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. keiths:
    Glen,

    Not as much as you might think.Smart people are capable of believing incredibly stupid things if they aren’t armed with the tools of critical thinking or if they apply them selectively.

    Flint: It’s not a matter of armament or selection. It’s a matter of Will. Smart people can misinterpret and/or ignore incredible amounts of evidence if it all conflicts with what they WANT to believe. I’ve known some genius-level alcoholics, and they employ their amazing intelligence confecting the most dazzling rationalizations for why it’s OK to keep drinking.

    Being smart is pretty much irrelevant. Morton’s Demon cannot be vanquished through sheer intelligence.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNykWfVMoQ

  2. Patrick: It wasn’t a “sound bite”, it was a deliberate misrepresentation of Krauss’ position.

    I’m sure we’re on the same side regarding aims and not quite in step in how best to work towards them. I can agree wholeheartedly if you leave “deliberate” on one side. Sure, it wasn’t accidental.

    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.

    I’m interpreting events more charitably. I believe that people can change their views and attitudes. I know I have over the 10 years or so I’ve spent following and discussing ID. And in comments here, I’m not attacking you. It’s the piling on I find unsavoury.

  3. keiths: If you were actually honest, this problem would vanish. Why not give that a try?

    There’s no compelling reason for me to join you in your delusion.

  4. Alan Fox: It’s the piling on I find unsavoury.

    But Alan, they are simply applying both the tools of critical thinking and the best Will! X>{

    I just thank my lucky stars they’re around to defend truth, justice and the American way!

  5. Mung: So which is it? Was it the quote or the comment after the quote that I should be hung for?

    It is the combination, m’lud.

    Did you stop to think about how much ambiguity your new line of reasoning introduces?

    You appear to be the only person confused…

    As we probably all know, the term IDiot is just another way for saying idiot.

    What complete and utter rubbish. ‘IDiot’ is another way of saying IDist, Mark Twain’s repetition notwithstanding. Your use of the term ‘IDiot’ wouldn’t be the first time that a member of a group ‘adopted’ a perjorative term for that group — ask a homosexual or an African-American.

    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.”

    No, you were deliberately appearing to claim that Krauss is an IDist for believing that evolution is directed, in the ID sense. Hence your careful omission of the phrase “by natural selection”. Dishonest trolling, is all.

    The argument is self-contradictory. You have me saying Krauss both believes and doesn’t believe the same thing.

    Even if we were to grant your self-serving redefinition of ‘IDiot’, this still makes no sense whatsoever.

    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.

    Well, your reaction to their so-called “mis-interpretation” was pretty revealing too. And you do have something of a track record.

    More mind-reading. Fabulous

    Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
    Obvious troll is obvious. Yawn.

  6. keiths:
    Glen,

    Not as much as you might think.Smart people are capable of believing incredibly stupid things if they aren’t armed with the tools of critical thinking or if they apply them selectively.

    Well I was thinking of “bright” with respect to dealing competently with science and other matters that show up here. After all, I wouldn’t presume to say that any of the woo-believers who has shown up here is truly “not bright” in the general sense (how would I know, anyhow?), except, it would seem, Byers, while none of them has been competent at either science or philosophy, judging from what they’ve written.

    Besides which, why would I even care if they’re generally bright when they’re clearly not competent at science and philosophy? It’s in those subjects that they’re prone to causing trouble for others.

    As has been noted, being bright can just mean that a person has more ability to twist the evidence and the logic behind a cherished belief. That wouldn’t suggest, however, that their line of thinking is exactly “bright” wherever their prejudices tend to overrule their intellection.

    Glen Davidson

  7. Alan Fox: It’s the piling on I find unsavoury.

    Indeed. The piling on belongs in Noyau too. There’s no need for two Noyau threads.

    OMG! If we don’t want to silence people we can’t possibly enforce rules in the moderation issues thread!!!

    To me this is all rather amusing. I recall not too long ago asking the mods what they wanted to have the site be like, given Elizabeth’s absenteeism. Maybe they should have taken the bull by the horns.

  8. DNA_Jock: It is the combination, m’lud.

    Great. So it wasn’t the quote. Thank you.

    I’m guilty of an intemperate comment. I said Lawrence Krauss must be an IDiot. So sue me.

  9. DNA_Jock: No, you were deliberately appearing to claim that Krauss is an IDist for believing that evolution is directed, in the ID sense.

    You probably really believe that. And what are your qualifications in mind reading? I’d really like to know.

  10. Alan Fox: I’m sure we’re on the same side regarding aims and not quite in step in how best to work towards them. I can agree wholeheartedly if you leave “deliberate” on one side. Sure, it wasn’t accidental.

    I’m interpreting events more charitably. I believe that people can change their views and attitudes. I know I have over the 10 years or so I’ve spent following and discussing ID. And in comments here, I’m not attacking you. It’s the piling on I find unsavoury.

    Gee, maybe this shouldn’t be a forum, or at least people should start taking quotemines seriously from now on. WTF, someone badly skews a quote to sound like it’s pro-ID, why should those lied to take offense, except maybe enough for mild chiding?

    Someone acts offensively, others are offended. That was pretty much the point, only it was supposed to turn out better for Mung.

    Why can’t people just give up caring about honesty in these discussions?

    Glen Davidson

  11. walto: But Alan, they are simply applying both the tools of critical thinking and the best Will! X>{

    I just thank my lucky stars they’re around to defend truth, justice and the American way!

    And the evidence-free smarm will be supplied by walto.

    What would we do without vacuous pieties from Johnny-come-latelies who obviously understand all that went on?

    Glen Davidson

  12. Why don’t we just agree that Mung has a much lower bar for honesty and move on. 😀

  13. DNA_Jock: What complete and utter rubbish. ‘IDiot’ is another way of saying IDist, Mark Twain’s repetition notwithstanding.

    And I get accused of a lack of reading comprehension. In a world where IDiot means only that someone is an ID supporter you might have a point. But we don’t live in that world.

  14. Mung: I’m guilty of an intemperate comment. I said Lawrence Krauss must be an IDiot. So sue me.

    Wave that magic wand….

  15. Richardthughes:
    Why don’t we just agree that Mung has a much lower bar for honesty and move on. 😀

    Maybe that’s a solution. Or just move on. I think that’s what I’ll do for the moment, at least.

  16. Richardthughes: Think of it as a portmanteau of IDIST and PATRIOT, Mung. Or do you hate America?

    Like any good American I hate the Patriots. I bet that’s it. I bet Patrick is a Patriot’s fan. Why didn’t I see that before.

  17. keiths: After demanding his resignation twice, you tried to pretend that you hadn’t demanded it at all:

    Another absurd claim from the fevered mind of keiths.

    Quote me every denying that I said he ought to step down. You won’t because you can’t. Just more manufactured BS.

  18. GlenDavidson: And the evidence-free smarm will be supplied by walto.

    What would we do without vacuous pieties from Johnny-come-latelies who obviously understand all that went on?

    Glen Davidson

    Hey, I’m just honored to be breathing the same air as you knowledgeable, critical thinking, well-meaning, truth-tellers! You’re the awesomest. The other guys are so bad!

  19. Richardthughes:
    Why don’t we just agree that Mung has a much lower bar for honesty and move on.

    OK, but move on to what?

    Obviously a big reason why this continues, aside from the relatively few excuses for discussion-stopping misrepresentation, is that there just isn’t a whole lot else going on.

    Move on to FrankenJoe’s mindless denials, or what? This has gotten more than its share of discussion, granted, but it’s been sort of fun, if it’s clearly getting old by now. I’m not interested in intentionality, which at most is a cognitive/psychology question, and not really much of one at all.

    Glen Davidson

  20. walto: Hey, I’m just honored to be breathing the same air as you knowledgeable, critical thinking, well-meaning, truth-tellers! You’re the awesomest. The other guys are so bad!

    Oh my, your cleverness knows no bounds.

    You are bereft of arguments, but have no lack of self-righteousness.

    Wallow in it, wallow. You apparently love it.

    Glen Davidson

  21. Patrick:

    It wasn’t a “sound bite”, it was a deliberate misrepresentation of Krauss’ position.

    Alan:

    I can agree wholeheartedly if you leave “deliberate” on one side. Sure, it wasn’t accidental.

    It wasn’t accidental and it wasn’t deliberate?

    Alan:

    It’s the piling on I find unsavoury.

    walto:

    But Alan, they are simply applying both the tools of critical thinking and the best Will! X>{

    I just thank my lucky stars they’re around to defend truth, justice and the American way!

    It’s telling: both Alan and walto have gotten caught in lies here at TSZ, and they didn’t like it one bit when their dishonesty was pointed out (although Alan actually admitted that he had a lying problem). Is it just a coincidence that they’re now bristling at the (truthful) accusations of dishonesty against Mung? I doubt it.

    It’s a very good thing that Alan, walto, and Mung have all felt uncomfortable on account of their dishonesty. We want to disincentivize dishonesty, after all. It seems to have helped with both Alan and walto. Whether it changes Mung’s behavior remains to be seen, but one thing’s for certain: rewarding Mung by guanoing his critics’ comments would only have encouraged future dishonesty on his part.

  22. keiths:
    Patrick:

    Alan:

    It wasn’t accidental, and it wasn’t deliberate?

    Alan:

    walto:

    It’s telling: both Alan and walto have gotten caught in lies here at TSZ, and they didn’t like it one bit when their dishonesty was pointed out (although Alan actually admitted that he had a lying problem).Is it just a coincidence that they’re now bristling at the (truthful) accusations of dishonesty against Mung?I doubt it.

    It’s a very good thing that Alan, walto, and Mung have all felt uncomfortable on account of their dishonesty. We want to disincentivize dishonesty, after all.It seems to have helped with both Alan and walto.Whether it changes Mung’s behavior remains to be seen, but one thing’s for certain:rewarding Mung by guanoing his critics’ comments would only have encouraged future dishonesty on his part.

    Hahaha! Your eyes are turning brown again, keith– as everyone here well knows, you’re the biggest liar and quote-miner in these parts. But as you’re a valuable teammate, they put up with you.

    There’s a ton of awesomeness here, for sure, but you’re absolutely the awesomeness champ! No one holds a candle to your awesomeness. Not even a little candle.

  23. Ok, Glen. Keiths has graciously provided something we can argue about. I say he’s a bigger asshole than mung.

    Now you go.

  24. walto,

    Your eyes are turning brown again, keith– as everyone here well knows, you’re the biggest liar nd quote-miner in these parts.

    Then make your case and back it up with actual evidence — quotes and links.

  25. Oh walto, try to understand what “bereft of arguments” means.

    It’s apparently hard for you, but may not be impossible. But then again, maybe it is impossible for you.

    Glen Davidson

  26. Bereftness is my thing, Glen. In fact, keiths is to awesomeness as I am to bereftness. So, it’s not so much a matter of not understanding you as it is one of, you know, just being bereft. (But TBH, I probably didn’t understand you completely either–that was some subtle shit you had going on there.)

    Anyhow, If you don’t want to argue about the relative assholishness of keiths and mung, I’m totally fine with that. I mean, what would my chances against the Justice Society of America be? After all, we’re talking about someone who has helped Alan Fox give up lying. That’s not only good for America (or wherever Alan is from), it’s good for Alan’s eternal soul too. So, let me again simply thank y’all for everything you do and slither away in my utter bereftitude.

  27. I want to add, though, that I see now that I shouldn’t have agreed with Allan and Alan that enough chest thumping was enough. It just resulted in me getting WOW–PASTED (AND pwned) by the good guys here–kindhearted, disinterested people who are just doing their level best to get some honesty and decency around these parts.

    Mung, you are bad bad bad. Alan and Allan, let the posse also help you two to the clear light.

  28. walto,

    Allan hasn’t been dishonest. He just disagrees with some of us on whether Mung’s ‘word-gaming’ counts as dishonesty. I think it does, because the word-gaming itself required Mung to doctor the Krauss quote.

    Meanwhile, don’t slither away. You made an accusation:

    Your eyes are turning brown again, keith– as everyone here well knows, you’re the biggest liar nd quote-miner in these parts.

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if you were lying when you said that?

    Make your case and back it up with actual evidence — quotes and links.

  29. Mung: I don’t need to establish my honesty. It is supposed to be assumed.

    It was until you started with dishonesty so blatant it couldn’t be ignored. You brought this all on yourself Mung by trying to be a smartass troll.

  30. I’ve already slithered away in my utter bereftitude, keiths. Maybe you missed me saying that.

    But in answer to your question, not only would it be ironic if I were lying when I accused you of being the champion liar and quote miner, it would be false. You and I know quite well what you are and what you do, as do many others here. You can go play with your own links.

    Oh, and thanks again for maybe making the world safer from Alan’s lies. (Whoever suggested Allan was being dishonest?! Did you mean that if I agreed with him about something he must have been dishonest in whatever I was agreeing with him about–me being the ironical, bereft, lying, anti-semite that I am? I mean, I can see how you’d get that:it’s keiths-style logic, anyhow.)

    You are the absolute CHAMP, bro. I can’t emphasize that enough!

  31. Has anyone encountered a creationist who doesn’t try to get mileage from word meanings? Merriam-Webster gets whipped out the back pocket at the drop of a hat. If you think it’s done wrongly it’s certainly worth calling someone on it, but if you don’t get the desired result, what are you gonna do? The world is stuffed full of wrong people.

    This is the interface between casual speech and formal writing. I wonder whether part of the issue is a differential in the extent to which different people think it ‘ought’ to be more the one or the other. Make a casual remark, as if in conversation, and it’s there for eternity, for the marrow to be sucked out as if it were published wisdom.

    If it were Joe or Byers it would pass with barely a murmur. Perhaps Mung could take the response as a compliment of sorts.

  32. Sharks? More like a herd, I think. Gathering around to protect it’s weakest member from any more harm.

  33. keiths: Is it just a coincidence that they’re now bristling at the (truthful) accusations of dishonesty against Mung? I doubt it.

    I just love the way you argue. From false premise to non-sequitur with a dash of ad hom for good measure. Such a joy to behold.

  34. keiths: Whether it changes Mung’s behavior remains to be seen

    You are seriously deluded. I think you should try burning me at the stake. You know, to save my soul. Surely that would be best for me.

  35. keiths: Then make your case and back it up with actual evidence — quotes and links.

    There’s no need for anyone to further encourage your dishonest behavior by doing anything more than just hurling charges of “dishonest quote-miner” at you.

  36. Mung:
    Sharks? More like a herd, I think. Gathering around to protect it’s weakest member from any more harm.

    Mung? More like dishonest Dung.

  37. It’s pretty obvious that keiths is dishonest and a quote-miner. If it were not so, he would not now be doubling down. If it were not so, he would immediately ‘fess up and repent. Instead he asks for evidence. Just look at his past history if you want evidence.

    This is almost too rich for words.

    I’d threaten to resign if I didn’t think everyone would automatically take me up on it.

  38. It’s simple, Mung — you can’t back up your claim because it isn’t true and you don’t have the evidence. Just like walto.

  39. My first response to Adapa:

    Yes, well, someone might want to have something more than their usual lack of evidence before charging me with being “a dishonest quote-miner.” Unless their name is Adapa.

    The quote is from the debate tonight with Krauss, Meyer and Lamoureux. It’s breaking news. But I fail to see why people would have a problem with it. We all know evolution is directed.

    Adapa has a long and sordid history of making false claims that he can’t back up. But let’s not go there.

    No charge of violating the rules. No appeal for moderator involvement. Just a call for evidence. An opportunity for good speech.

    1. It’s breaking news. (A soundbite.)
    2. I fail to see why people would have a problem with it.
    3. We all know evolution is directed. (No claim to it being directed by God or some designer is in evidence. None.)

  40. My first response to _hotshoe:

    I watched it live. That YouTube is a creationist website is news to me.

    No charge of violating the rules. No appeal for moderator involvement.

    It’s clear I was watching it live. This narrative being spun by Patrick and keiths that I had a transcript in my hands and left pieces out on purpose has absolutely no merit. It is made up self-serving BS.

  41. My first response to Glen:

    Your mind reading skills are simply amazing.

    No charge of violating the rules. No appeal for moderator involvement.

    It would appear, at least up to this point, that things were moving along just fine until Patrick decided to jump in and take sides.

  42. Mung who do you hope to convince by this rehash of your dishonest quote-mining? You lied, you got caught. The more you keep this going the bigger ass you make of yourself.

  43. It’s amusing, but also a bit pathetic, that he thinks he can talk his way out of this.

  44. Allan,

    Has anyone encountered a creationist who doesn’t try to get mileage from word meanings?

    A lot of them do it, therefore we shouldn’t object when they do? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

    Merriam-Webster gets whipped out the back pocket at the drop of a hat. If you think it’s done wrongly it’s certainly worth calling someone on it…

    The problem is the dishonesty.

    …but if you don’t get the desired result, what are you gonna do?

    You do your best. You try to encourage honesty and and to discourage dishonesty. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

    The spotlight is on Mung’s dishonesty, and he’s very uncomfortable about that. That’s a very good thing. He clearly doesn’t want to go through this again, and though he’d be ashamed to admit it, he’s going to think twice the next time the quote-mining urge, or some other mendacious urge, strikes. That doesn’t mean he won’t go ahead with it; he is Mung, after all. But we certainly don’t gain anything by pretending that dishonesty is OK or that it’s pointless to object to it.

Comments are closed.