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.
walto,
It ain’t just “occasional”. It’s continual, and Alan has even admitted that he has a lying problem. The false misogyny accusations are just the latest manifestation.
I am disappointed to see Patrick use the relative safety of AtBC to promulgate rubbish about libel that he KNOWS to be false.
Last summer Patrick wrote:
and DNA_Jock clarified:
There’s also the “honest opinion” defense available to Alan, but not to keiths, but I don’t expect Patrick to necessarily understand that. He is parroting phoodoo, FFS!
Bonus: I wasn’t sure where keiths stood on the whole perpetuating-offensive-stereotypes-of-women thing. Until now.
Jock is avoiding yet another question. (I know — what a surprise, right?)
Here it is again:
Jock:
walto:
keiths:
A couple more questions: Do you know who the person in the image is? Do you know what he’s most “famous” for?
At AtBC, Patrick has responded to DNA_Jock:
Hahahaha
Say what? That’s a moronic response.
We were talking about the legal exposure faced by the website operator, not the alleged defamer. I suspect that a court would be MORE likely to hear a case against the operator if the defamer were outside their jurisdiction.
As I explained to you last summer, the website operator can discharge their legal obligations quite easily, if they can SUCCESSFULLY identify the alleged defamer. Pretty easy for Lizzie to ID Alan, I reckon; keiths, on the other hand, has been more private, but I expect it is doable.
All that aside, the primary difference remains: the “honest opinion” defense, but I do not expect you (or phoodoo) to be able to understand that.
Separately, I am saddened that your defense against the misogyny charge is that when you sought to make fun of Mung, you likened him to a hysterical gender-bending gay man.
Oh, that’s so much better.
FYI I can log in at AtBC but get a “Sorry, you do not have permission to reply to that topic ” if I try to comment. I never got a response when I asked about that. So yes, relative safety.
“Oh, oh, the Uk libel laws. Her majesty Lizzie was in such great peril, I had to throw myself in the path of the treachery, the danger she faced was just too great. I didn’t have it out for keiths, but oh no, what about the Uk libel laws. Shed not a tear for me, I only am doing my duty to the throne. I weep when I think of the harm it might have caused. I had to protect her..oh the Uk libel laws…”
Alan Fox 2018-Martyr, Victim, Hero. Saint.
Why risk any potential liability, even minor , to facilitate keiths’ desire to be a pissant? It just isn’t a hard choice.
Lizzie:
“They proposed making the post “private” initially (i.e. invisible), while we discussed what to do, then putting the poster in “pre-moderation” – i.e. posts wait to be “released” before being made visible. My response was:
“Good call, guys!
Thanks!“
Keiths dug his own hole and she left him in it.
Says a man who has no skin in the game.
And despite all your complaining , still a moderator
…says newton, by whose standards Lizzie is a “pissant”, since she, like me, accused someone (Stephen Meyer) of dishonesty.
Also interesting is this part of Lizzie’s comment, which was not included in newton’s quote:
Ponder that. Lizzie’s response was based on false reports from the moderators, who claimed that my OP was rule-violating. It wasn’t, as Alan himself subsequently admitted.*
So this bit that newton happily quoted…
…was Lizzie’s unknowing response to a report from the moderators that was actually false.
*He also admitted that the reason he banned me for 30 days (despite the rules not permitting it) was because I was criticizing the moderators. It’s just one abuse after another with this guy.
Poor Jock is still avoiding my simple questions:
Jock:
walto:
keiths:
Why so skittish, Jock?
Here’s why. Much as I enjoy proving you wrong, keiths, it is more important to me that TSZ has at least a cat-in-hell’s chance of appealing to female members.
I already know how the conversation with you is going to go (you are rather predictable, mate) and I don’t think it will be terribly appealing to host a debate over how Patrick making fun of Mung (by likening him to a hysterical Chris Croker) perpetuates an offensive stereotype of women. Patrick’s use of the image was homophobic, transphobic, AND misogynistic, Crocker’s genitalia notwithstanding.
keiths,
To be safe Alan really should have banned Lizzie, why risk it. And of course Jock as well. Jock should be banned for sure. He is responsible for a whole rash of potential lawsuits.
And now Alan should ban himself, you know, just so as not to put the site in jeopardy. That could be his last great act as a moderator. Oh wait, Newton is wrong, Alan is not a moderator anymore. He quit that already. Now he is an admin who moderates.
What a whopper!
You don’t need to be a moderator to self-ban , anybody can do it.
Jock’s excuses keep getting more far-fetched.
He’s saying that we shouldn’t discuss the Crocker image because that would be unappealing to women. So who brought up the Crocker image in the first place? Jock. Who linked to it? Jock.
You have to admire his ability to step in it. There was the discussion of outing — a bannable offense — in the middle of which Jock, by his own standards, outed Gregory. Now, while we are discussing Alan’s false accusations of misogyny, Jock manages — you guessed it — to make a false accusation of misogyny, based on an image that isn’t misogynistic.
Patrick posted this today at AtBC:
For the record, Crocker denies that “Leave Britney Alone!” was an act. Either way, the image Patrick posted is obviously not misogynistic. Hence Jock’s inability to support his claim and his dodging of my questions.
Yes, I knew that.
When Patrick wrote at me
you corrected him, right?
Jock,
Yes, and you just quoted me doing so:
Can you now summon either
a) the courage to support your characterization of the Crocker image as “misogynistic”; or
b) the decency to retract your false accusation?
Alan disputes this lie.
Maybe if Alan is the name of your imaginary friend.
Alan claims he is not a moderator here. He is an admin who happens to moderate. So whose imaginary friend are you talking about? Do you dispute this is what he says?
Do you need me to prove that this is what Alan says, or do you just want to admit that you are spouting nonsense?
First time for everything I suppose.
Yes.
Yes please.
Might want to check to actual requirements for something to be considered a lie as well.
Can anyone here tell me why I am no longer able to access the Skeptical Zone site from my local server?
By some strange coincidence I have lost this privilege just when my disillusion has peaked.
Peace
PS Please keep in mind I would like to remain anonymous
No. Presumably you logged in elsewhere (public wifi, 4G, friend’s computer?). Maybe your home internet provider has TSZ on a banned list?
newton,
and
.
And this nonsense:
But here is the real whopper you are looking for Newton:
Apologies for calling you stupid. It is not because you are not a Christian.
newton,
There are no moderators Newton , see?
Yea, I know a lie when I see one, thanks. I guess skeptics don’t.
I’m on holiday.
Why would that be exactly? Any idea?
Is TSZ a likely virus carrier in addition to being rabidly anti-theist?
The curious thing is that the “problem” surfaces now just when the sites other deficiencies are becoming more blatant and I’ve chosen to comment on them.
peace
Try switching your tin foil hat off and back on.
fifth,
Do you remember the exact error message?
No conspiracy theory.
I’m not saying that someone here is trying to block me in some way.
But I do find it curious that TSZ is now not accessible in my particular corner of the Bible belt. I wonder if anyone else is experiencing similar issues. It might explain some of the lack of theist participation.
peace
The site just never comes up and I get something like “perhaps the server is offline or your local firewall prevents access.”
It can’t be me because it happens on both on laptop and tablet and both devices work here fine.
peace
Maybe I can help.
Per google a moderator is a person who moderates an Internet forum or online discussion.
It seems at this site the person who moderates the forum is called an admin. This admin does both administration and moderation duties as opposed purely a moderation function.
Of course, you knew this.
No problem
There are people who moderate but they are called admins. Got it.
I am wearing a white shirt, lie or not?
newton,
Stupid and unwilling to see your mistakes is not a good combination Newton. I just told you what Alan said. That makes you both stupid and unwilling to admit your mistakes. I am surprised by neither.
Maybe you are Alan.
You said lie not a mistake, I accept that the admins are the one that moderate at this site rather than “ moderators” as I mistakenly said. You are correct. Mea culpa , mea culpa ,mea maxima culpa.
This better ? Despite all your incessant complaining , Alan is still an admin who moderates. Does that change the gist of the statement?
Nope.
Maybe you are keiths.
If no one has any idea why this site can no longer be accessed by me locally. I will be saying good bye very soon.
I’ve enjoyed the experience until recently and will miss interacting with several of you.
peace
Any possible blocking software, my work computer does not like this site.
Nope my computer and laptop work just fine here. They just can’t access the site from home. The problem only just now surfaced corresponding to my recent objections to the moderation here.
peace
Perhaps the fact this site does not have an SSL certificate may be an issue. If so, there’s not much I can do as I suspect it would require the site owner’s involvement to install one. There is also an annual cost (£50 or so min) which someone would have to pay.
You’re mistaken if you think there has been any change in software at this end to prevent you accessing the site. I’ve already made this clear.
Perhaps that’s an SSL issue, too.
newton,
There was no argument, there was never an argument, for you to get the gist of. It was a statement of fact. That you didn’t know this statement of fact, that Alan claims there are no moderators just admins who moderate is your problem, not mine. I simply pointed it out to you, but in your ever persistent refusal to accept reality YOU tried to play another spin, just like Alan.
Furthermore, the whole point of this statement of facts, was to show the ridiculous of Alan’s weaseling of words, which at first went right over your head, and then eventually became the reason why you were flummoxed by it entirely.
Learn from this next time. Alan is going to bullshit, and if you question that Alan is bullshitting, you will also get stained with his bullshit. There isn’t a human being alive who would be fooled by Alan’s insane spin, except Alan, and now perhaps you.
I don’t think that is the case.
I suspect given history here that there may have been an attempt to discern where exactly I was posting from.
Is that possible?
peace
All aboard the paranoia train!
(But I somewhat nervously add here that You better not be fibbing, Alan! I think FMM is off the rails here, but I recognize that you’re not always above fibbing when pressed.)
I agree it’s paranoid. I do remember some effort of that nature surrounding a newuser that might or might not have been Patrick.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I amended my last post, because, while your fear seems completely unreasonable to me, I can see where you’re coming from if I squint.
fifth,
A couple of things to try.
1. Click on this link to myshopify.com and see if the page loads. (Like TSZ, it doesn’t support SSL.) If it doesn’t load, then perhaps your ISP is blocking insecure sites.
2. Sign up for a free VPN service and try accessing TSZ through the VPN.
ETA: #1 doesn’t work for me if I click on the link, but it does work if I enter “myshopify.com” in the address bar.
Here’s what I get if I enter “myshopify.com” directly into the address bar.
Chrome also notes that the site is “Not secure”. Look to the left of the address bar.
Yeah, SSL can’t have anything to do with FMM’s issue. If it was in use the site address would be https://theskepticalzone.com instead of http://theskepticalzone.com