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.
Are we allowed to be rascist, misogynist, porn spammers in moderation?
Or can we only break some of the rules in moderation?
Exactly, poor Joe
Does anyone miss Joe?
Is that the new criteria for banning here at TSZ?
Yep, look at the the people banned lately, it has been a purge of all dissidents.
I found 4 messages by OMagain, flagged as spam. I have released them. They were in the “invited responses” thread from perhaps 2 days ago. Sorry about being slow to notice.
John Harshman asks:
Lizzie retains editorial control and reserves the right to remove OPs she deems inappropriate. It has happened once, so far.
I’m not convinced J-Mac’s posts aren’t best dealt with by substantive rebuttals or by being ignored, rather than being blocked. I agree that repetition of claims that have previously been addressed many times are annoying. Practical suggestions that don’t appear to be censorship are welcome.
Glen Davison:
The problem I see is who gets to decide who’s trolling. Lizzie’s idea for this blog was to encourage discussion across gulfs of misunderstanding. The rules she devised were intended to achieve this. I agree there appears to be an unaddressed (as in no specific rule) issue when dubious material gets posted, rebutted and repeated.
Alan Fox,
Responding to, and reading, posts is entirely voluntary. I’m aware that some get annoyed at the derails, and I am a frequent participant. But, the entire field of Creationist debate appears to consist solely of endlessly recycled arguments.
Alan Fox,
Apparently you feel you should decide what is trolling. This comment is a problem:
But these are no problem for Alan:
“Oh, Oh, something got in my eye, I can’t see….again”
Alan Fox (2017, every day)
phoodoo,
It’s not against the rules to call someone ignorant. Ignorance of some fact is curable.
It is against the rules to call fellow members stupid, not bright, dumbass or other epithet that questions their cognitive ability.
Alan Fox,
You are an asshole. I gather that from the stupidity you spew.
Can you call someone petulant ?
newton,
Nope, just an ignorant spewing asshole.
You can call ’em what you like in this thread. And in Noyau*. I don’t know why more people don’t take advantage of the facility!
*within the limit of UK, (and for the moment European) and International law as applicable.
Alan Fox,
Well, apparently to you Alan, you can also call people ignorant spewing assholes in other threads as well. So I will make sure to take advantage of your liberal interruption of what is insulting in the future Alan.
Asshole.
As I said, accusing someone of ignorance is not against the rules. Calling someone “asshole” is against the rules, as is questioning their intelligence or otherwise insulting them…
…except in this thread and in Noyau.
If your complaint is that the rules are enforced patchily, then I’m sorry. We’re down to two active admins (of which one is waiting to relinquish duties as soon as Lizzie can find replacements) so there’s no 24 hour service and guanoing comments long after the fact seems a bit pointless.
I’m not sure whether you agree with Lizzie’s aim to encourage dialogue across widely varying viewpoints. You are welcome to make constructive suggestions. Equally, you can set up a forum of your own.
Resign from being a moderator. You have a more than coincidental habit of only finding comments you don’t like from one side. If we look at your history of guanoing comments, its not very good. You have guanoed my comments long after the fact, even when they are simply responses to posts that were against the rules-whilst ignoring the rule breaking post.
Your judgement can no longer be trusted, time for you to retire.
Are you saying that endless, recycled arguments only apply to creationists?
Are you suggesting that the problem with endosybiosis of eukaryotes has already been refuted???
Have the missing genes been found? If that’s the case, all against my OP should have posted links to that refutations instead of insults, questioning my credentials and motives…
I’m can’t wait!
As a moderator, maybe you should move all the comments that clearly constitute trolling to guano..? But then how many comments would remain on my OPs???
Not sure if the facts bear you out here. Keiths has suggested I target his comments for guano.
You wound me!
Agreed. As soon as Lizzie returns.
J-Mac,
I think all claims should be supported with evidence: religious, political, economic, scientific, advertising… All claims. And where claims are disputed or rebutted with evidence, then those rebuttals should be addressed. Otherwise, what is the point of a discussion?
What rule does “full of shit” violate? Make it good.
A huge problem with the idiot J-Mac is that he doesn’t even pretend to deal with the issue that ID/creationism explains nothing at all. Not in either a scientific or judicial sense. And he feels no obligation to, because ID considers design to be the default, and he can’t even think beyond the idiocy of believing that the intellectual sins of ID are the proper standard of thought in these matters.
And of course that was the real issue of the comments on his OP. He “demands” answers from us when he’s never supplied any reason to believe that he has the beginning of an alternative. How does that foster discussion? We did point it out–not especially kindly as he’s been nothing but a dumbass about it at all other times–and he just blithered on like the dullard he’s proven to be.
Seriously, he has to address the data (and the actual model of endosymbiosis accepted in science) and supply a meaningful alternative for there to be a real discussion. Right now he just wants to throw his mindshit at evolution without addressing meaningful answers in the slightest. He’s too ignorant to even realize that this isn’t a proper response to anybody, and this forum just coddles his ignorance and stupidity.
Glen Davidson
I couldn’t agree more! The problem with evidence, just like with truth, it is elusive… Until I see the evidence for endosymbiosis of eukaryotes and the origins of the genes not found in prokaryotic cells, I will be waiting for the evidence in order to get to the truth…and not truth as the opposition sees it… just because they can’t handle the truth…
Used in the phrase “you are full of shit” it is an accusation of dishonesty. Is there another way to interpret it?
GlenDavidson,
As I said, you raise a substantive issue and I agree there is a problem. More difficult is to suggest a solution that isn’t censorship.
This scenario: A makes unsubstantiated claim, B, C, D post rebuttals with evidence. A makes same unsubstantiated claim. Rinse and repeat. But how to encourage A to engage with the arguments? Or when to call a halt? And who decides?
An easily referenced set of rebuttals? A PRATT file?
Actually, at some point there has to be a judge who steps up to the plate. Here the idea seems to be that no standard needs to be met by the pseudoscientists, no argument has to be made in favor of ID’s claims, and dumbfucks like J-Mac don’t have to answer any hard questions.
They were naively made on the tacit and exceedingly unlikely assumption that people who whole-heartedly believe in their scams will discuss matters fairly. They can’t. You’ve seen UD.
The fact is that sometimes one can have discussions with some of them, despite their unwillingness and inability to deal fairly with the issues. Colewd knows how to act as if he were open-minded, although he’s clearly not, so that even though he’ll always end up with some excuse to believe non-explanations, at least he put out cheesy arguments for why ID is the default. It’s complete BS, but one could nonetheless discuss why it’s BS. J-Mac can’t do that, all he can do is to try to bully his ignorance into being the standard for discussion.
Why not call him out on it? Well, when we do we’re liable to be guanoed. Which isn’t all that bad, of course, but if it went too long it might involve something more meaningful. Social sanctions against anti-intellectualism can work, unless the social sanctions are what are disallowed, while anti-intellectualism is protected against anyone who wants some fair discussion.
The problem with the idea of having discussions across “gulfs of misunderstanding” is that often the gulf of misunderstanding is caused by someone like J-Mac who simply believes that ID is the default despite explaining nothing, while evolutionary theory is the problem because it doesn’t explain everything. As I explained last night, it’s basically the religious (apologist) view used against science, their “revealed truth” is believed to hold as long as flaws can be found in other religions (and they can’t help but think that science is a religion, or anti-religion), and they wouldn’t think of putting their own beliefs to the test of empiricism. The messiness of discovery that science produces is anathema to them, since it’s the purity of absolute truth that is at stake for them, not understanding why bird wings fuse out of many bones.
IOW, there really has to be some common ground for there even to be a discussion, not people like J-Mac just throwing shit without in the slightest providing any reason to believe in ID/creationism. His “alternative viewpoint” is that his view is right and that he has no obligation to treat evolutionary theory and ID/creationism using the same evidentiary standards. That is why there can be no productive discussion with him.
Glen Davidson
J-Mac,
You’ve already said that no evidence will convince you, so you are just recycling the same old shit I’m afraid. The evidence of the prokaryotic origin of the components of the eukaryotic cell is extensive. People present it, you instantly wipe your ass with it rather than considering it or addressing it. You’ve just picked this up from some Creationist site, as you have with all your ‘mysteries’, and consider it worth delivering to all corners of the interweb.
You fail. Did you even bother to do an internet search on the phrase?
Please restore my comment.
I think you got me mistaken with materialists…I’m open to evidence and would be more than willing to change my mind provided with evidence…
I’m even willing to sponsor, with my modest means, some experiments, to falsify evolutionary claims…endosymbiosis would one of them however some genes are missing…
How about placing organisms under extreme selective pressure to see if they can evolve quickly? How long would it take for some land walking animal to become more aquatic; to notice some evolutionary changes?
I then went on to say why dazz was full of shit, and it was because he had his facts wrong, not because he was being dishonest.
Context.
J-Mac,
I think you are lying; you have said that nothing will convince you elsewhere. But hey, if you have now changed your tune, let’s see what your evidential standards are …
(The ellipsis, the offers to provide financial support … I’m sure I have encountered you before…)
Why on earth would an experiment convince you of the historical reality of an endosymbiosis event a billion or so years ago? Surely one would look for signals of that event?
Tell you what, generate a miracle under lab conditions, so we can compare hypotheses. Or maybe that’s a dumb idea?
And those genes are? And they prove endosymbiosis didn’t happen how?
What in hell does that have to do with endosymbiosis?
Allan Miller,
“I think you are lying; you have said that nothing will convince you elsewhere. But hey, if you have now changed your tune, let’s see what your evidential standards are …
I don’t care what you think ! Until you provide evidence that, I lied I’m going to ignore your further comments…just purely because you can’t find anything else to accuse me of…
Leave your delusions for another occasion!
J-Mac,
I’m sure if I put my mind to it …
Well yeah, unless you think that one shouldn’t let false accusations against honest research stand on a forum that you frequent.
Honest standards should be defended, even on a rather small corner of the internet.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Yes, I don’t disagree. And I take exception to accusations of ‘blind faith’ and ‘lying to oneself’, which is why my own attitude has hardened. J-Mac can’t see that he’s impugning a great many people’s integrity. So, sauce for the goose. If one wants an audience, kicking off with a sneer is probably not the way to go – although equally, getting a reaction is good for the ‘Evolutionists Are Mean narrative. Which is probably the objective.
What integrity are you talking about?
The deceiving others into believing that their faith is better than others because it’s cloaked in science without evidence?
J-Mac,
My acceptance of endosymbiosis as the likeliest explanation for the alpha-proteobacterium-aligned characteristics of mitochondria, and the cyanobacterium-aligned characteristics of chloroplasts, is based upon what to me is a sincere evaluation of the evidence. You impugn my integrity by disbelieving that. What YOU believe is entirely up to you. I’m hardly forcing you to accept the evidence. I don’t deceive you by pointing to the many instances of more recent endosymbiosis known, or the reasons why alpha-proteobacteria and cyanobacteria are prime candidates for the origin of the respective organelles. These are facts. The ‘missing genes’ you focus on are also facts. Yet you would have it that some researchers – the ones that find the facts you find uncongenial – lack integrity.
So, I feel no compunction in accusing you of lying. Your very OP announces that you intend to close your ears to everything the ‘Darwinists’ say in yet-to-be-written comments. If you say you are open to evidence, I say you are full of shit.
Right, its well know you don’t like keiths, so of course you use your ability to try to censor him. Its petty and stupid.
Why do you need to wait for Lizzie to return, are you some cuckold? You need her permission? What do you think is going to happen if you quit, the site will catch fire?
Yes, that is what he is saying, Alan wants the ability to further control what creationists say. He just needs Lizzies permission to do so.
I’m going to give Alan the benefit of the doubt here…Let’s wait and see…
J-Mac,
I used to give Alan the benefit of the doubt. Then you would get guys like adapa, and Omagain and Glen and Richard saying whatever they want, calling people dumbshit retarded assholes, and if you replied with, “Oh, is that how you feel?” Alan would come along and say, “Hey, you can’t question what someone feels, if they say it, you must assume they are telling the truth, I am not going to warn you again, no more trolling…”
So Alan has long since used up any benefit of the doubt.
His latest excuse is, “Well, that comment was a while again, now watch what you say!”
What I find incredibly exciting is that now–without reading any books or long papers–J-Mac plans to turn his laser-like incomprehension and incoherence to quantum physics! This place is an absolute gold mine!
Mung,
No, I didn’t until now. This was my first hit.
And?
That page supports my position. Do you have a reason for not restoring my comment?
I disagree, but having thought more, I’m not sure it matters. Saying “you are full of shit” is simply an insult (though it can be taken as implying dishonesty as a bonus). I’m inclined to put it in the category (together with “doofus” and “ass/arsehole”) of insults that are unacceptable in addressing fellow members.
Maybe Neil has a different view. Neil?
And saying that people are “Liars for Jesus” isn’t? I’m all for cleaning up the insults here, but won’t you first need to know how to recognize one?
Mung,
Nope, its a lot easier to just say he never saw it. And then when you show him, he will say, well, it doesn’t matter now, its already passed, so never mind.
From Alan’s own link:
I don’t think it’s such a damning accusation as intentional dishonesty. For example, I think that RGS really and sincerely believes the things that he posts even though he’s full of shit most of the time.
…but generally speaking, anyone who spews BS can be considered to be FOS.
But it could mean many things depending on Context and what it was in response to.
But Alan doesn’t agree that any of that supports what I said. LoL.