weasel who misuses his authority whenever the mood strikes him. He should remove himself – or be removed – as moderator here.
Jesus fucking christ. Goddamned dudebro atheist assholes. People like the whole bunch of you are what give atheism a bad name.
Notice the scumwad dudebro behavior which keiths demonstrates, completely without excuse.
Mung’s request concerns my quote of Schopenhauer: “Books are like a mirror. If an asshat looks in, you can’t expect an angel to look out.” (Updated here for contemporary zing.)
This was obviously directed at Mung, who had once again cited all the books he is reading. Not only was the comment not skeptical, it was strictly a humorous tease I couldn’t resist despite my angelic nature. And Mung can’t take that!
So, FFS, quano the sucker.
RB:
Or better still, don’t.
Moving it accomplishes nothing worthwhile.
hotshoe_,
Hotshoe, telepath for Mung.
But what about my comment that Mung also asked to be Guanoed:
“Not at all, it is also true If an Angel looks in you can’t expect an ass to look out.”
As you’re speaking for Mung these days, what is so very wrong with this?
Feel free to bring in gender for no reason whatsoever and blame Patrick. Name calling too, please.
Rich:
That’s hotshoe. 🙂
keiths,
I DON’T NEED YOU TO MANSPLAIN IT TO ME, KEITHS!
Rich,
There’s blood coming out of your wherever.
Your rule violating comment is “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.” That’s a claim that a particular participant is being dishonest.
According to Lizzie’s rules and comments she’s made regarding them (TSZ’s hadiths), regardless of whether you have evidence that someone is lying (and I haven’t read enough to know either way in this case), you are not allowed to call them dishonest. You can, of course, challenge them to support their statements or retract them. That approach has a spotty success rate, at best.
I disagree. Mung’s comment was clearly directed at everyone here who identifies as an atheist. It violates the rules.
Thank you for your input. I sincerely suggest that you forward it to Lizzie.
Hey all,
I accidentally put Patrick on ignore. How do I reverse this?
peace
fifth,
Go to your dashboard and click on the gear icon in the left sidebar.
Haha! Of course that’s allowed!
Patrick, RB had the decency to admit the obvious. Too bad you can’t do the same. You are, however, as predictable as Orwell’s Napoleon. So at least we’ve got that going for us. And Richard and keith seem to enjoy channeling Squealer today. Awesome.
Ah, a man can dream.
Seriously, when hotshoe_ isn’t refusing to support her claims about famous atheists or spouting SJW shibboleths like “dudebro”, she’s one of the more thoughtful commenters here. Even when she’s ranting, I’d rather read her than some of our resident IDCists.
Nothing wrong with a good flame.
Cool, Patrick: grosser by the second.
Btw, if anyone cares, I don’t think the old major is actually coming back. It’s Napoleon and his squealers for us.
This little teapot tempest is yet another demonstration of why Guanoing is a bad idea.
Maybe, but what’s even worse is stupid dipshits in charge of it.
Not really understanding this anti-patrick thing. He seems a straight shooter to me.
/Dudebro solidarity.
You could wait for me to reveal myself to you….
You just did. It’s how I know you still exist
😉
peace
Patrick:
True, but the best flames are anchored in reality.
Suck it, scumbag. You vile disgusting creature.
Disabusing people of the notion that feminists are rash, over-emotional and lack critical thinking skills.
This is not exactly a huge surprise, Richard.
walto,
Sure. I’m probably more a KeithS / Patrick type (sorry to dilute the pool) in terms of facts over relationships, freedom of expression etc and some folks might not like this sort of interaction or prefer a softer touch. But I still don’t understand the animus.
DIsabusing people of the notion that menists are decent, appropriate, and have any thinking skills whatsoever.
🙂 🙂
hotshoe, to Patrick:
Rich:
Fortunately, many and probably most feminists (and atheists, for that matter) are more even-keeled than hotshoe.
hotshoe_,
I’d at least be a masculinist, which I’m not.
Post on the regressive left in the near future, I think.