Moderation Issues (3)

Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.

4,124 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)

  1. Mung:
    So Patrick, you think rule breaking can be justified? So if I decide to out someone or post porn and/or malware and can find a moderator to justify it, that it’s ok?

    You’ve gone from moderating to advocating for one side over the other when one side is clearly breaking the rules. You should voluntarily step down. You’re clearly incapable of or unwilling to be objective.

    Caught dishonestly quote mining and now back to whining over being called on it. You’re a credit to IDiots everywhere Mung.

  2. People were accusing me of being dishonest without even knowing the source of the quote. They assumed it, without evidence, and accused me, without evidence. There were plenty of accusations flying before keiths ever posted the transcript.

    You’re giving them a pass for allegedly guessing right?

    And then there was Glen, who also claimed to know my motives. If that’s not addressing the poster rather than the post, what is?

    Then there’s still the major issue of the fact that no one has established that it was in fact a quote mine or that it in any way misrepresented what Krauss actually said. And that’s going to be a major hurdle for you because it is what Krauss said. And you’re just as guilty of this flaw in your post as all the others in that thread.

  3. Mung:
    People were accusing me of being dishonest without even knowing the source of the quote. They assumed it, without evidence, and accused me, without evidence. There were plenty of accusations flying before keiths ever posted the transcript.

    There was plenty of evidence your quote-mined quote of Krauss was dishonest. Like everything Krauss has written in the last 15 years that directly contradicts your claim about his statement.

    People here aren’t as stupid as your UD creationist cronies Mung, no matter how much you want them to be.

  4. Mung:
    People were accusing me of being dishonest without even knowing the source of the quote. They assumed it, without evidence, and accused me, without evidence. There were plenty of accusations flying before keiths ever posted the transcript.

    You’re giving them a pass for allegedly guessing right?

    And then there was Glen, who also claimed to know my motives. If that’s not addressing the poster rather than the post, what is?

    Then there’s still the major issue of the fact that no one has established that it was in fact a quote mine or that it in any way misrepresented what Krauss actually said. And that’s going to be a major hurdle for you because it is what Krauss said. And you’re just as guilty of this flaw in your post as all the others in that thread.

    Gee, you think your motives are hidden, you egregious liar and dumbfuck?

    It was addressing your disgustingly dishonest post, you mindless moron. Unfortunately, it does apply not only to that but to your disgusting personal traits as well, however it was about the instance, not about your continual dishonesty and lack of respect for anyone with whom you disagree.

    So you’re lying again, fuckwit. It wasn’t about the liar in general, but about your specific act of blatantly dishonest misrepresentation.

    God, you’re a stupid fuck, whining that people correctly diagnosed your dishonesty before running down the quote you misrepresented. It only shows that we were completely right about your specific act, and it’s none of the forum’s business that we base our correct judgments in part on the fact that we know you to be an egregious lying swine.

    Glen Davidson

  5. Patrick: Since this is quite at odds with Krauss’ known views, Mung was accused of dishonesty and quote mining.

    So now you’re in the heads of the people who were accusing me of dishonestly, and you know what they were thinking, and what they were thinking justified their rule breaking. That’s your position? Can you support if from the evidence available at the time?

    Which of them appealed to an awareness of Krauss’ known views and gave that as a reason for their accusations of dishonest?

    The evidence contradicts that claim. For example, here’s _hotshoe:

    At minimum we need a source (the actual book/page number, etc, not just the creationist website somebody is using) before we can discuss whether Krauss is an idiot about evolution.

    Maybe he is.

    That doesn’t fit your narrative Patrick.

    Also, you provide no evidence whatsoever that what I posted is at odds with Krauss’ known views. It’s just a bald assertion on your part.

  6. Keep trying to defend your scurrilous lying and quote-mining Mung. Show everyone those good christian morals.

  7. Mung

    Which of them appealed to an awareness of Krauss’ known views and gave that as a reason for their accusations of dishonest?

    I did Mung, right here.

    Adapa: “It doesn’t take mind reading skills to see you omitted the context and quote-mined a scientists whose stated position is 100% the opposite of what you portray.”

    Keep showing us that Christian integrity Mung.

  8. Patrick: This makes it clear that Mung did, in fact, quote mine Krauss. Mung removed essential context and made it appear that Krauss supports a position different from what Krauss actually supports. That thread provides hard, empirical evidence that Mung behaved dishonestly.

    This is patently false, and what’s worse you provide nothing to support your claims. If I responded to these statements of yours by saying you’re lying wouldn’t you want to know how so?

    Don’t you think you should do something more than just repeat the charges of quote-mining and dishonesty? That’s all you’ve done. It’s as if you’re a prosecutor pointing to a bloody knife and just repeating to the jury that the defendant is a murderer without making any actual argument to that effect.

    You’ve leveled your accusations, now I ask, how so? If you are going to choose to not enforce the rules, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty, you really ought to have a case. Where is your case Patrick?

    Let me help you.

    What position does Krauss actually support? Does he support the position that evolution is directed? That’s certainly what he said. Do you have any evidence at all to support your contention that Krauss does not think evolution is directed?

    What position do you claim I made it appear that Krauss supports that he does not actually support? You never say. All you do is make a bald unsupported accusation.

    If you are going to abdicate your position as an objective moderator and deliberately chose to not enforce the rules you really ought to have more than what you’ve come up with so far.

  9. MungWhat position does Krauss actually support? Does he support the position that evolution is directed? That’s certainly what he said.

    But you implied that by his statement Krauss must be supporting the ID position evolution is directed by an external guiding intelligence.

    This isn’t UD Mung. Your stupid quote-mining and rhetorical games don’t work here.

  10. Patrick: I’m firmly convinced that the best response to bad speech is good speech.

    Accusing someone of dishonesty is against the rules. It’s bad speech. All these people making these accusations did so without any argument to support their position. That’s bad speech. You support bad speech and give it an unfair advantage.

  11. Mung: Accusing someone of dishonesty is against the rules.

    Not when the accusation is backed with solid supporting evidence as in this case. Then it stops being an accusation and becomes a fact.

  12. Patrick: The problem is that The Rules ™ prohibit accusing other participants of dishonesty. There is no exception for cases where the evidence for the accusation is clear and unambiguous. According to The Rules, as an admin I should move all the accusations to Guano.

    I’m not currently planning to move any of those posts to guano. There was one post that was so extreme, that I would have moved it. But it was already in noyau where that sort of thing is allowed.

    I think we have to allow some give and take in order to explain to Mung what “quote mining” is. Christianity itself is built on quote mining, so I guess it isn’t surpising that some adherents of Christianity have problems understanding the concept.

  13. Mung: People were accusing me of being dishonest without even knowing the source of the quote.

    Providing a quote without identifying the source of that quote is part of what makes that quote an example of quote mining.

  14. Neil Rickert: Providing a quote without identifying the source of that quote is part of what makes that quote an example of quote mining.

    What does that have to do with accusations of dishonesty Neil? And the evidence shows that Krauss obviously said what I quoted him as saying. But even if he didn’t say what I quoted him as saying, accusing others of dishonesty is still against the site rules.

    And red herrings are bad speech too.

  15. Mung: And the evidence shows that Krauss obviously said what I quoted him as saying.

    He said those words, yes.

  16. Neil Rickert: I’m not currently planning to move any of those posts to guano.

    Patrick has already admitting that his stance is highly questionable. Far be it from one mod to take action where another one has refused to do so. This incident is one more shining example of how corrupt the moderation is here at TSZ.

    I think we have to allow some give and take in order to explain to Mung what “quote mining” is.

    What you need to explain is why posts that admittedly violate the rules of the site are not being treated as such.

    What you need to do is explain how my quote of Krauss in any way misrepresents what he said.

    But even if it does misrepresent what he said, charges of dishonesty are still against the rules.

    Because you appear to be as blind and indifferent as Patrick:

    do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading

    This is hilarious. You all admit the rules have been violated. So now you’re making up your own rules. Again.

  17. OMagain: He said those words, yes.

    A refreshing breath of honesty. How did the quote misrepresent his position? Does Krauss actually believe that evolution is not directed? If so, why did he claim in public debate that evolution is directed?

    Help Patrick out here. He sorely needs it.

  18. Mung: What does that have to do with accusations of dishonesty Neil? And the evidence shows that Krauss obviously said what I quoted him as saying.

    The issue isn’t that he said those words. He did. The problem is you supplied those words out of context to imply Krauss supported a position 180 degrees opposite of his actual position. That’s quote mining and is quite dishonest.

    You know that, we know that. But keep playing the innocent butthurt victim like always.

  19. Mung:
    So Patrick, you think rule breaking can be justified? So if I decide to out someone or post porn and/or malware and can find a moderator to justify it, that it’s ok?

    I cannot imagine a situation where failing to enforce those particular rules would be supportive of the goals of the site. In this case, enforcing the rule against accusing others of dishonesty would leave your blatantly dishonest comments unrefuted in that thread. That would not be supportive of the site goals.

  20. Mung:

    This makes it clear that Mung did, in fact, quote mine Krauss. Mung removed essential context and made it appear that Krauss supports a position different from what Krauss actually supports. That thread provides hard, empirical evidence that Mung behaved dishonestly.

    This is patently false, and what’s worse you provide nothing to support your claims. If I responded to these statements of yours by saying you’re lying wouldn’t you want to know how so?

    In my comment I provided your excerpt of Krauss’ words and the full context as found by keiths. That is clear evidence that you quote mined Krauss.

    Don’t you think you should do something more than just repeat the charges of quote-mining and dishonesty? That’s all you’ve done. It’s as if you’re a prosecutor pointing to a bloody knife and just repeating to the jury that the defendant is a murderer without making any actual argument to that effect.

    The evidence in that thread is unambiguous. You cut a small portion of what Krauss said and added an ellipsis that covered several sentences and moved to a different paragraph, all in a transparent attempt to make it appear he meant something other than what he actually said in context.

    You’ve leveled your accusations, now I ask, how so? If you are going to choose to not enforce the rules, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty, you really ought to have a case. Where is your case Patrick?

    You’ve been caught quote mining red handed. I’m not going to support that behavior by allowing you to hide behind the rules.

    Let me help you.

    What position does Krauss actually support? Does he support the position that evolution is directed? That’s certainly what he said. Do you have any evidence at all to support your contention that Krauss does not think evolution is directed?

    What position do you claim I made it appear that Krauss supports that he does not actually support? You never say. All you do is make a bald unsupported accusation.

    In the context of the debate you quoted him from, the context of the thread in which you quoted him, and the larger context of the discussion of intelligent design creationism, it is clear that you were attempting to portray him as supporting an IDC claim. What you did was dishonest.

    If you are going to abdicate your position as an objective moderator and deliberately chose to not enforce the rules you really ought to have more than what you’ve come up with so far.

    The smoking gun is in that thread.

  21. Patrick, you’re just repeating yourself without making your case. But then, that’s all you can do. The questions you need to answer are on the table. If you’re not going to address them then it is dishonest of you to continue to claim that I misrepresented Krauss. Bad speech.

    Take note as well of how I addressed your claims. It is in marked contrast to those who claim I was dishonest. I didn’t just put forth a bare claim, I put forth an argument. Good speech.

    And their posts still violate the rules, and you know it. So now you are making up your own rules about how to handle rule-violating posts. Bad Patrick.

  22. Patrick: In this case, enforcing the rule against accusing others of dishonesty would leave your blatantly dishonest comments unrefuted in that thread.

    This is false. Nothing prohibited those accusing me of dishonesty from refraining from making bare unsupported charges of dishonesty (bad speech) and instead actually showing that I in fact did misrepresent Krauss by showing how I misrepresented Krauss (good speech).

    And nothing is prohibiting you from refraining from calling me dishonest (bad speech) and instead actually making the case that I misrepresented Krauss (good speech).

    Krauss said exactly what I claimed he said.

    And accusing others of dishonesty is still against the rules. Replace those accusations with good speech. Send them to Guano and let people make the case that I misrepresented Krauss. That’s the right thing to do.

  23. No, Mung, Lizzie has made it clear that mods are not obligated to move every rule-violating post to Guano.

    If you don’t want to be treated like a dishonest prick, then stop acting like a dishonest prick.

  24. Mung:
    So now you’re in the heads of the people who were accusing me of dishonestly, and you know what they were thinking, and what they were thinking justified their rule breaking. That’s your position? Can you support if from the evidence available at the time?

    Which of them appealed to an awareness of Krauss’ known views and gave that as a reason for their accusations of dishonest?

    The evidence contradicts that claim. For example, here’s _hotshoe:

    At minimum we need a source (the actual book/page number, etc, not just the creationist website somebody is using) before we can discuss whether Krauss is an idiot about evolution.

    Maybe he is.

    That doesn’t fit your narrative Patrick.

    Also, you provide no evidence whatsoever that what I posted is at odds with Krauss’ known views. It’s just a bald assertion on your part.

    Don’t be more of a dumbfuck than you have to be, Mung.
    Maybe I just got sick of needless extra typing to repeat what is always said to you in these cases of quotemining.

    Now that you’re using my comment as “evidence” I see that I did need to type a little more to deny you your wiggle room.

    Clearly what I should have written:

    At minimum we need a source (the actual book/page number, etc, not just the creationist website somebody is using) before we can discuss whether Krauss is an idiot about evolution — because what you’re quoting him as saying contradicts everything we know about his acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. It’s certainly sufficient to raise suspicion of quotemining based on your known history as well.

    But I had no reason to think I needed to add that (bolded) part, because my meaning was already clear to everyone who’s not a motived-misunderstander like you.

    Maybe he is [an idiot]. But that would contradict everything we already know about Krauss as a defender of mainstream science and science education. Possibly he misspoke. Probably you’re lying about his intended meaning.

    Well, except the rules don’t allow me to put that last sentence in a regular thread. Which is why I phrased it this way, which you conveniently happened to omit when you quotemined me in your argument to Patrick:

    And we still have no way of knowing what you happened to omit … or change … or misunderstand … in the bit you quoted since we don’t have a transcript.

    And balance of probabilities, based on previous examples, is that you’ve likely missed something of Krauss’ intended meaning.

    Of course it turns out I was way too charitable to you.
    Patrick is spot on. You’re wrong.
    You fucked up. Try learning something from your mistakes once in a while.

  25. AIUI, Mung edited Kraus, converting

    “Evolution is a directed process. It’s directed by natural selection.”

    into

    “Evolution is a directed process…it’s directed.”

    That’s not merely a quote-mine, the upper case “I” and the terminal period make it an outright fabrication
    Mung is dishonest. On this thread, that accusation is within the rules.

  26. Well, obviously I agree with the accusation of dishonesty.

    Truncating the last half of Krauss’ sentence is not an innocent variation.

    Intention to mislead and misrepresent the intended meaning.

  27. Patrick: In my comment I provided your excerpt of Krauss’ words and the full context as found by keiths. That is clear evidence that you quote mined Krauss.

    You’re merely repeating the charges, not supporting them. The claim is that I was dishonest and that I misrepresented Krauss. The quote provided by keiths shows that I accurately quoted Krauss and did not misrepresent him. Even OMagain admits that Krauss said what I quoted him as saying.

    The evidence in that thread is unambiguous. You cut a small portion of what Krauss said and added an ellipsis that covered several sentences and moved to a different paragraph, all in a transparent attempt to make it appear he meant something other than what he actually said in context.

    This is false. And now you’re pretending to be a mind-reader twice over.

    First the quote.

    Krauss:

    Evolution is a directed process. It’s directed

    Mung:

    Evolution is a directed process…it’s directed.

    This was live, remember. I was jotting down notes. I think I got it pretty freaking close.

    … all in a transparent attempt to make it appear he meant something other than what he actually said in context.

    You provide absolutely no support for this claim. None. You claim to read my mind and know my motive. Well, you’re wrong.

    Krauss meant that evolution is directed and that is what I quoted him as saying. You have presented no evidence that Krauss did not mean that evolution is directed. None.

    First you claim to know the minds of those who claimed I was dishonest and now you claim to know my mind as well. You’re engaged in blatant wishful thinking.

    You need to support your accusation that I misrepresented Krauss because without it your entire case crumbles. What did Krauss mean to say. What did I make it look like Krauss said that was in any meaningful sense different than what he actually said?

    You’ve been caught quote mining red handed. I’m not going to support that behavior by allowing you to hide behind the rules.

    You’re just repeating the claim, without actually presenting any argument or evidence for the claim that I was dishonest and misrepresented Krauss. How did I misrepresent him? Let’s see some good speech in action.

    In the context of the debate you quoted him from, the context of the thread in which you quoted him, and the larger context of the discussion of intelligent design creationism, it is clear that you were attempting to portray him as supporting an IDC claim. What you did was dishonest.

    LoL. That’s a mighty wide net you’re casting there in order to try make your case. None of that is actually in evidence you know, so the jury can’t take it into consideration.

    So you’re seriously asserting that I was trying to make it look like Krauss was saying that evolution is a directed process, as in directed by God? WoW. That is a real stretch, even for you.

    The smoking gun is in that thread.

    In your dreams.

    And accusations of dishonesty are still against the rules. And if people wanted to get across the point that I was being dishonest (I wasn’t) they can do that without making bald assertions that I was being dishonest.

    Where did I claim that Krauss thinks evolution is guided by God?

    Evolution is a directed process. It’s directed, by god!

    If you are going to suspend the rules you ought to have a better case than the one you’ve decided to take a stand on.

  28. You’re wrong, Patrick. On a number of fronts. And you need to give up the attempts at mind-reading until you get better at it.

  29. Lots of critics, no evidence.

    What do each of you think I was trying to make it appear that Krauss was saying, as opposed to what he actually said? That evolution is directed by God? Seriously?

    Please weigh in.

  30. Mung: I was dishonest and … I misrepresented Krauss.

    Fixed it for you, Mung.

    The exact same way you “fixed” Krauss’ actual sentence to misrepresent what he intended to say.

  31. hotshoe_: The exact same way you “fixed” Krauss’ actual sentence to misrepresent what he intended to say.

    What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say? Are you going to take the same lame position that Patrick took and claim that I was trying to make it look like Krauss thinks that evolution is guided by God?

    If you cannot say what it is that I made Krauss appear to be saying then you have nothing. Just another failed mind reader.

  32. Krauss said:

    It’s directed by natural selection.

    I’ve said many times that natural selection can equally be called “design by the environment”. Leaving out “by natural selection” is disingenuous.

    On the other hand…

    Are the rules written in stone? Are the aims at rancour-free discussion important? This is an issue that has bothered me for a while. Rules are not needed when interlocuteurs are interested in understanding differing points of view. Rules don’t help when interlocuteurs are not so interested.

    The rules on accusing fellow members of being dishonest are clear. The rules about blatant and demonstrable dishonesty maybe need to be established.

  33. Mung: What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say?

    So you admit that my “fixed” version of your sentence is completely accurate? Omitting a word here or there doesn’t change the meaning at all? I did not make you appear to say anything that you did not actually say!

    I’m glad you’re completely satisfied with this truncated version of your complete sentence about yourself:

    Mung: I was dishonest and … I misrepresented Krauss.

    I’m sure you’re as completely satisfied with that, as Krauss would be if he saw your truncated version of his complete sentence.

  34. Mung: What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say?

    You left out “by natural selection”.

  35. Mung

    If you cannot say what it is that I made Krauss appear to be saying then you have nothing.

    We have said it and shown it, repeatedly.

    We seem to have a basic philosophical disagreement here Mung. You think dishonest quote mining is fair game. The rest of us consider it to be little more than lying.

    if you don’t like it here you can always vote with your feet and stop posting. I’m sure UD would love to have you full time now that Virgil is gone.

  36. Alan Fox: Leaving out “by natural selection” is disingenuous.

    What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say? Are you going to take the same lame position that Patrick took and claim that I was trying to make it look like Krauss thinks that evolution is guided by God? That’s absurd, but that’s where the “skeptics” are right now.

    If you cannot say what it is that I made Krauss appear to be saying then you have nothing. Just another failed mind reader.

    And as i have made abundantly clear, it is possible for people to make an argument (good speech) without just calling someone dishonest and leaving it at that (bad speech).

    So all these claims that it’s ok to call someone dishonest are just post hoc rationalizations. Patrick already admitted the posts violated the rules and that they would normally be sent to Guano. You can’t go back now and pretend otherwise.

    What Patrick should have done, if he was truly for good speech, was send the posts to Guano and then show people the right way to respond. You know, with an actual argument.

    He misrepresented Krauss because he made it look like Krauss was saying ____ when what Krauss really meant was ____.

    When is someone actually going to make that case? Ever?

    Here, let me again provide an example.

    He misrepresented Krauss because he made it look like Krauss was saying that evolution was not directed by natural selection when what Krauss really meant was that evolution is directed by natural selection.

    Is that what people are claiming? I’d really like to know.

  37. Mung: What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say? Are you going to take the same lame position that Patrick took and claim that I was trying to make it look like Krauss thinks that evolution is guided by God? That’s absurd, but that’s where the “skeptics” are right now.

    Leaving out “by natural selection is disingenuous”. I don’t read minds and I doubt anyone else has tha

    If you cannot say what it is that I made Krauss appear to be saying then you have nothing. Just another failed mind reader.

    And as i have made abundantly clear, it is possible for people to make an argument (good speech) without just calling someone dishonest and leaving it at that (bad speech).

    So all these claims that it’s ok to call someone dishonest are just post hoc rationalizations. Patrick already admitted the posts violated the rules and that they would normally be sent to Guano. You can’t go back now and pretend otherwise.

    What Patrick should have done, if he was truly for good speech, was send the posts to Guano and then show people the right way to respond. You know, with an actual argument.

    He misrepresented Krauss because he made it look like Krauss was saying ____ when what Krauss really meant was ____.

    When is someone actually going to make that case? Ever?

    Here, let me again provide an example.

    He misrepresented Krauss because he made it look like Krauss was saying that evolution was not directed by natural selection when what Krauss really meant was that evolution is directed by natural selection.

    Is that what people are claiming? I’d really like to know.

  38. Alan Fox: You left out “by natural selection”.

    What did I make Krauss appear to be saying in lieu of natural selection? That evolution is directed by God? Do people really think that is what I was trying to make it appear like what Krauss was saying?

  39. Mung: What did I make Krauss appear to be saying in lieu of natural selection? That evolution is directed by God? Do people really think that is what I was trying to make it appear like what Krauss was saying?

    Mung, you fucked up and got caught. Deal with it and quit crying.

  40. Mung: What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say? Are you going to take the same lame position that Patrick took and claim that I was trying to make it look like Krauss thinks that evolution is guided by God? That’s absurd, but that’s where the “skeptics” are right now.

    Leaving out “by natural selection” is disingenuous. I don’t read minds and I doubt anyone else has that power either. Accusations of dishonesty fail simply because of it. I don’t claim to know your motivation. You are welcome to explain your motivation, if you wish.

    If you cannot say what it is that I made Krauss appear to be saying then you have nothing. Just another failed mind reader.

    Leaving out “by natural selection” distorts what Krauss was saying, in my view.

    And as i have made abundantly clear, it is possible for people to make an argument (good speech) without just calling someone dishonest and leaving it at that (bad speech).

    I agree with you here.

    So all these claims that it’s ok to call someone dishonest are just post hoc rationalizations. Patrick already admitted the posts violated the rules and that they would normally be sent to Guano. You can’t go back now and pretend otherwise.

    What Patrick should have done, if he was truly for good speech, was send the posts to Guano and then show people the right way to respond. You know, with an actual argument.

    If there are rules, they should apply impartially. I think the aim to achieve some understanding across wide difference of view is more important than dogmatic adherence to rules that maybe need revision in the light of how this site has developed. I’m hopeful that Lizzie may find time soon to tidy up the rules and aims.

    He misrepresented Krauss because he made it look like Krauss was saying ____ when what Krauss really meant was ____.

    You left out “by natural selection”.

    When is someone actually going to make that case? Ever?

    Here, let me again provide an example.

    He misrepresented Krauss because he made it look like Krauss was saying that evolution was not directed by natural selection when what Krauss really meant was that evolution is directed by natural selection.

    Is that what people are claiming? I’d really like to know.

    It’s what I’m finding disingenuous.

  41. Mung tried to make it appear as if Krauss was say that evolution is directed by __________________

    What? God? People seriously think that I was trying to make it appear as if that’s what Krauss was saying? If not, please fill in the blank with what you think I was trying to make it appear Krauss was saying.

  42. Mung: What did I make Krauss appear to be saying that he did not actually say?

    What did I make Mung appear to be saying that he did not actually say?

    Mung: I was dishonest and … I misrepresented Krauss.

  43. Mung:
    Patrick, you’re just repeating yourself without making your case.

    No, I’m repeating the evidence that you quote mined Krauss.

    And their posts still violate the rules, and you know it. So now you are making up your own rules about how to handle rule-violating posts. Bad Patrick.

    Yes, those comments technically violate the rules. No, I’m not going to move them to Guano. I’ve explained why and I’ve emailed Lizzie that explanation. It’s her call now.

  44. Mung:
    Lots of critics, no evidence.

    What do each of you think I was trying to make it appear that Krauss was saying, as opposed to what he actually said? That evolution is directed by God? Seriously?

    Please weigh in.

    Given the context, your quote mine appeared to indicate, to anyone unfamiliar with Krauss, that he supported the position of some intelligent design creationists that evolution is directed by a god. Since that is in marked contrast to his actual position, your excerpt meets the definition of a quote mine and is dishonest.

  45. Alan Fox: You are welcome to explain your motivation, if you wish.

    I don’t need to explain myself. I am not the one engaged in rule-breaking and then making up new rules to excuse the breaking of the existing rules.

    People accusing me of dishonesty and being disingenuous need to explain themselves, both of which are against the rules, but you get a pass because you’re at least doing it in a thread where rule violations are permissible.

    A moderator admitting that posts violate the rules and belong in Guano and taking no action is without excuse. It’s already been determined that accusing others of being dishonest is bad speech.

    Enforce the rules or resign.

  46. Neil Rickert: I’m not currently planning to move any of those posts to guano.There was one post that was so extreme, that I would have moved it.But it was already in noyau where that sort of thing is allowed.

    I think we have to allow some give and take in order to explain to Mung what “quote mining” is.Christianity itself is built on quote mining, so I guess it isn’t surpising that some adherents of Christianity have problems understanding the concept.

    I think you’re being very generous, Neil. While it’s possible that Mung didn’t realize why quote mining is dishonest, the response of an honest person would have been something like “I did not intend to suggest that Krauss held a position opposite to that which he actually holds. I should have included more in my excerpt and will do so in the future.”

    Unfortunately for Mung, he’s demonstrated himself to be the least unintelligent of the IDCists participating here. In fact, he’s managed to hold productive conversations over repeated interactions in some threads (not recently, more’s the pity). My personal view is that he knows exactly what he’s doing.

    I don’t know if he thought he was going to get away with misrepresenting Krauss, if he was simply trolling, or if he’s using this as a way of attempting to discredit TSZ. I don’t really care. He’s demonstrated that the rules aren’t resilient to the deliberately disingenuous. I hope Lizzie will make some changes.

  47. Mung: I don’t need to explain myself. I am not the one engaged in rule-breaking and then making up new rules to excuse the breaking of the existing rules.

    I’m not making up new rules. I’m publicly and deliberately refusing to enforce a rule because I think that doing so would violate the goal of this site.

    People accusing me of dishonesty and being disingenuous need to explain themselves, both of which are against the rules, but you get a pass because you’re at least doing it in a thread where rule violations are permissible.

    People have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that your behavior was dishonest.

    A moderator admitting that posts violate the rules and belong in Guano and taking no action is without excuse. It’s already been determined that accusing others of being dishonest is bad speech.

    No, quote mining is bad speech. Pointing out quote mining is good speech.

    Enforce the rules or resign.

    I’ve already offered to do so in my email to Lizzie.

  48. Mung: Enforce the rules or resign.

    You could always resign your position here as most-intelligent ID troll, you know. Anytime. Now would be good.

  49. Patrick: Given the context, your quote mine appeared to indicate, to anyone unfamiliar with Krauss, that he supported the position of some intelligent design creationists that evolution is directed by a god. Since that is in marked contrast to his actual position, your excerpt meets the definition of a quote mine and is dishonest.

    Who in that thread made that argument?

    You come in after the fact and come up with what in your mind is a reasonable excuse for saying I am dishonest and that I made it appear like Krauss said something other than what I quoted him as saying, but that is all in your head. I never said such a thing and frankly I think this absurd to think that I was trying to make him appear to be saying that evolution is guided by God.

    So now you take something you have manufactured in your mind and want us to believe that someone unfamiliar with Krauss might come along and read that quote and think it says Krauss believes God guides evolution, even though they lack all that context you claim to be be privy to, and you want us to think that helps your position? It doesn’t.

    Further, you’re using what you came up with as an excuse to do nothing about the rule breaking and injecting your impression onto the minds of those calling me dishonest and using it to justify their calling me dishonest. If that’s not begging the question I don’t know what is.

    They were violating the rules. Projecting your reasons for why I was being dishonest into their minds doesn’t justify their rule breaking. Not only do you indicate you can read minds, you also purport to impose your thoughts on the minds of others. That’s quite a trick Patrick.

Comments are closed.