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.
You have repeatedly railed against my pointing out that Sal’s admitted behavior constitutes intellectual and emotional child abuse, but you have never challenged that characterization with reference to his actual behavior (and its results). You just don’t like one of your coreligionists being called out. If you don’t want to be seen as sanctioning his behavior then either defend it or stop whining.
Mung,
You can’t even get that right can you. It’s not slander unless it’s spoken. The word you want is libelous.
Wow. How many lies can you pack into one comment?
It’s WHERE you posted your comments that I was railing against. Post them in Moderation Issues or in Noyau and things would be different. I’m railing against you breaking the rules and getting away with it because you are an admin. If you posted your comments in Noyau I wouldn’t be able to claim you broke the rules.
Same with your comment saying I sanction child abuse, which also was not posted in Moderation Issues or in Noyau.
Now I understand that you know the distinction I’m making between what you post and where you post it but choose to ignore it, but what else is someone who is so intellectually dishonest going to do?
And now you admit that your claim that I sanction child abuse is based on my silence (not that I didn’t already know that). You’re quite the libertarian! Just think of all the other people here who also sanction child abuse by their silence!
Only that too is a lie, because I did not remain silent. In fact, I proposed a rule that child abusers be banned. Which is another reason your claim that I sanction child abuse is a slanderous lie.
You regularly violate the site rules and get away with it. And I’ve been railing about it for God knows since when. this is just the latest episode where you’ve given cause. It has nothing to do with Salvador being a “coreligionist.” That’s just another one of your ignorant lies.
This seems appropriate.
Patrick and the Quislings! Coming soon to a venue near you.
Somebody needs their diaper changed.
If you are banned how am I reading your post?
“In fact ” it is not ( your post falsifies that), you might argue incorrectly that it is a ban in effect
It does not imply it, it is the point. Some posters need preapproval of their posts.Darwin’s God has that policy for all posters. If you logic is correct everyone is banned.
Having one’s post moved hardly seems very onerous, but you may be more sensitive than I.You do have the option to remove the violation and have it posted
Only the rule breaking posts are affected, and they are published and are public
They can do that now, irrelevant.
A strange one if it does not prohibit you from posting.
But there is a kernel of truth, at UD many times bans are not announced, rather comments are put in moderation and never released. So until your posts disappear completely you really don’t have a good case, if you get my meaning.
No problem, it is not a uncommon occurrence
I thought that was the situation, and past history is a reasonable way to judge motivation.But the rule is that everybody gets the benefit of the doubt would be unnecessary if it was only granted to those who deserve it. It seems to me it was conceived exactly for this case.
Disagree, their bad behaviour will become more apparent without the distraction of inflammatory charges.
Ok but since you are breaking the rules following your belief, you should give the other moderators a break and move your post to guano. It seems simple
I don’t know, I’ve never tried. That’s kind of your bailiwick. There aren’t any in the one you quote.
Nice attempt at spinning your whining, but it doesn’t accord with the evidence. You’ve been complaining about what I said, not simply where I said it.
No, it’s not, because when this topic surfaces in those threads you still complain about what I’m saying not where I’m saying it.
It’s not your silence, it’s your continuous focus on what I wrote without any attempt, despite repeated challenges, to address Sal’s actual admitted behavior. You whine and moan desperately about how his actions are characterized but show no concern for the accuracy of that characterization. Everything you’ve written about it demonstrates that you don’t care what he did, you just don’t want him called on it. That’s sanctioning his behavior.
So you have kids?
Here I disagree back. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” and all that. Calling out behavior on the Internet may not be much, but it at least reminds Sal and any lurkers that at least one person recognizes his dishonesty.
Fair point, and I did.
And that is why I call out your behavior so at least any lurkers can see there is at least one person calling you on your dishonesty
Yes
My feeling is that can be accomplished within the rules. Sal will do it in real time.
Yes Frankie,you are a paragon of virtue
Yes, what you said is relevant. But it’s where you said it that made it a violation of the rules. You can grasp that distinction I’m sure.
Unfortunately we’ll never know whether I would have railed against it if you had posted it in Noyau, because you didn’t post it in Noyau. Now all you have is an untestable hypothesis.
Let’s start with your comments directed at Salvador in Noyau. Post a link or links.
ETA: Do it in Noyau. This discussion doesn’t belong in Moderation Issues. When are the mods going to make Moderation Issues about moderation issues?
Yes, my silence [“without any attempt, despite repeated challenges, to address Sal’s actual admitted behavior.”] bothers you. That is what I said. And you just admitted it again.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the truth of your charge is irrelevant to whether or not it broke the rules. Once again affirming that it’s my interest in your rule breaking that motivates my comments. And yes, even you can understand the distinction.
But you won’t try to, because you are dishonest and unworthy of being a moderator.
Question for the admins.
I’d like to view a list of the threads and the last date a comment was posted to the thread. Alternatively, as I scroll the main pages I’d like to see the data of the most recent comment in that thread. The idea is to avoid having to actually go into each thread to see if there’s been a new comment.
Is anything like that available given the current setup and I just haven’t seen it, or is there an available plugin that does such a thing?
Thanks
I don’t know how to do that.
There is a list of thread available to administrators. But I can’t easily check the date of the last comment without visiting each thread.
For easing the reading load (which I take to be the goal), the two methods I have used are:
1: Read the comments from the comments link on dashboard. That gives all comments in reverse order of time, at 20 comments per page.
2: Use an RSS reader. I am using “akregator” on linux. I set that to sort by date (newest first). Then I can search for a string to pick out a particular thread (this mostly works, but it looks for the search string anywhere). I can also set it to only show unread comments, that at present that feature is broken in the version that I am using. Maybe I should try “liferea” (another linux RSS reader).
So, I submitted an O.P. What’s the protocol for getting it published?
Say three Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers, and God will publish it for you.
Feeling particularly anti-Christian this morning, Keith?
No, but it is interesting that God (whether the Christian God or your own particular God) won’t step in and publish the OP for you.
It reminds me of this thread:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
What is your explanation of why you have to wait for the moderators, when God could go ahead and publish your OP for you? It’s the kind of favor a friend would do for you, like fetching toilet paper for you when you’re stranded on the toilet, yet God refuses to do it.
Posting here was fine. Your OP is published.
As I’ve told you before, Keiths, you concept of my god is not my concept of my god. You are – once again – tilting at childish straw-man windmills that exist only in your own head.
Thanks Mr. Rickert!
William:
That’s why I asked you the question instead of supplying my own answer.
Again:
What is your explanation of why you have to wait for the moderators, when God could go ahead and publish your OP for you? It’s the kind of favor a friend would do for you, like fetching toilet paper for you when you’re stranded on the toilet, yet God refuses to do it.
No, that isn’t interesting at all. But it does show that you don’t now what you talking about and will post straw men to try to distract from that fact
To my memory, I’ve never claimed that the god I believe in answers any prayers, or acts in correlation to conscious desires and wishes, so your question is nonsensical on the face of it wrt to my particular form of theism.
William,
And given your track record of contradicting yourself, I understand your concern about your memory.
No, the question still applies. It’s fine to say that your God doesn’t respond to human needs, desires, or prayers, but if so, why? Haven’t you thought this through?
First, that’s not what I said. Second, have you thought out what it would be like if God did grant every conscious prayer, wish or desire? How would that work, considering that there would be a lot of contradictory prayers and desires? What would existence look like? What kind of chaotic mess would that be? What is the difference between god answering your every desire, and actually being god?
In my worldview, Keiths, sentient individual experience requires parameters and limitations that define your individual nature. Furthermore, in my worldview, we come into this physical world fully understanding the nature of this world and what existence in it is like – the particular limitations and parameters we accept on our capacities while we are here.
Also, in my worldview, God is not sentient or conscious in the way we think of it; God is more like a dreamer that inhabits its dream as multiple conscious entities. God is like a dreaming super-subconsciousness.
Drawing on that dream analogy, most people – when they dream – cannot make anything they wish happen in the dream. While they cannot – even in a dream – violate the nature of the Dreamer ( like manifest a true contradiction, like a square circle), there is lots of stuff they could manifest (pray for and get, let’s say) if they were capable of “lucid dreaming”.
However, as I said, there are “dream-rules”, or house rules, that we agree to before we come here; those rules exist because this world, IMO, is a particular kind of place we come to experience and learn particular kinds of things only available in such a place. This kind of experience is irreconcilable with the kind of experience where God grants every prayer, wish and desire – or even delivers them on-demand for a select few. This isn’t that kind of world.
Perhaps those kinds of worlds exist, but this obviously isn’t one of them. So, with all that said, God doesn’t answer my every conscious intention because that’s not the way this particular world works, and that’s not the kind of experience I was looking for when I came here, and because, generally speaking, that’s not the nature of the god & individual relationship.
Let’s take this deeper, Keith’s; if I could pray and get whatever I want, what value would I place on those things? Let’s say I pray to win the lottery and won it, prayed for someone to love me and got it, prayed for perfect children and got it, prayed to win games and won every time.
Did you ever see the Twilight Zone where the main guy dies and goes to a place where he gets everything he wants? He thinks he died and went to heaven for a short while, until he quickly realizes that getting everything you want just by asking for it ruins the value of those things. That’s when he realizes he’s actually in hell.
That’s what this world offers that instantaneous prayer manifestation would ruin, Keiths. The value that exists on that which we achieve. Even that which comes to us by luck, we appreciate because we know its value, a value that only exists in a realm where you don’t get everything you wish for.
keiths would not be dishonest William. So it must have been what you said.
WJM, awesome takedown of that particular bit if keiths shallow skepticism.
Then by definition everything God wishes for/brings about has absolutely zero value.
So it’s all or nothing?
Obviously we wouldn’t need to get everything we ask for. One might ask a parent for a Porsche. Probably not best if it’s given to you. You might ask a parent to quit beating you for any imperfection. Probably best if you do get that.
I’d note that the Twilight Zone guy was a criminal who lived for the thrill of the score. It wasn’t honestly working for what he got that he enjoyed, it was stealing, gambling, taking, that pleased him. Suggesting that there’s a downside to the need for “accomplishment” as well. I suppose more to the point, though, is that while just being handed everything we want probably would be unsatisfying to us, that’s apparently due to the evolution of rewards for various activities (the gambling industry thrives on exploiting those). There’s nothing that prevents God from changing everything, in any number of ways (Buddhist cessation of desire, for one possibility).
From where we are, some indication of concern for us from God might be appreciated, especially if absolute devotion to said God is demanded, as some here claim.
Glen Davidson
Zero value to god from god’s perspective, correct. But, I don’t think there is such a thing as “from god’s perspective” – it’s a nonsensical phrase if one is talking about an omnipresent entity.
I didn’t say that. I’m describing my theistic view to keiths and explaining why, in my view, god doesn’t answer all conscious prayer and wishing.
Why change things if you have multiple worlds that house various contextual rulesets and are entered freely by those who wish to engage under the parameters of those rulesets for the duration of their stay? If everything that is possible exists (which is my view), does it make sense to say things can be changed?
That’s not my claim.
I have a post waiting for approval
Published.
Thank you- I forgot about the post you published. I have another post but that can wait.
Next time, please give a hint or two about which thread you mean.
Are the mods trying an experiment without telling the rest of us about it? It’s been over a week since a post has been sent to Guano. It’s making me look for my laughs elsewhere.
I wonder if Patrick’s OP actually had an effect. Wouldn’t that be weird!
Mung,
Can’t speak for other admins but nothing would give me greater pleasure (in my capacity as an admin of course!) than never to have to consider moving a comment.
If the few commenters who currently don’t feel constrained by the aims of the site would reflect and either follow John Harshman’s suggestion to ask “is my comment really necessary” before posting or try their luck elsewhere, that signal-to-noise ratio might improve.
And if there’s an experiment running currently (other than Lizzie’s original) I’m unaware of it. I just haven’t time to keep up with the current level of comments.
Perhaps keiths could code a web scraper for you to look for certain key words. 🙂
Alan Fox,
Yes and I apologize for my part. I have actually ignore the people I have on ignore. That will be a start. It would be nice if the mods helped out by putting all personal attacks and off-topic comments aimed at me into guano.
Yes, my bad. I had completely forgot about my prior posts.
I’ll comment on that.
I have seen a number of posts that belong in guano. However, several recent threads don’t have much of a point except as an excuse for bickering. So, as long as it isn’t too bad, I’ve been ignoring minor rules violations in those threads.
Great! Now all we need is for Patrick to weigh in. Patrick never sends any post to Guano. Right, Patrick?
I sometimes feel I’m like the playground monitor deciding when to intervene if play gets too boisterous. I agree when I see tit-for-tat in a thread that has become moribund apart from a couple of evenly matched* protagonists it hardly seems useful to intervene. The “discussion” between Mung and Keiths here is a prime example.
*Evenly matched in the ability to insult, I mean.
At least you know how to make a working link, unlike keiths, even if it does go to some book on Amazon. Oh, and as an insult, I have no equal. keiths doesn’t even come close.