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.
Mung,
I took Rumraket’s “Lying for Jesus” to be directed at Sanford, who as a molecular biologist ought to know better, and not at johnnyb.
Why did you think that johnnyb was the target?
Ah. That didn’t occur to me. I thought he was talking about the video in the OP. But I think you are correct. How do I restore it? Basically by the same process I used to send it to Guano? By the thread ID?
As long as you’re willing to put up with phoodoo pointing out the hypocrisy in calling Swamidass a liar and treating it one way and calling Sanford a liar and treating it another way I am too. So much for the libel laws!
The ‘honest opinion’ defense is the difference there.
I read the Swamidass thread in question before keiths was ever “sanctioned”, and I saw zero support for the lying charge.
Sanford, otoh, really should know better.
I am willing to put up with pretty much anything that phoodoo writes; I view him as a comedian with a curious fixation on the sexual assault of homeless men, no more.
Re mechanics, I was able to figure out that the original post is 62802 (by looking at the URL when in ‘edit post’ mode…), so I reckon that’s how to move it back…
That worked. thanks!
Isn’t Sanford actaully a member here or do I recall incorrectly? If he is I don’t mind my post being sanctioned to guano, it was an uncalled for statement.
Sanford does not appear to be a member here.
I’m having some problems submitting a new OP to be published…
Is there a problem there? Perhaps a glitch? Some kind of a “directed mutation” in the code intended by blind processes?
I see one pending. I’m reviewing it at the moment.
Great! He can be trashed then… Who cares?
Well, J-Mac, trashing him might be unseemly, but (so long as it stays within honest opinion) not a rule violation. Were he to post here, he would acquire the protection afforded to members.
I think we have covered this previously.
Fair enough! I don’t like Sanford’s take on many things but I wouldn’t do what you say it is allowed to do…
So, rules are rules and I accept the correction…
Thanks
I have been thinking of creating a neutral zone for EV vs ID to debate…
I don’t mind paying for the new site hosting and even an admin but I need support from people who woud like to have this kind of thing…I will try to get scientists from all over the world to post and moderate thier OPs… Is it a bad idea?
See Jock spin, see Mung cower.
You know its hypocrisy, but you are willing to ignore that, as long as it keeps Jock happy?
Why did you want to be a moderator again? So you can do nothing, but at least lose your dignity while doing nothing? Jock has none to lose.
There’s no rule against hypocrisy. Obviously.
There is no rule against anything here. Likewise there are rules against everything.
Speaking of which, I submitted a post for review.
phoodoo, I suggest that you include whatever link it is that you are referencing in your post.
DNA_Jock,
Yes fair enough, I wanted to do that, but it seems when I added the link, instead of just seeing the link, it automatically embedded the video, which I din’t really want to do, because the video is actually secondary to the point of Leplaces demon conundrum, and its just too much clutter.
How can I link without embedding?
DNA_Jock,
But Ok, I have updated it.
I have an OP waiting to be published…
thanks, jmac
Your draft misrepresents other posters here, and ascribes nefarious motives to them.The latter is a rule violation.
Really? Why don’t you block most of the OPs at TSZ then?
Would you like me to link to you some of the latest ones?
How about this one?
and this one
Where were you when nefarious OP toword EricH OP was posted?
Hmm, here is me thinking that my Canadian politeness, subtlety, and careful use of the Britishism ‘one’ instead of ‘you’ would effectively mask my nefarious motives. Oh well.
Colour me red and white (no blue).
Why don’t you say what you mean for once?
How hard is it to get a Canadian citizenship? One needs something resembling and umbrella and a disc of the size of bagel to push it towards the goalposts?
What makes one a Canadian? Are you of Mongolian descent, perhaps?
It is obvious that DNA_Jock is still holding the personal grudge against me for implying that the enzymes that he had designed are not as good as the ones designed by sheer dumb luck…He is holding up my OP because of his personal feelings is not going to change anything… This is an embarrassment for this blog and the blog owner…
Why can’t people who claim to be scientists deal with their personal failure?
In a client meeting, I’m afraid.
I agree with you that Gregory’s post violated TSZ rules. I did guano his motive-mongering comment in that thread, but the OP horse had bolted.
phoodoo’s OP — thoughtless, pointless, and stupid though it might be — does not strike me as rule-breaking.
I hope you can see the difference.
What differnece? The only difference I see is your fear of my exposing your fears?
This blog has gone to the dogs… I would not pay a penny to the owner to buy…
BTW: I’m almost sure had we crossed the paths unless you are bluffing…
J-Mac,
LOL, I had forgotten that particular barb. But not to worry J-Mac, your attacking people while asking them to do you a (very minor) favor always cracks me up. In your experience, is this an effective tactic?
Sorry that I did not answer your question about the enzyme I designed. Here goes: It was “better” than the previous versions in that it saved patients’ lives more effectively (it produced the identical activity faster and in higher yield).
The enzyme story is funny because my “design” was earth-shatteringly obvious, to the point of being just plain dumb, yet it introduced over 20 bits of FIASCO in one step. It’s a living demonstration that ID-math is bogus.
Whether the target(s) post here or not.
I am not sure I understand any of this. Are you suggesting that we may have met IRL? I doubt it…
How about I show DNA_Jokes ‘s superior enzyme design in my next OP? But the question remains: Is he going to allow it to be published it?
I always say what I mean, J-M. Maybe not as directly as some.
Why do your posts seem to be so angry? Is it something I said?
Are you kidding me? I’m one of the most passionate people you have ever come across… In school and at work I have always been considered to be a clown…
Yes, I do take the issue of evolution and ID seriously and it bothers me when people deny the facts… But that doesn’t make an angry person… Quite the opposite. It motivates me to do research…This got me to where I’m today…
Call it a “failed attempt” or something like that. Worked for keiths.
For some reason I assumed you had worked on restriction enzymes at one point… You seem to know more than average about Venter’s work and at one point he was ‘shopping’ for scientists whose specialty is restriction enzymes for his “synthetic life” project and other stuff related to viruses…
J-Mac:
DNA_Jock:
J-Mac
Still don’t understand what you are getting at. My best guess is that, in your world, my working ‘on’ restriction enzymes and you thinking about them somehow constitutes our ‘crossing paths’. Yeah, I know that’s stupid, but I am genuinely at a loss here…
It is true that I have the skills that Venter was shopping for — I had been designing and building synthetic genes long before he got into that game. With restriction enzymes, even. LOL. I pasted the sequence of one of the “better” genes I made in Noyau (didn’t want to clutter other threads), so that you can demonstrate your expertise reviewing my work there. Or not.
You couldn’t pay me enough to work for Venter. He’s up there with Mullis.
I am a big Sulston fan.
I do not know you, but your posts do read as reflecting strong emotion, so I take it that is what you mean be being passionate.
I am curious about why you mentioned that you have “always been considered a clown”.
For me, I am leary about using passion and emotion in a scientific argument. I think one needs to first take care on how one arrives at the beliefs underlying one’s claims.
I do try to be funny in some of my posts, but not in the sense of being a clown. At least, that is not what I am trying to be.
Perhaps we should use that as a measure of the designer’s ability. 😉
Hey, moderators, would it be difficult to put the links to the page numbers on the thread (currently here 1234 ) now found near the botton of each page, on the tops of pages as well?
Also, please embiggen the page numbers. Fat fingers have difficulty with tiny fonts.
FWIW, I recall they use to be that way until the the ability to ignore posters was restored. So if my memory is right, that would need to be understood and dealt with.
Moderators?
It would certainly be handy. I forgot to thank dazz for already spending some time looking into the problem of the obscured “ignore” button. That was sorted by taking an update on the theme we are using. Don’t know if he’d want to have a look at that for us. I could have a play on the test site myself but I don’t really have the time or the skill.
You mentioned SophistiCat a while ago which set me wondering when he last posted. Amazingly, his last comment was to offer us a program that worked as an “ignore” button.
See above, I agree on both having links at the top of the page and larger.
There is also the possibility of upgrading to a more recent theme. Don’t know how members might feel about that.
The problem was the button being obscured due to being under the comment signature.
What do folks think about trying to get comment numbers back? Sorting the glitch with comment links? Do we still need page breaks in comments?
I don’t understand the question. By comment numbers, do you mean the list of comment links that is now only at the bottom? Or something else?
I do find those missing comment page links inconvenient, but I am not sure what tradeoff you are proposing for getting them back.
BruceS,
I was just asking what changes folks would like. I agree on extra and bigger page links. I also think it would be great if the “quote comment” plugin worked better. People have mentioned having comment numbers attached to comments and I wondered if someone was feeling up to the challenge of having a go sorting it all in one hit. Maybe looking at a newer theme as well.
Ideally, there would be no downside.
OK. If there are no tradeoffs, why not do it all?
It sounds like there is a need for someone who understands the technical possibilities (ie not me!) to explore all of your list and them come back with any tradeoffs.
Once the possibilities and trade-offs are understood, to be true to my duties as an ex-project manager, I have to recommend change control. That is, do one thing at a time and make sure you have an easy backout of it should the change fail in production.
Re: the (lamented) departure of Sophisticat, I think someone might pass along to him/her, hotshoe, and, maybe Replicating (?) Bill, that both keiths and patrick are gone and seem not be coming back–to see if that might give them the impetus to return themselves. Those three are all sorely missed (by me, anyhow), and I think it was keitrick that drove them all away. I know it was in hotshoe’s case.
They certainly made the board more diverse.
It would be nice.
walto,
BruceS suggested we could email absent members inviting them to participate again. I’d especially like to hear female voices here. On the other hand, I’ve tried that with Lizzie, so far without much success.
_hotshoe vs J-Mac. I’d pay to see that.
The difference is that hotshoe was a regular contributor for a long time. Lizzie never participated here much. (And not at all since I’ve been here.)