Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions. This thread has been reissued as a post rather than a page as the “ignore commenter” button does not apply to threads started as pages.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Mung,
It was a reply to a guanoed post, so continuity required that it also be moved.
Thanks for the explanation. Please consider publishing the new “continuity rule” on the rules page.
Haha. I didn’t break the rules, you did. And for that my post got sent to guano. Please try to do better.
Nah. I knew that my comment would go to guano. I understand the rules. I just didn’t care. You’re still a self-despising sad excuse of a human being.
It isn’t a new rule. Elizabeth was practicing this from the start of guano.
Neil Rickert,
It would be a pretty mindless game on this website, deciding which posts you can respond to, and which you couldn’t, just in case they might get sent to guano.
Anyway, at least now we know that if its about calling someone a shit stain, or shit for brains, or something of that quality, go ahead and respond, because that won’t get moved.
I had the exact same thought. Punished for failing to accurately predict whether a post to which you are responding will be sent to Guano. Laughable.
Neil is making it up as he goes along. Elizabeth’s practice concerned the quoting of posts that had already been sent to Guano.
Mung,
Not true.
You missed some. “derp” is an insult in the language of dazz. And calling someone dazz is an insult in the language of Mung.
Oh, and why attack an idea when you can get some folks all bent out of shape if you just question the idea?
Why is this post in guano, if calling someone a shit stain was not moved. Have the moderators still not kicked their meth habit?
It appears you are unfamiliar with the concept of “substantial truth” meaning that if the gist of a story is truthful, and only a small detail is wrong, then it’s not considered defamation.
So some lying asshole like J-Mac can stupidly say that I’m “confused,” but I can’t call him the dullard that he is?
How the fuck is there supposed to be a discussion when fucktards like J-Mac read what I wrote about the difference between the formation of the Grand Canyon and the formation of strata and then attack a strawman that I don’t understand cross-bedding? I know you always favor shithead liars from the other side, but that’s as stupid as the rule that no one can tell the truth about lying, stupidity, and the gross incompetence of a complete moron like J-Mac (or at least the character, if he’s the sock puppet of some troll).
It’s always the offense that is protected here, the libels. It’s true that I don’t want to discuss things with some idiot who thinks cross-bedding is some special knowledge that he picked up from other dumbfucks, and who is too damned stupid even to understand simple writing. That’s why his pathetic lies should be dismissed rather simply with a note of what a dumbfuck he is. As it is, however, libel is protected, defense against libel is moved to guano. The stupidity of rules contrary to the rule of law is about the same level as J-Mac’s idiocy.
Look, the dumbfuck is too stupid to know that cross-bedding is very common in glacial outflow. Not that this has anything to do with the Coconino layer, but then no one has seriously proposed that glaciers had anything to do with carving the Grand Canyon anyhow. He’s so wrong one doesn’t even know where to begin with his dumbfuckery.
But lies and stupidity will always be sacred here, while calling anyone on their stupidity and dishonesty will be guanoed. Because we can’t be bothered with honesty here.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
I love you too Glen… Keep searching for the truth…
You can lead a horse to water… I don’t know how it is possible to enforce a discussion on facts, reality and evidence. I suspect it is only possible to encourage one. This site enables discussion across a wide variety of topics. It is for participants to use the opportunity as best they can.
I’m dubious about the “liar” accusation. I work with the definition that a lie is a statement that someone makes when they, at the time they make it, do not believe it themselves. People can believe the most ridiculous things. Pointing out facts can be much more effective than railing against the perceived honesty of thse with whom we disagree, however fundamentally.
Well, I dunno. Claims and facts supported by evidence carry more weight, in my view at least, than name-calling. Lurkers should be given credit for distinguishing between sense and nonsense.
Candidate for quote of the year.
There is no such rule you pathetic whiner. You can say all those things, in Noyau, without fear of your post being sent to Guano. Grow up or go somewhere else to “discuss” things.
ETA: I just love these baseless tirades.
Alan Fox,
You shouldn’t tolerate comments under the influence…
Then again, how often are you able to have proof of comments like that?
Mung,
Nuh…Glen is an accomplished …something… or his family is…or somethin…
Sal should know better…
Apparently he knows stuff about rocks. Seems about right for him.
Yup! Rock is his thing… or that’s what his delusion is making him belief…
That would be a nice change.
Oh really? Why do these disgusting liars get to libel?
That’s so lame. Asshole liars like J-Mac just say whatever they want without even caring if it’s true. There’s a certain amount of care that people are expected to take to make sure that what they write is true, while J-Mac just says any damned lie that he hopes is true. Of course he’s too stupid to know the difference between truth and lies, but libel also occurs when people have a reckless disregard for truth. J-Mac doesn’t give a fuck about truth.
Oh yeah, J-Mac can be reasoned with. Not when he’s lying and you don’t even care that he’s dishonestly attacking.
I could deal with an honestly ignorant person.
So why are his false claims fine?
Then why are there anti-defamation laws?
We’re supposed to wade through the endless lies of a J-Mac in order to get to some semblance of truth? If he began with a certain amount of knowledge and with enough honesty to care about truth that would be one thing, but he’s too fucking stupid (or acts like he is) to bother with getting the most basic facts right. There’s no point in being ground down by fools.
I really have no time or patience to deal with attacks like J-Macs, which are against the rules anyway, you just don’t care. The fuckhead is confused about everything, and there’s no reason that one should have to deal with his mindless projections.
Glen Davidson
That’s rather obviously true Glen, as you manage to live with yourself with no problem.
Looks like this blog is sliding further to the dogs…
Tom English’s password protected OP content is just another nail in the coffin…
I’m not going to mention other issues as most are probably aware that this blog has become the validation zone for few very insecure individuals who come here to boost their self esteem … In orders to accomplish that they bully the admins about what content can be published to prevent the ones that could possibly offend their overinflated ego and intelligence…
What a shame!
Maybe it’s time to rename this blog to The Protected Zone?
Maybe the admins will stop censoring you if you promise to password protect all your OPs. Because then John would not have to read them unless he wanted to.
I wonder if there is a plugin that will allow me to password protect all my posts and not just an OP.
Mung,
I don’t want Harshman to read my OPs even if he wants to… his beliefs in miraculous evolutionary theory insults my intelligence…
Password protected OPs tell me thing; the author is a coward, not able to face the criticism… why bother to publish if you don’t want people to expose your falsehood?
What’s the big deal with that?
To always does that. He keeps his posts password protected until he is ready to publish. And then he removes the protection.
Neil Rickert,
Why publish if you are not ready to publish? It makes no sense and it’s confusing to new visitors….
Tom probably hit a wrong button. Accidents happen.
Alan Fox writes:
I’ve been lurking here (and at Panda’s Thumb and Uncommon Descent) since the Kitzmiller trial*. I’ve created an account because I’d like to respond to this for purely selfish reasons, namely that I value the contributions of Glen Davidson, Rumraket, Joe Felsenstein, and John Harshman in particular** and would not like to see them participate here less. I am concerned that will be the outcome of moving accurate comments like Glen’s to Guano.
Glen is correct when he says “J-Mac doesn’t give a fuck about truth.” J-Mac is disingenous at best, when he’s not simply blatently dishonest. That’s an issue with nearly every creationist here. For example, colewd demonstrates disregard for the truth when he ignores previous discussions and raises old arguments that have been already refuted. Mung is simply a troll, more concerned with getting any response than contributing more than useless word lawyering. Sal Cordova clearly wants to step into Duane Gish’s shoes; he has no business on a site where people are supposed to act in good faith.***
The admins of this site have a choice to make. They can either continue to protect dishonest people from having their dishonesty pointed out or they can recognize that moving comments like Glen’s to Guano will ultimately lower the quality of material on this site. As a long time lurker, I’d much rather see more of Glen, Rumraket, Joe, John, and similar informative, educational participants than of the resident creationists.
Frustrating your high quality participants reduces their contributions and attracts more low quality participants. I urge the admins to take this into account when deciding when it makes sense to apply a rule.
Thank you for running this site. I’m going back under my rock now.****
* The anniversary is coming up on Wednesday. Have you finished your Kitzmas shopping?
** This is not an exclusive list, I mean no offense to others who provide solid scientific commentary.
*** This is not an exclusive list. The only two theists I’ve seen behave remotely decently here are vjtorley and Robert Byers, and one of them isn’t playing with a full deck.
**** That’s where lurkers lurk, right? Frankly, I don’t know how you all have so much time to spend here. I can barely keep up just reading two or three times a week.
I’m not arguing that you are wrong, but I have never seen that before. Didn’t even know it is an option, and I have been posting here for years.
So in spite of what it says people cannot actually enter their password to view the contents?
You would not normally see them, unless you look at unpublished posts. I have to look at those, to see if there are any that require administrator action.
I think Tom accidently published this one while still password protected.
Very few of Glen’s posts have been moved to Guano.
It is possible to make accurate posts without including personal insults. Whether or not you consider the insults to be accurate, they are still unnecessary and inappropriate.
Missed this line in my first reply.
It is not asking for your password. It is asking for the password that Tom assigned to his post. I have no idea what that is. I am also unable to read or preview the post.
Not only that, but Glen can make all the insulting post he wants without having them sent to Guano, as the site rules are set up to allow that. Hell, just look at his post earlier in this thread which didn’t get sent to Guano.
So all this faux concern about not being allowed to say what someone wants to say is just so much bullshit. Whining complaints about not being able to say what is on one’s mind ought to be sent to Guano, because that’s what they are.
While I appreciate a quick response from an admin, you’ve completely failed to address the meat of my comment. I was unnecessarily wordy, so let me pare it down to two points:
a) Bad content drives out good. By using the rules to protect bad content from criticism in the same thread it is posted in, you encourage more of it.
b) If you’re going to have rules against pointing out dishonesty, you should have rules against perpetuating dishonesty. That would eliminate 80 percent or more of the creationist comments here.
And now I am going to stick the flounce. It’s way too easy to get sucked into this.
There is no rule against pointing out dishonesty. Your claim that there is such a rule is simply false.
Now you get to make the same claim yet again and prove that you’re not just a liar but also a hypocrite!
Anti-creationist zealots are their own worst enemy. They will lie through their teeth and not think twice about it. It’s no wonder that they cannot be taken seriously.
Bad content is not being protected, although I suppose that depends on what you mean by “bad”.
There are no rules against pointing out that a claim or assertion is false. You can point out that a claim is false, without accusing the claimant of dishonesty.
Stick to discussing the comment, rather than the people who make those comments.
It has become painfully obvious that ALurker would like “the truth”, as he sees it, to prevail and the “dishonesty”, as he sees it, to be censored…
So, let’s just interpret ALurker’s demand:
He values comments by those who support his views-which he calls the truth…
On the other hand, he resents comments by those who expose his views as false-which he calls dishonesty…
ALurker, you have made your points and you have definitely come across as the lover of truth, as you see it….
Please don’t attempt to repeat yourself. We get it!
I don’t know how this works…
Anyway, I glanced at the title of Tom’s upcoming OP and can’t wait for it to be published…I have prepared a couple of mathematical challenges for him in regards to ID/Information …
I hope he does better this time because on his last OP he failed miserably to address the issue with directed, non-random mutations via quantum coherence…
For those who would like to participate in the hot discussion, please research mutational hot spots, and directed, quantum mutations…
I will catch you later Tom!
What is he supposed to address?
A hypothesis (that has been around for ~20 years) with no supporting data is a tad bit difficult to address in any fashion.
Hypothesis and speculations are Tom’s and his partners’ Joe F livelihood…
If they had ever gone to the real lab and preformed some real experiments, such as mutagenesis experiments, maybe they wouldn’t be spreading speculations and unrealistic assumptions as scientific facts….
Lizzie’s original intent was to create a venue where people with widely differing views could attempt to discuss them in an attempt to clarify those differences — a “Field of Dreams” if you like and perhaps attainable only in fiction. If you have any ideas how changes might improve on the “Field”, I’d be glad to hear them.
This website is bound by the laws of libel. That aside, I agree the present rules have a loophole regarding repeats of unsupported and false claims. I’d be in favour of some ultimate sanction on such, perhaps akin to treatment of false advertising claims.
As I said, charges of lying are difficult to prove, and unnecessary to trashing a false or nonsensical claim.
Claims should be supported by facts and evidence. Claims that are demonstrably false should not be repeated. How to deal with the issue while not censoring is the hard part. I’m open to ideas. I don’t see that allowing us all to call each other liars solves anything.
To protect people from libellous and false attacks on their integrity. TSZ complies with those laws that apply in this area.
When comments drop to the level of content you suggest, ignoring them is an option.
You may have a point, in that I care less about the arguments over Creationism and “Intelligent Design” than I used to. I think the battles have been won and the war lost to Betsy de Vos and Trump.
ALurker,
I don’t have time to reply in detail but I’ve read your comment. The rules were set up originally by Dr. Elizabeth Liddle, TSZ’s founder and owner. Any significant rule changes will have to wait for her to decide. Personally, I agree there is a problem if a member decides to post unsupported and erroneous claims in the face of challenges to supply evidence. On the other hand, I’m opposed to censorship.
Anyone with a workable suggestion, I’d be pleased to hear it.
Indeed.
Alan,
We have been over this issue many times…it’s nothing new…
As you have said before, some people here are very sensitive (about their beliefs) and any serious criticism causes the floodgates of complains…
So, lets not waste time about what is the truth and what is not…because by now most people on this blog fully understand that ” the truth” to the majority, not only on this blog, is relative…unfortunately…
That is why I have adopted the phrase:
“The truth…as one sees it…” which applies to most…
As you may realize by now, I have no problem exposing and criticizing both sides of the belief systems including the ID/Religious, which got me in trouble recently at UD…
So, the solution to this problem is simple: If people don’t like their beliefs exposed or criticized, they should go to other blogs or start their own blogs, where they are going to “listen to what they want to hear”, or “the truth”, as they see it…
This blog should not be what it has become; the therapeutic tool for the very few to boost their low self-esteem…
The founder is this blog intended for ALL (especially UD) to come here and express their ideas and views without censorship…which is not what’s being applied here because of the very few who feel that their intelligence is insulted when their preconceived beliefs are threatened…
I can see already the effects of that; a handful of regulars commenting on the same subject over and over again… I don’t think that’s what this blog’s initial intention was but it sure has become like a blog for retired widows who keep recalling the good days with their deceased husbands over and over again…everyday…
They get really lost unless they can argue about young earth creationism. It’s like they are still living in the days of Henry Morris and Duane Gish.
ok, so saying that someone is confused is addressing the person not the content of their post. So I agree with Glen that J-Mac’s post should have been sent to Guano.
But let’s be serious. Do the two admins we have left really have enough time on their hands to baby-sit all the anti-theist, anti-Christian, anti-creationist, anti-ID crowd here and their constant violations of the rule to address the post and not the perceived failings of the poster? So suck it up Glen. Time to put on some big boy pants.
Or start complaining about your compatriots posts too and clean up your own posts.
Salvador can be accused of being in error but Glen cannot be accused of being confused. I sense a double standard here.
Please remind Glen of the rule to address the content and not the perceived failings of the person making the comment.
What a piece of work.
And this is why J-Mac can write that Glen is confused and not have his post sent to Guano and why people like ALurker ought to stick to lurking.