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.
Mung:
And who was the dipshit that made a mountain out of this particular molehill? Why, Mung, of course:
You’re an ass, Mung.
I might be willing to consider the idea that he is simply trying to score a point and rile people up if it weren’t for his doubling down on his quote mine even after keiths provided the full context. For example, here:
And here:
and here:
That’s not just point scoring, it’s repeated, deliberate dishonesty.
Mung,
Of course you do. You want to have your cake and eat it too — to be dishonest without having your dishonesty pointed out. This flaw in the rules is tailor-made for a bottom feeder like you. You’re eager to exploit it despite the fact that you routinely and hypocritically violate the rules yourself.
You overlooked one thing: moderators aren’t required to Guano every rule-violating post, and Lizzie prefers that moderation be light rather than heavy. Patrick did the right thing. He refused to reward you for your dishonesty, and he refused to punish others for truthfully pointing it out. He left the accusations where they belong — in the original thread.
You were dishonest, you got caught, and now your dishonesty is in the spotlight. You feel uncomfortable. That’s good — it’s exactly what we want. The less comfortable you feel about being dishonest, the better.
Get your act together, Mung. If you don’t want to be treated like a dishonest prick, then stop acting like one.
And you’d just love to make it about quote-mining. But last time I checked making an allegation of quote-mining is not against the rules whereas saying someone is being dishonest is against the rules.
Why don’t you tell all the nice people here that I did not PM you or any of the other mods about either the accusations of quote-mining or the accusations of dishonesty. It didn’t become an issue until you got on your high horse and declared you were going to suspend the rules even though you knew they were being violated. Until you decided to join the crusade and make a big issue out of it, that is.
IOW, a moderator knowing he was going to refuse to enforce the rules and then making a huge issue out of it. Going to make his big stand against the bad IDist. Threatening to step down as moderator. Moderator behaving badly. Again.
It ought to be clear to anyone with an open mind that it was your post and your decision to take a stance and make it an issue that set things off. I was continuing merrily on my way. I even responded to the posts by Adapa and Glen and _hotshoe. You didn’t see me screaming for moderator interference.
And now you’ve got keiths all worked up and frothing at the mouth too. Bad Patrick.
keiths, please take your meds.
keiths, your arguments have already been refuted so I am not going to waste my time going through it again.
It’s The Irrational Zone! Where people are simply not allowed to point out that someone else is being dishonest. Spread that meme. It’s false, but who cares.
Squirm, Mung, squirm.
And then remember that feeling the next time you’re tempted to quotemine someone, or the next time you feel like demanding the resignation of a moderator for failing to protect you from the consequences of your own stupid and dishonest choices.
Patrick,
Sorry, I disagree. Krauss did use those words. Of course what Krauss means by directed and what IDists (usually) mean are two different things. The context did matter, and equivocations abound in these discussions. Still, the ‘doubling down’ was done in a different context to that of the original statement. Everyone turns round and impugns his integrity, naturally he mounts a defence.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the moderation aspect, but attempting to read it as a dispassionate observer, I don’t perceive dishonesty.
Allan Miller,
I haven’t been following this thread too carefully, but as a first pass, I’d refine your point there by saying that the meaning of “directed” can be refined or sharpened to mean either “directional” (having a direction) or “guided” (directed by something or someone).
Entropy is directional but it is not guided, for example.
The only question here is whether Mung knew that Krauss intended “directed” in the sense of “directional” and deliberately misrepresented him as saying that he intended “directed” in the sense of “guided”.
That’s okay. I find your comments to be among the most valuable here, so I’ll forgive you for being wrong this once.
As hotshoe_ and others have demonstrated, with the careful use of ellipses you can make anyone appear to have said anything. The fact that Krauss used those words in that order isn’t the issue.
Exactly, and that’s where the deliberate dishonesty comes in. Here’s what Krauss actually said (h/t keiths):
Mung removed everything I bolded, leaving the excerpt:
That’s a classic quote mine.
If he had any integrity he would have apologized for his behavior. The doubling down demonstrates that it was deliberate dishonesty.
Furthermore, sealing the deal, Mung added the commentary:
Pretty clear that Mung was deliberately misrepresenting Krauss in order to troll…
Even then, if he’d simply admitted it was a (very poor) joke when first challenged it wouldn’t be an issue. Continuing to claim “But that’s what he said” is what clearly demonstrates deliberate dishonesty.
Yep. But being the dishonest ass he is Mung will keep screaming about how he is the victim of everyone picking on him.
I agree. The level of righteous indignation it engendered is largely team play.
But it’s quite likely that mung deserves a spanking for something else he’s said he’s said and DIDN’T take an appropriate amount of shit for, so what the hell. Some people get a huge rush from arguing, so we mustn’t be too prudish, I guess.
That I think this is a charitable view is not a criticism. I heartily endorse it.
And these are your words. Am I misrepresenting what you said? Of course I am.
I watched the debate and, in my opinion, what you did was a quote mine. The fact that you can’t admit it, after it was brought to your attention, is what is disconcerting. We all tend to read into things what we want to hear. But most of us, when our unintentional error is pointed out, acknowledge it and move on.
I’ll confess that’s one of my biggest weaknesses, getting wound up, arguing, and then not being able to drop it because the “rush” is so self reinforcing.
But in my case, not team play – not specifically in this case – and not in general. >:(
I’ve spent two days slagging about the difference of one knit stitch with the “artist”. >:(
Lord, what fools these mortals be.
Will you acknowledge that your monkeying around inside sentences isn’t strictly analogous to mung’s lifting two complete thoughts from a longer text that isn’t (under certain construals) actually inconsistent with those thoughts (and move on when that unintentional error is pointed out)? Let’s see.
Allan,
Yes, the context did matter — so Mung removed it. Krauss’s actual words, in context, did not have the effect Mung was after — particularly the part about evolution being directed by natural selection — so Mung deliberately and surgically removed the context.
When someone carefully excises the context in order to change the perceived meaning of someone else’s words, he is being dishonest.
keiths,
But natural selection is incapable of providing a direction. You might as well say that evolution is “directed” by the surviving reproducers- whatever they are.
hotshoe,
Yeah, walto’s “team play” accusation is bogus. The fact that a group of people agree on an issue does not make it “team play”.
But … but … we know Krauss is not an ID supporter, Mung knows he isn’t, we know Mung knows he isn’t, Mung knows we know he isn’t … I simply can’t read this as an attempt to deceive. Just word-gaming.
Or at least, when pointed out the effect – of actual confusion in the listeners as to what was originally meant – if that person innocently misspoke or excitedly added a misunderstood short bit to the conversation, he should be willing to say something like … oh, sorry for the confusion, I’ll do better next time.
Really, that’s all it would take to smooth things over. Well, for most of us, that’s all it would take …
For me, it would still take two days to blow over. 🙁
What complicates things is that he probably expected people to bristle at the elisions, and then to either affirm or deny Krauss’s supposed admission. Then he’d play a game with affirmations and/or denials, and he’d demand arguments about the obvious (as he did anyway), and keep on saying that Krauss says evolution was directed so ID is right, blah blah.
It’s not so much that the bait was a dishonest affirmation as it was dishonest bait for a little “gotcha” game by this little toad. Mung really does want to think that he’s smarter than people here, and was trolling to try to prove it. The bait is bait, already dishonest, true, but the real problem was that it was just the start of the dishonest troll game that he wanted to play. But people didn’t play, and he thought he was clever, not dishonest, and how dare anyone challenge him over his dishonest trolling anyway? Rules and blah blah. Christ, he’s tiresome little git, and so are the self-righteous excuses for it from people who don’t really get how he means to play people.
Glen Davidson
It is analogous if what Mung did was intentional. It is not if it was unintentional. The problem is that he has not yet admitted that the quote he provided was taken out of context, thereby changing the meaning (even if unintentionally).
UD and ID had made him bitter, I think.
No, no, it’s true, and so are claims that “Darwinists” are just a team play, too, in response to the serious critique brought by the IDists.
Either that, or one would have to back up the charge, but might end up having to actually understand that while the original claim was more a transparently false bait for his shit trolling game than a genuine attempt to mislead, it was all part of the dishonest word games he plays to stoke his ego (he can’t win on the science, can he?). That he immediately went to straight falsehoods when called on his trolling supports this.
People are right not to play his games
Glen Davidson
Is that better?
I suppose you could point out a different level of malice in the intents between the two, with intentional dishonesty being more sinful.
I don’t like “word-gaming” better than a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I’ve lived with teenaged sons. I’d rather have outright deception than word-gaming/word-lawyering. But maybe that’s just me.
Moral indignation is so much more satisfying, though. Especially when lots of of your buddies join in! You’re missing out, man!
Glen,
Right. Dishonesty in the service of trolling is still dishonesty.
I can almost hear a chorus of angels singing this.
GlenDavidson,
Not-getting-it can’t be assumed from not-being-bothered-by-it. I know how Mung works – it’s the venerable art of the ‘gotcha’. But there is a substantial difference between that and lying, which is the original charge.
He put out an obvious lie to provoke people.
It’s not that difficult.
Glen Davidson
Allan,
Mung knew the ‘gotcha’ wouldn’t succeed if he used Krauss’s words in context. He doctored the quote in order to achieve his desired effect.
That’s dishonest.
Exactly!
The pummelling-into-the-ground leaving a greasy spot is not a pretty sight. And there was just a hint of regret in one of mung’s comments above. I’m going with the Krushchev telegram technique. This overdose of righteous indignation seems to lose what it wins, perversely.
He put out a sound-bite intending to provoke people. I don’t think he intended to convince anyone that Krauss’ remark was intended by Krauss as support for ID.
You have a serious problem. I told you from the start that your attempts at mind-reading were misguided.
I later went on and explicitly stated that there was no malice intended and no intent to mislead or deceive anyone. And now you’re ignoring my direct testimony, which is as good as calling me a liar.
You’re clearly not willing to abide by Elizabeth’s desires for the site. You’ve lost all objectivity. You lost it when you decided to take sides rather than remain impartial. And now you’re totally committed because you cannot possible be wrong about me and what I intended.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Patrick threatened to resign if he didn’t get his way without any prompting from me.
Fool me once.
Oh, but we’re supposed to be fooled over and over so that some people can feel so very righteous in condemning those tired of shit trolling.
I guess that’s what TSZ is supposed to be about now.
Screw that.
Glen Davidson
Yeah, blatant disregard for truth, much regard for playing his dishonest games.
But, not your problem, I guess.
Glen Davidson
How did the quote from Krauss make it appear like Krauss was claiming that evolution was directed (in the sense of guided) rather than directed (in the sense of directional)?
I don’t appreciate your attempt to make this about me and what i thought, when it’s really about people declaring others to be dishonest and about a moderator admitting such is against the rules and deciding to do nothing because of his superior mind-reading skills.
But if you think it’s only about what I intended, you have my direct testimony. That ought to settle it, but it won’t. So perhaps the real issue/question here is why not.
At least the pretense at following the good faith rule and the vacuousness of the site banner is being laid bare.
I’ve no time to continue as an admin over the summer. I very much still agree with and support Lizzie’s stated aims. I don’t think that included demonising people. What I’m trying to suggest, and failing at, is that escalating the rhetoric isn’t achieving anything useful for anyone.
Neither does excusing the derail of this site by people who would rather trash it than to discuss science.
Glen Davidson
Alan,
Mung got called on his dishonesty and finds it very unpleasant. That’s exactly what we want — to penalize dishonesty rather than reinforcing it.
So which is it? Was it the quote or the comment after the quote that I should be hung for? Did you stop to think about how much ambiguity your new line of reasoning introduces?
As we probably all know, the term IDiot is just another way for saying idiot. So I was claiming that Krauss is an idiot for thinking evolution is guided, or directed, or directional (pick your favorite term). But the claim is that I was making it appear is if evolution was directed “in the ID sense.” The argument is self-contradictory. You have me saying Krauss both believes and doesn’t believe the same thing.
Or you can have me saying things that people can take in various ways, as they are so inclined. And that has me being dishonest because of how people interpreted what I wrote. If they assume the worse, it’s somehow my fault. And no, I’m not buying that.
It wasn’t a “sound bite”, it was a deliberate misrepresentation of Krauss’ position. I agree with you that his intention was to provoke people. That doesn’t change the fact that he used a dishonest quote mine to do so. His dishonesty is not excused by the possibility that he may just have meant to be obnoxious.
More mind-reading. Fabulous.
Mung,
Are you denying it, Mung?