Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
phoodoo,
Phoodoo, Frankie is banned. Any posts that makes it anywhere is a result for him.
I’ve been thinking a glossary of terms would be a good idea. If someone uses the term “creationist” it would be nice to know what they hell they mean by that.
We could start by copying the one used by UD. 🙂
Would the list of PRATTs have a list of one thousand links for each PRATT to the thousand different refutations of that PRATT? What would “objective empirical evidence” that a claim is a PRATT look like?
I’m with phoodoo. I get tired of the anti-ID PRATTs. Like, “Is there a Theory of Intelligent Design?” That’s a PRATT.
Or this one. Sorry Richard. 🙂
In ID world, competing narratives and their ability to be formulated into testible hypothesis is a PRATT!
Presumably this is the ‘refutation’? :
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.” – Dembski
He doesn’t want detail for ID, and yet CSI is only there if you rule out every other mechanistic theory in the universe. Uh huh.
Straight up, do you think this shit is real, do you push a lie for the ‘greater good’ or are you a weapons grade troll?
Richardthughes,
I think Dick has PRATTED diseased street walkers a thousand times.
phoodoo,
Bless, like an angry child. Get on Untelligent Reasoning.You’re a perfect fit. Reading only the abstract is probably reading too much there!
For my part, I am putting more people on Ignore than I usually would. If I don’t see their insults and content-free posts I won’t be tempted to respond to them in kind.
However “Is there a SCIENTIFIC Theory of Intelligent Design?” is not, despite IDisits efforts to redefine science.
That’s entirely up to you. Strictly speaking, Frankie is a nom de blog of Joe Gallien, who was banned here. The “Frankie” account attempted to circumvent the ban but Lizzie decided to turn a blind eye. I’m not convinced Joe/Frankie takes the same view as me regarding the rights and responsibilities of free exchange of ideas.
Yes there is a specific rule against outing – that is publishing real names and personal information against the wishes of the member concerned.. Those who wish to remain pseudonymous can do so and those who don’t, don’t. In Joe/Frankie’s case he identified himself.
Attacking the comment, not the commenter, is perfectly within the rules. “That’s a fucking stupid thing to say” is within the rules when it’s followed by an explanation as to why. “That’s a fucking stupid thing to say, fuckface.” Is not.
Add a because and an explanation, bearing in mind that you have already been referred to Darwin’s Origin of Speciesas well as having been provided with potted versions from contributors here, and that’s fine. Repetition of the assertion in the face of contrary evidence is not specifically against the rules. It seems to me, especially with your recent contributions, that we should consider one.
That’s a shame but at least you’ll set an example in restraint if not in tolerance. 😉
From my perspective, that’s how I manage to tolerate them. 🙂
Alan Fox,
Is it within the rules to refer to a poster by a name other than the one they have chosen?
Apparently you feel this is within the rules, because you have been allowing it for quite some time. So…if that is the standard you are setting…
You continue to dodge the question of why you have been so willing to look the other way when others routinely break the rules.
Oh, that’s right, others don’t do that.
Alan Fox,
The moderators here can’t even set an example.
Perhaps you should
phoodoo,
I presumed Phoodoo was your real name. You are after all a big brave guy. Your mother looked down, smiled at the doctor and said “Phoodoo”!
You could just keep it simple and go with the No Asshole Rule. I doubt it will reduce the amount of meta-discussion, though.
Yes. The rules are clear. You should try reading them.
Being within the rules and not being rude are two different things, of course.
Alan Fox,
Alan,
Your claim all along seems to be that Frankie deserves the treatment he gets here because one time he gave a link to a photo that Lizzie didn’t like. Her reasons for why an atheist should have such a problem with a photo of the female body has not been made clear to anyone, but this crime that you have harped on for the past year hardly seems like a good enough justification for the things you have allowed done to him.
For that, I think this site should be ashamed frankly. That’s a reason to continually allow others to personally attack him? This is the reason why I have taken a stand here.
If its good enough for him, then its good enough for everyone else as well. Those who you have given your tacit approval to continue to do it don’t deserve to be treated any better.
The rules say to address the content of the post, not attack the content of the post, lol.
This is where I disagree with your moderation style. “That’s a fucking stupid thing to say” clearly attacks “the sayer” and clearly accuses “the sayer” of being stupid.
Also, if the comment on it’s own, standalone, violates the rules then you obviously agree with my assessment.
If it is followed by an explanation then the insult is gratuitous and unnecessary. Following the insult with added material doesn’t magically make it not an insult.
I would err on the side of trying to rid the site of unnecessary gratuitous insults, whereas the current mods seems to wish to err on the side of allowing them. Perhaps now that Donald Trump will be president of these great United States it’s time to swing the pendulum to the side of more civility, not less.
😀
phoodoo,
… blink …
FatPrick,
Ok, if you say so.
phoodoo,
‘Frankie’ gets a rough ride because he gives a rough ride. He behaves better here because he is aware that there is little point expending energy on posts bound straight for Guano. But this is hardly the only forum anyone has encountered him. I know he considers that others always strike the first blow, but that is not my perception. Can’t take it, don’t dish it out is a reasonable rule of thumb which goes for you too.
Alan Fox,
Salvador has been arguing many times for a 6000 year old earth. Although I don’t agree with his argument I find it interesting. Can anyone prove FMM repeated comments are wrong?
I agree with Mung.
Until you can prove an argument is refuted how can you call it Pratt. Can anyone come up with a real example of a PRATT that has been used on this site?
Allan Miller,
Oh the trauma it must have caused. A whole fucking year crying about one photo.
That’s been Alan’s excuse for telling the others, say whatever you want to Frankie.
The shame isn’t on Frankie.
I post as Alan Fox. People use “Alan” to address me which is fine. If they called me Eric, Jacinta, it might be somewhat confusing, though not against the rules unless intended to be insulting – like Fuckface. I understand why some contributors prefer to post pseudonymously and we respect their wishes. I’ve been encountering Joe Gallien on the internet for over ten years, now. His style is unique, so it makes little odds whether he posts pseudonymously or not. His identity shines like a beacon. And he identified himself by linking as Frankie to a post (as Joe) at his own blog.
It’s an imperfect World. I’ll bear your criticism in mind and try to do better in the future. You could help by setting an example of how to post substantively, incisively, wittily and without rancour. Be the commenter you wish to see!
Anyone who is a member here is welcome to raise issues on moderation in this thread. Anyone is welcome to flag a particular comment via a PM.
It’s disappointing when any contributor lapses into a breach of the rules. As I keep saying, I do give leeway to comments where the content is largely substantive as opposed to content-free.
phoodoo,
Stick it in your parish mag and see how you get on.
Allan Miller,
I can take it all Allan, don’t worry about me. And I can give it back double.
I don’t take shit from bullies and I don’t like seeing other people treated unfairly. Nobody has been treated worse than Frankie here, and Alan and the other moderators just sit back and smile at it.
As soon as you start attacking people personally, you aren’t going to get any respect from me.
phoodoo,
You don’t think you’re being something of a … uh … team player here, phoodoo? If Frankie were an atheist … what then?
I have never seen Alan claim that. Frankie is in pre-emptive moderation because he has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot be trusted to abide by the very simple rules of this site. He is so lacking in self control that he places the responsibility for his choosing to violate the rules on other people.
Lizzie does not want NSFW material on this site. That’s not an unreasonable request, especially coming as it does from the person paying the bills.
Frankie gets attacked because he attacks. I suggest you go read his blog to see the usual quality of his discourse.
Why don’t you go take a stand over at UD where they’ve completely banned him?
No one else currently participating has been banned and allowed back.
Personally, I’d let him post whatever he wants. There’s no better way to turn people off from intelligent design creationism than to let them observe the behavior of its proponents like you and Frankie. This is Lizzie site, though, so we follow Lizzie’s rules.
Indeed, the quintessential PRATT claim.
I’d be underwhelmed but it would be acceptable for someone to support a claim for a young Earth with what they consider to be evidence. That’s not usually what happens. If it were a case of two competing hypotheses: A) the Earth is 4.75 billion years old or thereabouts and B) the Earth is 6021 years old or thereabouts, we could check what scientific facts there are and which hypothesis they support. But what seems to happen is that we get stuck in a loop of denialism and it gets tiresome to present the evidence for hypothesis A, followed by non-response, then later by repetition of hypothesis B without evidence and ignoring the evidence that has been presented for hypothesis A.
Indeed, to myself, because I know better than FMM what I believe and what I don’t and it is a PRATT to repeat that someone really hates “God” rather than thinks deities are a human construct having been corrected many times.
I’m tempted to ask how you know that. 😉
That the Earth is 6,000 years old is a PRATT.
Harsh but true.
Alan Fox,
So there is no evidence that the world is 6000 years old?
Alan Fox,
I agree arguing that you know more about someone belief than they do is a little out there 🙂
I did come across a date stamp one time…
There’s lots of evidence that the earth is at least 6,000 years old.
Actually, I don’t think Sal argues the earth is 6k years old. He prefers to argue for “young life.”
Not that I’m aware of. I concede that I find the idea so preposterous that I may not have been diligent enough to find any. Have you heard of any?
There’s lots of evidence that people are far more than 6,000 years old as a species.
I think you’re right on that. Untenable but original! 🙂
Correct , how about only 6000 years old?
Hmm, I was going for “blunt”. I’ll turn the dial down a notch.
Nobody has been more abusive than Frankie, wonder if the moderators are using your justification for bad behaviour?
So just curious, since you attack people in response, should I give you any respect?
Whereas, of course, proposing the universe is a simulation just because you don’t like the idea of mindless processes creating what you think a deity creates is not?
Not so much. 🙂
I understand there was a bishop that calculated the date of creation to 4004 BC or thereabouts.
Back to your Grateful Dead days again?
Has he been more abusive than all the other abusers combined?
Excluding Joe G ,yes.
That’s newfangled slang.
Demonstrably false, of course. I get attacked because I expose you and yours for what you are- scientifically illiterate and totally umaware
Demonstrably false.
I am glad that you think that way. In my view I have exposed the fact that you don’t understand science. You don’t have a scientific theory of evolution. And you don’t know jack about ID.
Harsh but true 😛
To the tune of Jim Croce’s “Operator”
Moderator- could you please release my posts
You see there are people I really need to respond to
They’re a bunch of A’s
What do you expect here, ey?
Sometimes you have to do what you have to
Moderation rules I say they blow
They are a bunch of rats
Now post my posts when you have time to
So they can see that I’m doing just fine, they don’t know
What they’re talking about
Haven’t got a clue
Now release my posts
That’s all you have to do
This is so unfair,
Not that you really care
Posts in Moderation Issues ought to be restricted to discussing moderator actions, inactions, and suggestions for meeting/improving the goals of the site. We have Noyau for all the other shit that regularly appears in this thread.
This has to be one of the most reasonable suggestions ever made by an IDist at this site, but Elizabeth thought that Moderation Issues ought to be indistinguishable from Noyau, which has to be one of the most fucked up and irrational decisions I’ve ever seen here at TSZ.
Still waiting for the mods to grow some balls. Make me a moderator and I’ll show you mine. As a bonus, I’ll show Richardthughes where to find Barry’s purse. That has to be priceless, right?