Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.
comedy gold
When I set out to prove keiths wrong (and he’s correct, I do love to do it), I skip the highly subjective arguments about exactly how despicable Alan is — there’s so many of them and so little time — and focus instead on situations where I can unequivocally show that keiths is wrong, like Hempel’s Raven, objective nested hierarchies or the genetics of altruism.
🙂
DNA_Jock:
My, you have a vivid imagination.
Meanwhile, it’s amusing to see you fumbling for another bogus excuse for not defending Alan’s bogus excuse.
I disagree that the insults are counterproductive, because I don’t see why gpuccio would not get away with murder at UD if he wanted to. Nobody called him on something as obvious as not knowing what the word “arbitrary” means, for example. His using insults as an escape route or not is inconsequential.
However, I’m stopping with the insults. I’m posting here at TSZ, and maybe I should imagine that the guy was posting here just to try and keep the atmosphere that’s supposed to prevail.
To mock someone effectively you must listen to their argument and expose the flaws preferably using their own words . To call people liars and cowards is just lazy. Up your game keiths .
newton:
Silly newton. As if I haven’t been backing up my claims all along.
Let’s look at your case, for instance.
Here’s Alan’s bogus excuse:
You started out actually trying to defend that phony excuse:
keiths:
newton:
keiths:
You tried another tack, arguing that Alan’s action hadn’t changed anything, since you could still view either thread with one click:
My response:
The very idea is laughable.
Having failed in your defenses, you then started squirming to avoid my question.
I pointed out why:
Your rationalization:
My response:
And:
No counterargument from you.
Are you afraid to defend Alan’s excuse? Yes, obviously. You already failed (twice) and you have no defenses left to offer. Alan’s excuse is phony, you know it, and and you know you’d look ridiculous trying to defend an obvious lie. So instead you offer your own dishonest excuse, claiming “I’m not afraid — I’m just uninterested.”
Yeah, right.
You keep undermining your argument. The conversation from moderation 4 continues to be in view.
Again you are mistaken. I merely have to take Alan at his word, you need to do the heavy lifting. So far your argument is Alan in closing the thread was an attempt to hide something. And Alan is bad. The first is inaccurate. The second ,given your erroneous insight into my motivations, is unpersuasive.
Could you briefly summarize?
Well, no, you haven’t.
You have been providing links to a statement that Alan made. And you have sometimes quoted part of that statement.
Your biased subjective interpretation of Alan’s statement does not constitute evidence.
Well, okay, I’ll correct that. Your biased subjective interpretation of Alan’s statement does not constitute evidence about Alan. It does constitute evidence about you.
Gotta disagree with Jock, Newton, Mung and Neil here.
Certainly there can be no doubt about keiths’ dispositive demonstration(s) of my own fear, ridiculousness, dishonesty, and wound-upness (if that’s a word). No impartial observer could read a single one of his posts on those subjects and doubt any of those accusations for a second.
And even now I’m having to repress my desire to mock rather than answer some important question about Alan that has been bothering keiths for months and months.
So yeah, you guys are just wrong.
As I said:
Neil,
Then by all means share your unbiased interpretation of Alan’s statement with us, and tell us why you regard it as a valid excuse for closing comments. Here it is again, for your convenience:
Yes, and I agreed with you! Fear, Wound-upness, Ridiculousness, Dishonesty, and Tendency to Mock: thy name is walto! I don’t see how Jock, Newton and the others can’t see this!!
Nobody (other than me) needs my interpretation of what Alan wrote. People can read it for themselves. They don’t need me to tell them how to interpret it. And they don’t need keiths to tell them how to interpret it.
Heh. Not even the moderators themselves are dumb enough to try to defend Alan’s phony excuse.
newton,
You’re making a fool of yourself. Please continue.
You wrote:
As if nothing short of complete erasure would count as an attempt to sweep the evidence under the rug:
Meanwhile, you claim that Alan’s action made no difference since you can still click on the Mod Issues 4 thread. What was the point of closing comments, then? Your argument makes no sense.
Finally, you give this rationalization for not defending Alan’s excuse:
So you have no ability to judge the truthfulness of Alan’s statement on your own, and depend on others to do the “heavy lifting” for you? Besides, I have done the heavy lifting for you. I’ve shown that Alan’s excuse makes no sense. None of you — newton, Jock, walto, Neil, or even Alan himself — can defend it.
Why believe a ridiculous statement that even you are unwilling to defend?
At least he admits it when he is wrong.
Nothing new about that.
Hah. Just let ’em try. We’ll be waiting, I can tell you that!
Silence is not a defense!
A thread where those participants if they wished could continue that ongoing discussion unimpeded which you have demonstrated as fact. As a participant I feel I suffered no harm. The conversation had reverted to your standard litany of grievance which continues unabated. Your posts are easily accessible if anyone wished to view.
I see no benefit accruing to Alan, the discussion of his flaws continues , if anything a benefit would be to you , it provided you a new dead horse to flog.
Yes ,I had made that argument. Are you now asking me to provide the argument for you? We know it did not hide anything, we know other moderation threads have been closed,we know it did not prevent the discussion from continuing.
I give up, I accept Alan’s explanation.
Oh, you are in so much trouble now, Newton. You must know you suck to invite that. You’re like “Punish me!!”
Boredom is a dangerous thing.
Are you saying keiths is just bored?
No, he seems to be enjoying himself.
Alan appears not to be impressed.
Not in a good way,certainly.
Mung:
True. “Ashamed” is a better word.
He got caught lying, and he knows he can’t defend his phony excuse. So he’s laying low and waiting for this to blow over.
Newton, bless his heart, is keeping the issue in the spotlight. I’m sure Alan is grateful.
newton:
Of course you do. Unlike a brighter person, who instead of blindly accepting Alan’s excuse, would take the obvious step of checking to see if it actually made sense first.
He did what he could, as I explained:
For actual, valid reasons. Unlike Mod Issues 4, which was closed for no valid reason whatsoever.
If you disagree, then tell us: Why, specifically, do you think Alan’s reason was valid?
You continue squirming to avoid the question. No surprise there.
And you still haven’t answered this:
Because what I said was true. You are burden-shifting, motive-mongering and misrepresenting.
Yours is the claim.
Alan is lying.
Back it up or take it to Noyau.
Alan:
I’ve backed it up multiple times.
You, meanwhile, are afraid to defend your own phony excuse for closing comments. That’s revealing, to say the least.
First you disgraced yourself in the ALurker fiasco through a combination of incompetence, dishonesty, and moderation abuses. Next, you had to issue a humiliating apology for your infantile behavior. As if that weren’t already bad enough, you proceeded to abuse your moderation privileges by closing comments on Mod Issues 4 — and then lied about that, giving an excuse so bogus that even you are unwilling to defend it.
Now, in desperation, you’re lying again by pretending that I haven’t backed up my claim.
I’m curious: How much lower can you sink?
You haven’t established the claim that a statement of mine was a lie. I’m telling you that when I made that statement it was not a lie and it is still not a lie.
I’m curious how you can claim to know I was lying when I know I was not. How you propose to demonstrate that I have no idea. You keep claiming I’m lying but present no evidence of my state of mind when making the statement.
There’s a way to go to get down to your level.
Alan,
If your excuse weren’t bogus, you’d be able to defend it — and you’d do so.
How can I prove I wasn’t lying? I know what I said was what I meant. Now you seem to be admitting you can’t demonstrate my statement to be a lie. You now say you can infer it because I don’t defend it. Is telling you straight out I was not lying not defending myself against your baseless allegation?
If you can’t support your claim that my statement was a lie, I would have thought the decent thing to do was withdraw it
That’s what I did with Patrick and my suspicion that he was sockpuppeting.
Alan,
Defending your excuse would be easy if it were valid. You’d simply show that it makes sense.
It doesn’t make sense, and so you can’t defend it. Neither can anyone else.
You blew it yet again. You are, by far, your own worst enemy.
keiths,
I wasn’t lying. Do you still contend I was?
Alan,
Why the squirming? (Rhetorical question.)
If your excuse wasn’t bogus, you’d be able defend it. You’d show that it makes sense.
It doesn’t make sense. It’s a phony excuse. You had no valid reason for closing comments.
keiths,
Cut the innuendo. I’m telling you I didn’t lie. Either demonstrate that I did lie or withdraw your unsupported allegation.
Alan,
What innuendo? I’m saying flat out that your excuse was phony, and that’s why you can’t defend it.
There was no valid reason for closing comments. Your excuse is bogus.
Sure I did. Lacking an alternate explanation, I have no reason not to accept Alan’s explanation.
Care to provide one or do you prefer to just to repeat your question endlessly?
Every previous moderation thread has been closed.
That I lied.
Yes, that’s obvious. Loudly and repetitively, without the least evidence
The burden of proof is on you. You claim I lied. You justify that claim if you can. Or withdraw it if you can’t.
I stated my reason.
My reason was as stated. I know this.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you should withdraw your allegation. You demand it of others. Why the hypocrisy?
Try lying about it.
Luckily for me then because I listed the reasons I accept Alan’s explanation.
Are you lying?
What’s this, month 47 on why Alan is a liar, a terrible moderator, and an otherwise useless piece of shit? Couldn’t we have another How God is actually a prick! or It’s simply evil for those who disagree with me not to admit they’re wrong! threads? Have those gone out of fashion around here or what??!?
Bring back those great threads! This place is just sucking so hard now….
Alan,
Your excuse was bogus, as I’ve shown. Even you seem to know that, which is why you won’t even try to show that it makes sense.
If even you won’t defend it, why should anyone (apart from the ever-gullible newton) accept it?
Keep squirming to avoid my question. It makes my point beautifully.
Didn’t lie, hypocrite.