Moderation Issues (6)

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.

1+

1,676 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)

  1. Gregory,

    It’s not a threat to dox you. Your IRL ID is well known.
    In all honesty, I don’t understand why you are being so coy about revealing your handle at PS. According to your claims (on the Munging ID thread), your posts at PS were “fair, credible and defensible” and you were (by implication) “clearer, more articulate and accurate than they [JS & DV] are”. You also claim that you were banned because you were an “expert on the topic & he [JS] is a rank amateur suffering from an inflated ego.”
    Why are you hiding your light under a bushel? It is so unlike you…
    While I second Neil’s suggestion that if you want to start a fight, you should go elsewhere, but I do feel it is only fair to warn you that you are coming across right now like keiths, but without the intelligence.

    0
  2. DNA_Jock,

    Why don’t you post your address here Jock? I want to send you a birthday gift.

    I would send Mung one as well, but he is hiding under some bushes until trouble passes over.

    0
  3. Neil Rickert: Moved a post to guano.

    Elizabeth has unambiguously stated her desire that nothing in this thread should be censored unless it violates the basic standards she defined, posting porn, etc.

    You’ve clearly exceeded your authority.

    0
  4. Neil Rickert: If you want to start a fight, do it somewhere else other than at TSZ.

    Don’t be a hypocrite Neil. You bought into Joshua’s claim that I am a “Sealion” in spite of the fact that he offered not a single supporting example to support his bullshit claim.

    Joshua is free to suppress dissenting opinions at his site. TSZ is not supposed to be like that.

    0
  5. Lizzie has stated, in her absence, she expects her admins to act as they see fit. In the case of disagreement, the majority view among admins should prevail. I think some back-channel discussion is needed.

    0
  6. Many years ago, I regularly visited TSZ as it gave informed and interesting discussions.
    Then I lost interest in the topic of ID and evolution, and did not look at TSZ for a number of years.
    In the past months, I read TSZ again. I was rather surprised. Instead of finding informed opinion and good discussion, I found run-of-the-mill anti-evolution ranting. This site has fallen in bad hands. The present management should resign.

    0
  7. Peter,

    Yea, where is all the run of the mill evolution ranting they used to have!

    But don’t worry Peter, the mods are trying their best to rid the site of opposing views. So far they have targeted Joe, J Mac, Me, and now Gregory for ban warnings even though there is no banning.

    There would be even more evolution rantings if they hadn’t banned keiths (they call it moderating…) , but then his transgression was being the enemy of Alan.

    Even forced Alan out of retirement just to punish him.

    Keep your chin up, it will be a complete echo chamber soon enough. Plus they added a new moderator, Neville Chamberlain.

    0
  8. Mung: You’ve clearly exceeded your authority.

    I welcome Elizabeth to adjudicate this. My best guess is that she would agree with my decision. But who knows?

    0
  9. Mung: Don’t be a hypocrite Neil. You bought into Joshua’s claim that I am a “Sealion” in spite of the fact that he offered not a single supporting example to support his bullshit claim.

    I expressed an opinion. And that did happen somewhere other than at TSZ. So where’s the hypocrisy?

    0
  10. Since Neil won’t call a threat a threat, we’re simply stuck with injustice by a biased moderator here. Thanks to the other moderator who re-instated my posts, which do not veer anywhere near libel or defamation in responding to Joshua’s baiting & threats at doxing. “[W]e will unmask your ID on PS” is a threat, no matter how you slice it. This kind of thing is what defines S. Joshua Swamidass as a bully, and a disrespectful one at that who simply can’t help himself from diminutizing my name out of condescension.

    Again, I repeat: Joshua Swamidass isn’t much of a ‘fight’ on the topics that I wish to engage him. He’s rather a pushover, who pretends to speak with authority that he doesn’t have. This is the kind of stuff that makes natural scientists look bad, when they try to dictate to others outside of their own knowledge. Unfortunately, it happens far too often (D.S. Wilson & E.O. Wilson, case in point) & that’s a significant problem Joshua isn’t addressing. I don’t wish to ‘start a fight’ with him, but rather to defend myself from the lies & slander of others who advise him.

    The fact that Jon Garvey told Joshua I had ‘outed’ someone at TSZ right before Joshua banned me at PS, which happened during a thread on ‘methodological naturalism’ in which Joshua was as usual simply spewing scientistic nonsense, is what bothers me. 1) I don’t like to be lied about & think a Christian such as Jon should at least apologise for that (in his defense, he simply might have misunderstood what ‘outing’ means, but we won’t know until he opens his mouth about it in ‘confession’). 2) It’s not like Joshua is a saint in his heavy-handed moderation, thread-splitting & demands of entitlement. That has been noticed & acknowledged by others here as well, so it really matters little if Neil Rickert wishes to deflect from that.

    The thing is it’s largely an in-house discussion between theists that Joshua has now elevated here in baiting me to ‘out’ myself for a pseudonym I used at his site. Since I’m not an ‘evangelical’ – thank God for that! – there’s a problem with the ‘style’ of Joshua’s approach that I’m simply not going to adopt. His outright flattery of keiths here at TSZ to attract him to PS revealed how hard Joshua is trying. I simply do not support this type of evangelicalistic attitude, which in my view is what has led to such ‘culture warring’ mentalities to begin with. Catholics & Orthodox aren’t like these immature feisty, individualistically self-righteous Protestants who have dominated the creation vs. evolution landscape for too many years. I’m simply one repetitive voice pointing this out.

    Would Joshua allow me to post at PS using my real name there? Even if he would, I really strongly don’t like how he treated one particular person there & don’t feel I would get a fair shake from Joshua with his demands of entitlement (just like his language to Mung there recently). So it’s better just to watch & see what kind of threshold PS can reach, now strengthened with Templeton money to promote his GAE hypothesis.

    I’ll openly admit that I approached PS with probably the wrong attitude, as it was still early on & unclear what the goal was. Swamidass talks boldly & sometimes crudely & I find that off-putting. He’s also shown to me that he has little humility, which is supposed to be a Christian virtue.

    As written on his site rather than the forum, I stand corrected: Joshua’s Evangelical Covenant Church affiliated, not LCMS. The difference in these sectarian protestant churches surely must be significant. Joshua nevertheless knows all too well that he comes out of a backwards church tradition on the topic of evolution & that the people he meets in the pews constitute a problem that is not commonly found in Catholic & Orthodox churches. He’s fighting his own battle against his family of YECists & dragging others into it, just like BioLogos is doing. The rest of us are well ahead of that & thus it can be bothersome to be forced backwards into a way of thinking that most people have already moved beyond.

    To repeat & clarify: I SUPPORT the existence of PS & think it has a valuable role given Joshua’s recently tenured position (otherwise he wouldn’t risk trying what he’s doing now) & field of study. I don’t support the haughtiness I’ve faced in Joshua from day 1 at BioLogos, where I thought he made a mess of things & unnecessarily forced the issue with pride. Their mission is *not* to be on the cutting edge of science; it is to ‘convert’ YECists like his non-mainstream evangelical protestant family & friends to accept limited biological evolutionary theories. In that task, they have done exactly what their mission aims to do & I applaud their efforts & activities in doing that. Again, since I have also been banned at BioLogos, it’s not like I have reason to defend them over Swamidass without due cause.

    Joshua, however, is promoting ‘genealogical Adam’ (most often forgetting ‘Eve’ & establishing no consistency why he does that) & what he foolishly calls “the Science of Adam.” This nonsense needs to stop & I’m aware of other scholars & theologians who agree, but are too evangelicalistically polite to say so. When Joshua finally, if he ever gets up the courage, ventures outside of his safe, protected, comfortable, familiar evangelical circles & tries to promote these things among what he (rather misleadingly, but understandably, given his milieu) calls ‘secular scientists’, this little game will quickly run its course. When will he finally try to publish GAE in an actual science journal, instead of in evangelical protestant publications or speak about it at science conferences, instead of at favoured churches with his California drawl & folksy evangelicalism to woo them?

    Swamidass is pushing a confusing mixture of science with theology, not so differently than the IDM, while railing against it & defending MNism. Not so wise after all.

    0
  11. I see. As it appears that Gregory wants to continue discussing his time at PS. I’m thankful for his support, but at this time want to clear the record.

    First, he was not banned for “winning an argument” but for a long string of bad behaviuor that culminated with posting this tweet (@redacted-AF):

    >Pretentious #Washington University #creationist @swamidass targets @RTB_FRana proclaiming “the falsification of your model”. How does @NCSE like Josh’s “science & genetics of #Adam”? Isn’t this anti-@BioLogosOrg #evangelicalism so cute? @Evolutionistrue

    Second, his handle at PS is [redacted-AF]. Somewhat entertainingly, he insisted on being referred to with feminine pronouns, even when it became clear to us that it was a cis-man posing as a woman (why?). I encourage the curious to see if they can find evidence of the fiction he has been weaving.

    Third, in one of the more bizarre exchanges with [redacted-AF], he insisted that atheism and unbelief are evil ideologies that needed to be stamped out. https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/taking-a-stand-against-evil-and-unbelief

    All these reasons, and more, are why Greg is no longer allowed at PS. Thank you, Greg, for giving me an opportunity to clarify this.

    0
  12. Peter:
    Many years ago, I regularly visited TSZ as it gave informed and interesting discussions.Then I lost interest in the topic of ID and evolution, and did not look at TSZ for a number of years.In the past months, I read TSZ again. I was rather surprised. Instead of finding informed opinion and good discussion, I found run-of-the-mill anti-evolution ranting. This site has fallen in bad hands. The present management should resign.

    I quite agree that the quality of discussion at TSZ has plummeted drastically since it was founded, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the management. It’s not their fault that most of the intelligent, interesting people have left TSZ and we’re left with incompetent buffoons. The bad always drives out the good: that’s how institutions fail.

    0
  13. swamidass: All these reasons, and more, are why Greg is no longer allowed at PS. Thank you, Greg, for giving me an opportunity to clarify this.

    Swamidass,

    There is a fine line between free expression of opinions and slander…

    I’m sympathetic to your view of the situation mainly because of Gregory’s record of borderline slander at TSZ targeted at people other than you…

    This doesn’t make Gregory’s views necessarily wrong or false…This could very well boil down to the difference of opinions…

    I hope you can resolve this issue in a civil way and soon…

    0
  14. Kantian Naturalist:
    It’s not their fault that most of the intelligent, interesting people have left TSZ and we’re left with incompetent buffoons.

    Hey, one does one’s best!

    0
  15. Moderators feuding. With each other. In public.

    What’s next?

    Could even the most fair minded philosopher become cynical about TSZ?

    Oh, wait…

    0
  16. swamidass,

    You’re welcome for prompting you to reveal the kind of low-class human being you are, Sanjay J. Swamidass. You’ve gone against accepted internet protocol in first outing my real name & then exposing my pseudonym, just as you had already done to your Moderators. That’s a symbol of your deviant malicious character when you don’t get your way discussing ideas, rather than actually seeking peace and a sign you shouldn’t be trusted. Your decision here to violate my privacy will continue to haunt you as a ‘Christian’ man no matter what happens moving forward.

    Let’s check the record. We have Jon Garvey, who apparently still thinks I ‘outed’ his collaborator when it is obvious to everyone here, including the atheist moderators at TSZ, that I did no such thing. The atheists here somehow have held to higher morals than comfortable smug Garvey in the UK! And I’ve been told (not by Mung) that Garvey recently used my real name on PS as well, which is just another testament to the pride & wrath of this ‘kind English country gentleman.’ Swamidass just today added my real name to PS (8 months after the fact!), continuing his internet betrayal of proper conduct. He must really want to try to offend me due to how badly he fares when he actually tries to discuss his novel ideology with me! = P

    Outing someone online is now part of the ‘Christian’ witness of both S. Joshua Swamidass & Jon Garvey. This fact should give people serious pause to consider who these ambitious ‘genealogical Adam’ proponents actually are & how far they’re willing to go to silence critics of their position. Mired in a ‘racism’ dispute at BioLogos that it seems *HE* initiated himself by first using the word ‘racist’ against BioLogos, Swamidass has apparently such incivility even to think he is above common decency.

    It is simply a fact that Swamidass called out Fazale Rana as I reported. Why try to hide this? You’ve called out others too, with braggadocio that to this friendly Canadian seems rather reminiscent of your President, not of a balanced or careful scholar. The pretentiousness, well, we are seeing it in action & how bent on power you have become with your claims to becoming a ‘fifth voice’ & appealing to an ’empty chair.’ Your condescending & sometimes taunting words towards BioLogos all follow the same pattern.

    As for the pseudonym, it was/is a play on words: ‘anti-‘ & ‘aunty.’ The term ‘evology’ is a neologism that I didn’t really develop, though the ‘logic’ behind creating such an umbrella term that crosses the natural sciences, social sciences & humanities still holds. I haven’t attempted to publish the term; it was meant to be playful. = P People at PS started addressing me with a feminine pronoun (it’s not uncle evology, after all, so no blame on them for doing that) & I didn’t respond to it. The imputation of ill-intent is all on Joshua once again. As I recall, it was only when Swamidass starting referring to me as ‘him’ that I took exception, when he started pressuring me because he intuited who I was, and which led quickly to trouble.

    Swamidass’ obvious aim & intent to try to hurt me here now reveals plainly the heart of this man more than any contribution to ‘science’ he will likely ever make. ‘Genealogical scientist’ Swamidass has already admitted he is not. Notice he came here to bait me & pick a fight, not to have a discussion about ideas? Notice he didn’t answer my two questions above, as is typical of this man when it comes to me asking clear & direct, yet uncomfortable questions of his evangelical ‘confessional’ ideology & looseness with the English language? He has simply not been able to respond with grace & humility when being called out for his ongoing follies, as I am clearly honed in on them & ready to point them out when demonstrated.

    Garvey’s ‘nice guy like me’ protection of an insidious ‘autonomous Christian’ IDist is what has driven this whole episode into a downward spiral leading to where we are now. That man who shall remain unnamed has imo done more damage to the science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversation than just about anyone I could name in the ‘theist’ camp (worse than Ken Ham & perhaps even Kent Hovind) & it’s a predictable sadness that has unfortunately all but ruined his academic career. In short, Expelled Syndrome is to blame for what made that happen due entirely to the ideology of IDism.

    It would be better for the three of them to sort it out in prayer & kindness seeking forgiveness, rather than just continuing to soil themselves by ‘outing’ & taunting me. Dirty laundry for others to see is all that has been produced by Joshua forcing the issue & I’m simply not going to back down to this Missouri scientist bully. He still insists on showing disrespect by diminutizing my name & not referring to me by the name listed. It’s all part of the arrogant scientist role he’s chosen; one can only imagine how he behaves with his YECist family!

    In short, this trouble is all about Swamidass’ aspirations to become a ‘big whig’ in ‘science, philosophy & theology/worldview’ discourse. I’m just a friendly neighbourhood sociologist (the only one who’s been watching this conversation for @15 years with skin in the game). From what I’ve witnessed in the past, people who try to do this are headed for ignominy rather than the evangelicalistic fame they are clearly seeking.

    Humble yourself, Swamidass, & seek psychological post-evangelical help for the sake of everyone involved. Jon may finally admit to you that he lied about me, since I haven’t ‘outed’ anyone online, if you actually ask him. Instead, you’ve joined the ranks of angry bigots who ‘out’ & expose people on the internet just because you think you are entitled to. Congratulations.

    0
  17. Moderators (and Mung):
    Rumrakets response to stcordova in Common Descent by ID? is out of line. At least half of the posts he ever writes are personal, and you never warn him or threaten to ban him.

    You want quality posts, and stcordova gives a very informed and researched post to Paul Nelson, and Rummy tries to smear it with his religion manifesto, because he is so angry that God is a meanie.

    At least one of the moderators, please do your job for once.

    0
  18. phoodoo:
    Moderators (and Mung):
    Rumrakets response to stcordova inCommon Descent by ID? is out of line.At least half of the posts he ever writes are personal, and you never warn him or threaten to ban him.

    You want quality posts, and stcordova gives a very informed and researched post to Paul Nelson, and Rummy tries to smear it with his religion manifesto, because he is so angry that God is a meanie.

    At least one of the moderators, please do your job for once.

    This is true!
    If TSZ is to attract and keep quality ID proponents, like Paul Nelson, W.E Loening or even Mike Behe, Rum’s garbage has to go…

    0
  19. Gregory: . You’ve gone against accepted internet protocol in first outing my real name & then exposing my pseudonym, just as you had already done to your Moderators. That’s a symbol of your deviant malicious character when you don’t get your way discussing ideas, rather than actually seeking peace and a sign you shouldn’t be trusted. Your decision here to violate my privacy will continue to haunt you as a ‘Christian’ man no matter what happens moving forward.

    Are you suggesting that Swamidass broke the law?

    0
  20. J-Mac,

    The problem here is that the moderators don’t want to actually do THE JOB.

    They want to be powerful, and be able to settle scores, and have their little vendettas, but they don’t want to read posts and decide which are personal attacks, and which aren’t. Half the time they will just say, Oh, we don’t have time to see everything, do our jobs for us, show us the posts..and then we will still do nothing. You know, unless its someone we don’t like.

    I show Alan a post by Dazz, who never contributed anything here, a post where all Dazz says is, “I predict next time you will write more retarded screeds” and what does Alan do? He removes my post for asking him to do something about it, so that normal discussion can continue.

    What kind of pathetic set of values does this Alan guy have? What a jerkoff. And he is in charge.

    0
  21. phoodoo: I show Alan a post by Dazz, who never contributed anything here, a post where all Dazz says is, “I predict next time you will write more retarded screeds” and what does Alan do?

    I agree.
    Mung is 1 against 3 biased moderators…Rum and Entropy pollute OPs with their anti-religious hate… Dazz should have been banned long ago for his trolling…
    TSZ needs forum layout and participants input on banning trolling or hateful comments just like at PS…

    0
  22. Can I point out to those less familiar with TSZ that there is a “gloves off” thread called Noyau for those wishing not to be restricted regarding insulting other members.

    This thread is intended solely for raising moderation issues at TSZ.

    Reminder on the rules on “outing”.

    Don’t use this site to try to “out” other internet denizens or indulge in ad hominem speculations. Such speculations may, notwithstanding general principles regarding deletion, be deleted. ETA 13th June 2015: please read the guidlines in ETA6 below and note that the rule applies even if the person in question has made the information possible to find out)

    [ETA 6]

    ETA6, June 13th, 2015): Below is a copy&paste from a a post of mine in a discussion regarding the outing rule:

    It is part of the founding philosophy of TSZ that no-one “deserves” to be banned. People are banned for one reason only: to ensure that we don’t get posts containing the very narrow range of material that is not allowed here, namely porn/malware (or links to); and material that gives the RL identity of people known to us by their internet names, without their permission (also known, I understand, as “doxxing”).

    There are a couple of grey areas regarding that last one but I think I have made the boundaries clear, and will try to make them clearer still:

    Firstly: If someone has made it clear who they are in RL, e.g. by linking to their publications, that is fine, and it is still fine for others to acknowledge the identity if their publications are being discussed. However, it is not OK to use that person’s RL name in personal attacks, which are against the game-rules anyway (“assume the other person is posting in good faith”; “address the argument, not the person”) but are not in themselves things I would ever ban anyone for. Such posts just get moved to guano, just as pieces get moved off a chess board. But if in breaking those rules, you invoke someone’s personal ID, that is not on, the reason being that I don’t want such personal attacks here to come up in a google search of that person’s RL name, as such things happen, as I know to my cost.

    Secondly, if the person in here is not a regular poster here, but is nonetheless effectively party to the conversations we often have by loud-hailer as it were, at another site, then membership protections apply. In any case, in the case of kairosfocus, I think he is, or was, a registered member here, and you easily can’t tell in any case. So if in doubt, assume membership, either actual or virtual, and don’t link identity with internet handle. In other words, do not post the RL identities of people with whom our personal relations, as it were, are in their internet identities.

    Here

    0
  23. phoodoo: I show Alan a post by Dazz, who never contributed anything here, a post where all Dazz says is, “I predict next time you will write more retarded screeds” and what does Alan do? He removes my post for asking him to do something about it, so that normal discussion can continue.

    1. It’s not against the rules to criticise the content of another’s post.

    2. It is a rule that requests for moderation intervention should be posted in this thread, not elsewhere.

    3. You play the game of rules as well as anyone. Ever thought of setting a better example?

    0
  24. Here’s a suggestion for moderation change that I think is still compatible with the laws of Lizzie:

    I say all OPs should be forced to break after five lines of text including the title. After those lines, they can continue in the linked discussion.

    This makes the main page less cluttered and easier to navigate. I am hoping it also encourages people to summarize their point concisely in the title and the opening sentence, so one can decide how much more attention to give the OP.

    0
  25. BruceS,

    I just checked and most contributors are now using a “more” tag in their posts. I have already been adding them if I think they are needed. So does Neil. I just edited in a few that lacked them. Do we need to specify five lines? I think we could restrict to an introductory paragraph. What about images and videos?

    0
  26. Alan Fox:
    BruceS,

    I just checked and most contributors are now using a “more” tag in their posts.I have already been adding them if I think they are needed. So does Neil. I just edited in a few that lacked them.Do we need to specify five lines? I think we could restrict to an introductory paragraph. What about images and videos?

    I think imposing a limit is important (Twitter!). Discipline and structure encourages creativity and thought. One paragraph is too vague. You can raise the limit to whatever you think is fair and still meaningful. But do limit them specifically.

    ETA: Images should not be allowed as part of the above the fold text.

    Personal style suggestion for all posters: White space adds readability. Short paragraphs with lots of space will help me, if not the younger with better attention skills. Have a heart for us fogeys.

    0
  27. Alan Fox,

    Oh , but this is ok:

    You always were a terrible philosopher. A great propagandist for an uninformed audience as you sure know how to impress with technical jargon and anecdotes about how prestigious a venue is, or how impressed someone was. But critical thinking, not so much.

    How is that not a personal attack on Sal?

    Do you ever look at your self in the mirror Alan?

    What a fucking garbage person you are.

    Quit already would ya, do the whole site a favor.

    0
  28. I find that most people, including myself, respond negatively when being provoked…

    Rum’s, and others’, personal attacks are well documented here and at PS….
    If moderators are unwilling to do anything, then there just no way quality ID proponents will post here…

    I’m surprised Paul Nelson and Eric Holloway continue to put up with the abuse…

    If I were Behe, I’d think twice before posting here…

    0
  29. phoodoo: Quit already would ya, do the whole site a favor.

    Why don’t email Lizzy and offer to replace Alan?
    I’m sure she cares…🤔

    0
  30. From Rumraket:
    phoodoo: You always were a terrible philosopher. A great propagandist for an uninformed audience as you sure know how to impress with technical jargon and anecdotes about how prestigious a venue is, or how impressed someone was. But critical thinking, not so much.

    Neil, this is ok? Not a personal attack?
    Jock, its not breaking the rules?
    Mung, ….where for art thou Mung..

    Just because Alan has zero integrity, and will lie anyway he can to save himself and his friends, does that mean the others moderators have to follow suit?

    You want the site to be better, or are you really just full of shit? You have a thread for pointing out rules violations, and you are so paranoid that anyone might even mention the word moderation in any other thread that you threaten to ban them if they do, and then when the rules violations are pointed out to you, IN THIS FUCKING THREAD, you still ignore it.

    Man, you guys are a bunch of jokers.

    0
  31. Neil Rickert,

    One small step for man…

    What does it say about Alan that even when shown, he still says, “Oh, that’s Ok, I like Rumraket” ?

    0
  32. J-Mac: Mung is 1 against 3 biased moderators…

    I don’t see it that way.

    phoodoo: Unfortunately Mung has turned out to be more like 0 against 3.

    That’s more like it. It’s not a contest.

    0
  33. swamidass: I wonder if Greg would like to reveal his handle on PS, so people can see what happened with him for themselves. I don’t dox people, so I won’t reveal it. All his posts, however, are still at PS under a different name. It would great to see him own up to it.

    0
  34. Mung,

    Mung: “You are out of line. And one day, I might even consider taking action. One day. I just have to ask Alan first…”

    0
  35. The TSZ Rules state:

    “Don’t use this site to try to ‘out’ other internet denizens or indulge in ad hominem speculations. Such speculations may, notwithstanding general principles regarding deletion, be deleted.”

    It seems the current interpretation is that ‘outing’ itself need not be deleted, only the speculations. Frankly, I’m fine with Swamidass’ outing & doxxing being allowed to remain on this site as evidence of the incredibly low character and untrustworthiness of this man who is as full of himself with scientific arrogance as an Evangelical Covenant non-mainstream ‘Christian’ might be.

    It may be too much to ask the atheist moderators here to admit directly: Joshua Swamidass is guilty of breaking TSZ’s rules.

    Since I didn’t ‘out’ anyone in my thread discussing Canadian IDists, it’s rather ironic that Joshua felt no qualms with soiling himself in outing & doxxing me. Who knows, perhaps this may catch up to him someday, as now he can’t look his wife & children in their eyes as if he is innocent of ‘outing’ on the internet. It matters little how he is justifying this behaviour to himself & to others, regardless what I said about his glory-seeking ‘genealogical Adam’ & “the Science of Adam” nonsense. It’s an ugly & spiteful evangelicalism that Swamidass represents.

    0
  36. Mung:

    DNA_Jock: This is obviously false.

    Please stop attacking me, it’s against the rules.

    Not seeing the rule violation in this sentence.
    You attributed a statement to John Harshman, which he never made.
    I pointed out that your claim was obviously false.
    I am very clearly addressing the content of your post, not your perceived failings.
    Now, I did go on to comment on your pattern of posting, and note data by which you should have known that your claim was false when you made it.
    I’m sorry if my enjoining you to be more creative upset you.

    0
  37. DNA_Jock: Not seeing the rule violation in this sentence.

    Whatever. Just stop attacking me. You berate me for attacking John and turn right around and do it to me. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.

    0
  38. Well, Mung, John is not an admin here, with the power to move comments; you are.
    John was not lying; you were, evidently.
    Other than that, your comparison is hunky dory.
    If you want me to stop calling out your bad behavior, the solution is entirely within your control…

    0
  39. Mung: Whatever. Just stop attacking me. You berate me for attacking John and turn right around and do it to me. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.

    Jock called you a troll, and you didn’t even move his post or warn him.

    Dazz predicts J mac or you are I are going to do more retarded things and you do nothing.

    Rumraket goes on on a tirade on Sal about his religious ignorance, on a thread that has nothing to do with religion, and you do nothing (except joke about how you do nothing).

    I pointed out a few of these rule breaking posts right here, IN THE MODERATION THREAD, and you did nothing.

    At some point, perhaps you have to take some blame for refusing to be a moderator here.

    0
  40. Gregory: It may be too much to ask the atheist moderators here to admit directly: Joshua Swamidass is guilty of breaking TSZ’s rules.

    I’m fine with my post being deleted. If I violated rules it was out of ignorance, and I’m sorry to the TSZ moderators for my confusion. As I understand it, Gregory was referring to his actions on PS under another handle. The issue is that explained what his handle was, and this bothered him. Okay. No problem then. Got it.

    Next time it comes up, I’ll just explain his behavior there without revealing his handle. If that would be unpleasant for Gregory, perhaps it would be best if he just avoided bring up the topic in the first place.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.