Rules

As this site is still a fledgling, I’m feeling my way with regard to rules.

So I’m going to start a bit vague, then get more specific as need arises.The principle is in the strapline: Park your priors by the door.  Everyone has priors, they are crucial to way we make sense of the world.  But the impetus behind this site is to be a place where they can be loosened and adjusted while you wait.  So leave them by the door, and pick them up again as you leave!

There are plenty of blogs and forums where people with like priors can hang out and scoff at those who do not share them.  There’s nothing wrong with those sites, and I’ve learned a lot from them. But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie.  In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties 🙂

Edited 1/12/15 to change from third to first person plural.

 

So draft rules:

  • Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
    • For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading
  • Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards. (there are plenty of places on the web where you can do that!)
  • Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. [purple text added 28th November 2015]
    • This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
    • As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
  • Don’t advocate illegal activities.
  • Don’t post porn, or links to porn, or any material liable to risk the integrity of another poster’s computer*.

ETA 8th September 2013

  • If you have author permissions, and post an OP, you may find you have the technical ability to edit comments to your post, and move them.  Please do not do so.  Rule violating posts will be moved by moderators, and it is a principle of this site that comments are not edited, deleted, or hidden.

ETA 27th January 2014

  • 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)

That’ll do for starters!

Posts won’t be moderated unless I find there’s a problem – if your post is held in moderation it’ll just be because the spam filter caught it.

If you want to post OPs, let me know and I’ll register you as a Subscriber.  That means your OPs will be held in moderation until I click the publish button.  If all goes well, I’ll push people up to Author.

One last thing – I’ve set the nesting for threaded comments to be quite deep, because I like nested sites – derails are much less of a problem and I’m an inveterate derailer.  So use the nesting if it suits your post i.e. if you are replying to a specific post rather than making a general point re the OP.

And thanks for coming!

Lizzie

ETA: I’ve added the coloured text above for clarity (22.2.2012)

ETA2: Blue text added above for clarity (7.05.2012)

ETA3: New rule added in purple (12.05.2012)

ETA4: *Violation of rule in purple will result in immediate and permanent ban (14.05.2012)

ETA5: Peanut rule gallery relaxed a little (5th November 2012)

 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.

ETA 29th November, 2015:

This post by Reciprocating Bill sums up the ethos of the site brilliantly so I’m quoting it here:

Participation at this site entails obligations similar to those that attend playing a game. While there is no objective moral obligation to answer questions, the site has aims, rules and informal stakeholders, just as football has same. When violations of those aims and rules are perceived and/or the enforcement of same is seen as arbitrary or inconsistent, differences and conflicts arise. No resort to objective morality, yet perfectly comprehensible and appropriate opprobrium.

13th December 2015:

This post by DNA_Jock sums up how the implementation of the rules essentially works, and how I think it should work.  If you think it doesn’t, let us know:

DNA_Jock:

walto: it’s arbitrary and capricious which posts get guanoed

I think not. It is stochastic.
Things that increase vs. decrease the probability of guanoing:
1 Clearly breaks rules vs. may be interpreted as rule-breaking.
2 Guanoing requested vs. Target requests post not be guanoed
3 Author perceived to be “home” side vs. Author perceived to be “visitor”
4 Target perceived to be “visitor” vs. Target is an admin
5 Substantive content is low vs. Substantive content is high
6 Derailing active discussion vs. ancient bloody history.
As to the relative importance of the different factors, YMMV.
<snip irrelevant bit>
Discrete-choice modeling, it’s fun.

410 thoughts on “Rules

  1. OK, some clarification (operationalisation? :)) of the rules.

    Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.

      Do not tell people what you think their motivations for posting are.
      Do feel free to probe what you think their unchallenged assumptions might be.
      Do not tell people they are lying to you or to themselves, or imply that they are.
      Do feel free to point out what you think are inconsistencies in what they are saying.

    Hope that helps 🙂

    More may follow.

  2. Perhaps we shouldn´t jump to conclusions. Chris may have pushed the delete button by mistake. Isn´t there something called Google cache?

  3. I’ve tried to restore the deleted posts. Maybe BWE can have a go, but it looks like they’ve gone, with all their comments.

    I didn’t realise this was possible. Damn.

    I do apologise to all who have lost posts.

    They seem to have been deleted from the Trash as well.

    Can I ask people in future not to do this? I’ll try to make it impossible for anyone except an admin.

  4. Elizabeth, I didn’t realise this was possible. Damn.

    I do apologise to all who have lost posts.

    From my point of view, I would say don’t sweat it. It’s no big deal.

    If Chris did it by accident then, fair’s fair, things happen. If he did it knowingly then it says more about him than us.

    Either way, I still think this blog is a good place to come and chat.

  5. Seversky: If Chris did it by accident then, fair’s fair, things happen. If he did it knowingly then it says more about him than us.

    I don’t think it was an accident. All of Chris’s posts are gone, and there were at least two (I think it was three but I’m not sure).

    Perhaps Chris has just unwittingly made a very clear statement about theistic morality.

  6. Elizabeth,

    No problem, as I too like your blog!

    I think this simply shows the childish behaviour that the Chris Doyles of the world can display when they’re put under even a little pressure.

  7. Shucks.

    I never got to ask him why his cartoon atheist is miserable.

    It’s all good: more time for freeloading and murder!

  8. If Lizzie or anyone is interested, you can recover most of the thread for “The Road” from Google cache. If I type in (to search):

    the road theskepticalzone.com

    The first entry is the relevant item and clicking “Cached” in green on the second line retrieves the page, although I suspect some later comments are missing. I’m using Google Chrome BTW. The same works for “The Old Lady’s Money Jar” I can then download and save the pages. I would have thought it might be possible to reconstruct the entries from the cached pages but whether anyone would want to now is another question. As Mr Doyle has not volunteered any explanation AFAIAA of the “glitch”, I too now think the loss of threads was not accidental.

  9. The version of the Old Lady’s Money Jar thread in Google’s cache is sufficiently incomplete that it does not contain my rebuttal to CD, which is: Show me a theist who believes that God wants him to have the old lady’s money, and I’ll show you a theist who will be first in line to grab that money jar.

  10. It’s all well and good to take someone’s words at face value, but actions carry a bit more weight, IMAO.

    Clicking on ‘delete’ once, and thereby erasing a whole thread: This could easily be a transient brainfart.
    Clicking on ‘delete’ to erase a whole thread and emptying the Trash so that the erased thread cannot be recovered: That’s slightly more than just a transient brainfart, that is.
    Clicking on ‘delete’ and emptying the Trash multiple times, so that more than one thread drops down the memory hole: That’s not a brainfart. That’s a knowing, intentional, systematic campaign to hide the evidence.

    If Doyle ever has enough chutzpah to again ask for posting privileges here, I’d recommend that you decline to grant that request, Ms. Febble. By obliterating his existing threads, he’s demonstrated that he’s a slimy, untrustable scumbucket.

  11. Cubist, Clicking on ‘delete’ once, and thereby erasing a whole thread: This could easily be a transient brainfart.
    Clicking on ‘delete’ to erase a whole thread and emptying the Trash so that the erased thread cannot be recovered: That’s slightly more than just a transient brainfart, that is.
    Clicking on ‘delete’ and emptying the Trash multiple times, so that more than one thread drops down the memory hole: That’s not a brainfart. That’s a knowing, intentional, systematic campaign to hide the evidence.

    I have to agree. An unintentional deletion could have been recovered from the Trash, either by Chris or by Lizzie. Deleting at least two threads and emptying the Trash was deliberate.

    If this were his blog then, while I might find his actions objectionable, I would have to concede he has the right to do what he wants. But, as a guest on someone else’s blog, deleting not just his own posts but those of every other contributor to the threads is high-handed to say the least.

    Perhaps he is trying to ram home his point that atheists have no rational grounds on which to base moral codes and, hence, no rational grounds on which to object to arguably immoral behavior such as this. If so, he has unwittingly provided evidence to support one of our counter-arguments, namely, that moral codes don’t provide an insurmountable barrier to non-atheists behaving badly.

  12. I am disappointed that we are not apparently welcoming enough to draw commenters from UD. There is only so much agreeing with the like-minded one can do before it gets a bit boring. I wonder if Chris Doyle’s performance here (I also wonder if there are any lurkers from UD) would encourage anyone there to try and improve the average credibility of ID proponents?

  13. I’d like this site to be welcoming to all points of view (even unwelcome ones!) It was my goal in setting the place up, hence policy, if too vaguely expressed, of asking that people assume others are posting in good faith. I do hope other theists will feel able to join us here, and that while all should expect their views to be robustly challenged, all should also expect that their personal integrity will be assumed and respected.

  14. Elizabeth,

    Ms. Febble, I have given Doyle all the respect his actions have earned for him. If you think there is an explanation for his obliterated posts which doesn’t entail Doyle being a deceitful weasel… well, you are a far less cynical soul than I. As the saying goes: His character wasn’t assassinated, it committed suicide. All I did was conduct the autopsy.

  15. I have to agree.An unintentional deletion could have been recovered from the Trash, either by Chris or by Lizzie.Deleting at least two threads and emptying the Trash was deliberate.

    Yes. Not much room for reasonable doubt, here.

    Disappointing. I had asked him some questions that he hadn’t answered — questions which, had he bothered to try to answer them, might possibly have helped him understand why his arguments were unconvincing. That’s probably also the case for some others here.

    If he really thought he had reason on his side, you’d think he’d leave all the evidence here so that he could get his UD buddies to join in laughing at us. It seems the confident face he presented here was feigned.

  16. In a reply to me, he said that I was following an atheistic world view. I replied that there was no such thing. In a further reply, he seemed angry at that. So it is possibly part of what triggered his action.

  17. dang. It might leave something in the database itself. Not sure. But the trash is well and truly emptied. From my phone I can’t do too much more than look at the control panel and see the trash is emptied.

    However, following up on Lizzie’s wish to avoid comment on intentions or personal qualities of posters, I think that it is enough to say that even if done intentionally, which seems an unavoidable conclusion at this point, that whether or not it was due to frustration or anything else is not helpful to speculate on. If it was due to frustration, then anger seems an unhelpful response. If it was due to some other cause, anger is still unhelpful. It seems the deed is done. It is too bad but there it is. Actions have consequences no matter whether our personal emotions are a part of those consequences. At the very least, I don’t think it’s wise to give delete power to people who have demonstrated a willingness to delete other people’s writing. That being the case, my own decisions will not include granting that power to Mr. Doyle in the future if I find myself in the position of needing to make that decision.

    But frustration does strange things to people and I certainly won’t be harboring any personal value judgments of Mr. Doyle’s character over this. I think that the phrases “judge not lest ye be judged yourself.” and “let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” are apropos here. Challenging deeply held truths is tough for anyone, whether religious or non.

    So, let’s see if the database has a backup, see how to grant author privileges without hard delete privileges, and maybe try to have a little bit of compassion and respect in dialog here? I know it sounds radical. I know I myself am guilty of biting comments on occasion. But I also know that on reflection, I am almost always surprised that they sound as biting as they do.

    Reasonable moderation policies which keep the tone civil can only do so much. There are bound to be events which fall outside the norm. Those are the times when civility -not turning a blind eye- will be the most important to the success of this experiment. People get angry, or frustrated, or whatever. All of us. On occasion. Hopefully, we can move on without too much vitriol.

    /sermon.

    When I get back I will talk to lizzie and see if the DB has any way to store backups to avoid future mishaps of this sort..

  18. OK, sorry, got distracted by UD!

    Moved a couple of posts to guano. Don’t take it amiss, just exercising my despotic powers.

  19. BTW, I have akismet spam filtering on this site, which works pretty well, but sometimes catches real posts, especially if they have lots of links. I’m not sure what the threshold is.

    If your comment doesn’t show up, it’s because I need to unclog the filter. Will try to do so reasonably promptly.

  20. Elizabeth, could I make a technical/administrative request?

    If it’s possible, it would be nice if the posts that got removed to guano retain some sort of locator so that their origin can still be traced. As it is, although the posts admittedly are not deleted, for practical purposes they may as well be, since all context has been removed.

  21. I’ve amended the OP of this thread to give a couple of examples of how I am interpreting the site rules.

    I’ve moved a few posts to Guano just now. Don’t worry about it, it’s just that that’s where they’ve gone.

    I will try to keep the moderation light, but if you find your post missing for some reason, it will be in Guano where I will have moved it because I considered it violated one of the rules.

    If my decisions seem unfair or arbitrary, feel free to moan here.

  22. llanitedave:
    Elizabeth, could I make a technical/administrative request?

    If it’s possible, it would be nice if the posts that got removed to guano retain some sort of locator so that their origin can still be traced.As it is, although the posts admittedly are not deleted, for practical purposes they may as well be, since all context has been removed.

    You have a point.

    I’ll see if I can find an easy way to do that.

  23. Elizabeth,

    Some sites allow comments to be hidden when they’re flagged but allows them to be opened by a reader of the blog.

    This would show a comment is unwelcomed but preserve both the comment and position in the thread.

    You would simply need to flag the thread and collapse it to make it “guano”.

  24. I’m looking for something a bit like that.

    I’ve got a clunky solution now, but a single-button option would be cool.

    Also I quite like the idea of user-moderation, as long as we don’t end up with down-rate wars.

    Do you have a link to a suitable plugin?

  25. I’ve found a couple of plug-ins that might do the trick

    One allows me to put “shush” tags around a post, which makes it hidden, although anyone can then open the tags to see it.

    My suggestion would then be simply that one of the rules here is: don’t quote posts in shush tags. So the posts would remain visible (as they are in Guano) but I’d have to ask people not to continue the argy bargy (as they can’t in Guano). hmmm.

    The other plug in is a “flag problem” button, so that posts go into moderation if they get more than a certain number of flags. I could then shush them if I felt like it (I shall maintain my status as benevolent dictator) or close it to further flags (i.e. approve it for eternity).

    But I’d like to go slowly on this, until I’m convinced there is a serious problem. So far, things seem to be going well, thanks to all!

    Might try the shush tag thing though.

  26. Elizabeth,

    On a related topic – in the “Metaphysical Madness” thread, I seem to have additional abilities, presumably as thread starter. However, there are a couple of posts that I think need to be moved to Guano, but it doesn’t seem to let me do that. (I’m talking of posts that accuse others of sexual crimes).

    For the present, I am just ignoring those. But I think I can “unapprove” them, thus marking for moderation, though I have not tried that.

  27. I’ve moved quite a few posts from Joe’s thread Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution to Guano because they were, in my view, violating the game rules.

    As always, I repeat: having your post moved does not mean I think it, or you, is morally reprehensible, it’s just that the goal of game played here is to try to keep to subject under discussion, regardless of what you happen to think of the person making the argument.

    Some of the decisions were iffy, but my principles were to move posts:

    • 1. with direct insults to the poster (I give more leeway for general disparaging remarks about holders of posters’ position in general). Insults include implications that another poster is a liar, being deliberately misleading, a coward, stupid, or ignorant.
    • 2. that invoke personal history from other sites

    I also should make it clear that there are only two people on this site with mod permissions, me and BWE. My intention is to ban nobody except spammers, and to delete no posts (on purpose!), nor hide them. The moderation is strictly confined to moving stuff off the playing field if it is (in my or BWE’s view) getting in the way.

    It’s mostly going well, so I’m really pleased!

    And mostly when things go astray they aren’t escalating. But I do beg your cooperation here, because I can’t, obviously, moderate 24/7 (in any case I want to have time to read people’s posts!) so if you see a splat of guano on the rock, just walk round it. I’ll probably get round to clearing it up eventually.

    Cheers

    Lizzie

  28. Elizabeth,

    If you would live up to your words about “good faith”, and your moderation policy, and not let joe spew shit all over the place here, neither I nor anyone else would have to step around it.

    Some of the shit from joe (most of which is not in “Guano”):

    That you can’t grasp taht says quite a bit about you.

    That you are too much of a coward to actually support something says you are best ignored.

    No a brain is physical- again your are confused.

    Yeah OM is very confused…

    My problem with you, Gregory, is your ignorance.

    And Behe’s lack of clarity exists only in your head.

    All other comments are off-topic and will be placed in guano as soon as I am given those rights. And if those rights are not granted all off-topic comments will be ignored.

    Hi Thorton- you are a liar

    Unfortunately evotards do not know anything about self-control as they cannot even stay on-topic.

    IOW you seemed to have missed quite a bit…

    Again for the learning impaired-

    Thank you for continuing to prove taht you know nothing about science.

    IOW all I am doing is asking evotards to actually ante up and support their position. But they are obvioulsy too cowardly to do so.

    You are confused-

    IOW you didn’t even read the OP.

    Again READ THE OP- what is wrong with you people?

    What’s wrong with you?

    Yup, your position is as sterile as can be – that is by your “logic”

    IOW you don’t have a clue

    2- If you don’t even understand your own position then why are you here?

    It is ignorant false accusations like that, Mike- that is what causes me to respond the way i do.

    And Mike- I provided evolutionary experts’ versions of what evolution is. I will go along with them over you any and every day.

    Heck you seem to have a problem staying on-topic.

    Nope, the random part is with the mutations- as I said you have serious mental issues

    Put them together and you get blind and undirected processes, duh.

    As i keep saying and you keep proving-> you have issues.

    Evos call them processes- perhaps you should take it up with your leaders

    That question scared sev away, what are you going to do?

    What, exactly, is this alleged misconception mr false accusation guy?

    Yes thorton I understand that the concept of science eludes people like you.

    Ya know if evos could answer my questions I would still be an evo. But all I get are promissory notes tat someday they may have the answers I seek.

    Your accusations are childish and sickening.

    Great Rich- I keep pressing evos for specifics yet none ever come.

    Dude- you are lost as your quote says evolution GIVES RISE TO-

    So bye-bye

    It’s in my post Greg- what is your problem?

    That you can’t grasp taht says quite a bit about you.

    That you are too much of a coward to actually support something says you are best ignored.

    No a brain is physical- again your are confused.

    My problem with you, Gregory, is your ignorance.

    And Behe’s lack of clarity exists only in your head.

    Elizabeth,
    Give me the power to remove off-topic comments from my threads. Ya see I attack only when attacked. And if you can’t see that then we have another issue.

    That you are too messed up to remember or just never read it, means nothing to me

    Not going to happen- please give me the rights to remove unwanted and off-topic comments from my threads.

    Unfortunately evotards do not know anything about self-control as they cannot even stay on-topic.

    IOW you seemed to have missed quite a bit…

    Again for the learning impaired-

    Thank you for continuing to prove taht you know nothing about science.

    IOW all I am doing is asking evotards to actually ante up and support their position. But they are obvioulsy too cowardly to do so.

    Dude you are also confusing the “theory” of evolution with evolution, the thing.

    Yup, your position is as sterile as can be – that is by your “logic”

    IOW you don’t have a clue

    Nope, the random part is with the mutations- as I said you have serious mental issues.

    Perhaps your messed-up version of science isn’t interested.

    Dude if I could do that then ID would be a given- I take it that you have no idea how science operates.

    Obvioulsy you are too something to even get the point

    We exist dude. and your position can’t explain it.

    Then it should be “speaking to true assholes”

    Yeah evos should get into a lab a do something to. But they don’t.

    You can’t explain anything and your position is as much shit as it is anything.

    They haven’t found any answers to anything. So what gives? Are your scientists as retarded as you are?

    Science dude- obvioulsy you don’t know how that operates.

    Oh and let’s see these alleged testable hypotheses. Methinks you are fibbing.

    I NEVER saids anything about Morris – you have serious issues….

    It means that your sorry position has a lot of explaining to do because it appears your “evidence” is nothing more than imagination.

    Who sez your questions are important? You? LoL.

    Not bashing evolution, Rich. I am just exposing your double-standards.

    And I am glad that bothers you.

    Thank you for proving that you should be ignored.

    Yes thortard can ask question as any 5 year old would. unfortunately it can never answer anything.

    Geez thortard your whole positiion is assertion after assertion but no answers for any of its claims.

    And taht is beyond pathetic…

    Thortard- more than DNA gets passed down- are you ignorant of all biology or are you just ignorant of reproduction?

    And thanks for admitting your ignorance of baraminology.

    Yes, your dodges are tiresome.

    Your double-standards are tiresome too

    IOW your “good faith” is a bunch of BS

    Yup, just as i thought- you are totally clueless

    Strange that evotards think tat ID needs to have ALL the answers when their position has none…

    You have a wild imagination but you never demonstrated in any way that ID is anti-evolution- as I have already told you, and others,

    you are conflating the theory of evolution with the evolution, the thing.

    IOW you are clueless, just as I have been saying.

    Yes Rich, I undersatnd that you have equivocation issues.

    You are full of smelly stuff, Mike. And you cannot support anything you just said.

    Quite the opposite, there, ace. However it is obvious that you didn’t know that.

    Ya see thortard, this is your problem- you are ignorant of biology and too cowardly to support your position.
    Nice projection- typical

    What is wrong with you? (besides the obvious)

    Strange how evotards ask for possible mechanisms of design and when they are presented with one all they can do is throw a hissy-fit

    Yes moron, tat is how it works- OTOH your position still has nothing.

    Reproduction is a mechanism you moron. Your ignorance means nothing to me…

    There isn’t any magic GAs only an infant would say something like that.

    Yes Elizabeth- I just need to take a break and not get caught up in the back-n-forth BS. My bad- I started out OK but then got attacked and went on the warpath.

    I address questions better tan evos do. Strange, that…

    Fishing I see. Bet you don’t catch anything.

    That you think I am stupid tells me I am spot on and you are a moron. Your whole position is about making it up, so you would know about that.

    And why would Wells or Dembski say that? They aren’t as ignorant as you are.

    And Mike- your position never supports anything…

    You are an infant- but anyway I will quickly address some of your tripe and then demolish the rest later.

    It’s the ^&%*ing DEFINITION. What is wrong with you?

    I keep telling you that CONTEXT is important with science, but you, being totally ignorant of science, just refuse to get it.

    Oops- one more bit of tard to deal with

    Either you are ignorant as hell, just plain stupid or a psychopath.

    Thanks for proving that you are beyond help…

    So you just attack people instead of providing refuting evidence? pathetic…

    So for the record Rich, you don’t understand much about developmental biology and you think that your lack of understanding means something.

    Hi Thorton- you are a liar

    OM, you are also a liar and ignorant too…

    You are a slandering and lying PoS

    Obvioulsy you have mental issues.

    Sir robin, indeed, you are a coward

    As i keep saying and you keep proving-> you have issues.

    Yes thorton I understand that the concept of science eludes people like you.

    Your accusations are childish and sickening.

    Spoken like a true asshole…

    Moron I provided references- are you really that muck of a dipshit?

    You have serious issues

    I know you don’t like that but then again that is the whole problem with people like you

    You are really sick.

    I am done with you as obviously you are just a lying PoS

    c-ya, dumbass

    Wrong again loser-

    And we haven’t been demonizing science, just your mangling of it.

    Also you can stick your “All of these misconceptions and misrepresentations are a common theme that runs through all of ID/creationism” you know where as it has been my experience taht you and your ilk have the misconceptions and misrepresentations- and that is one of the reasons for my post.

    ———————————————————————-
    (a few of them might be repeated or missing)

    And of course joe is lying when he says that he was attacked and is just responding to attacks. He started the shit and spews nothing but shit and lies, as usual.

    Yeah, Dr. Liddle, it’s your blog and you can run it with all the double standards and bogus policies you like, but don’t expect me to keep quiet about it.

    Oh, and why didn’t you leave this comment by J-Dog, instead of putting it in “Guano”? After all, it’s true, and the truth is not shit:

    J-Dog on February 24, 2012 at 12:50 am said:

    This is a no-brainer. As in anyone that believes in IDC has not learned to use their brain. ID IS creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and most sane people realize that it was “designed” just to try and slip by US courts and sneak creationism back into school. That’s it. The entire science of ID in a sentence.

    Sorry Elizabeth, I don’t see any point in pandering to the brain-dead. I have to call it as I see it, and what I see is religion disguised as science. It’s what IDC is all about. Dembski and Behe can obfuscate all they want, and possibly fool the faithful with “IDC” and “Information Theorey” all they want, but at the end of the day, there is no there there.

    It’s not science – just ask Kairofocus, BA^77, Barry A and some of the other denizens of the UD Dump. I am sure that they pray every day to The Baby Jesus that they can indeed fool enough of the people, enough of the time, to get their strange, wierd religion taught as science in schools.

    I can appreciate your attempt to build a bridge from science to the credulous, but attempting to hold a rational discussion with the religiously insane is truly a bridge to nowhere.

  29. The whole truth: If you would live up to your words about “good faith”, and your moderation policy, and not let joe spew shit all over the place here, neither I nor anyone else would have to step around it.

    Give Elizabeth a break. It’s a bit hard to control a spewing volcano.

    Elizabeth – may I suggest a limit of, say, 200 comments per post. I assume that there’s a way to disable commenting for individual threads.

  30. The whole truth: Yeah, Dr. Liddle, it’s your blog and you can run it with all the double standards and bogus policies you like, but don’t expect me to keep quiet about it.

    I don’t have “double standards” TWT, but I do have limited time, as I’ve said, and I also expect other people, including you, and including Joe, to behave like adults.

    That means trying not to respond to attacks with attacks, and having the patience to wait until I can clear up any messes.

    I will probably institute a simpler-to-manage moderation system shortly, but I have a busy week right now, so it will have to wait.

    Fortunately, the world doesn’t end because a few people have an alley-fight on the internet.

    And while it would be good to have an efficient moderation system, I am not going to ban people, and I am not going to delete comments (both of which would be less effort, but not what I want for this site).

  31. OK, I’ve installed a better post-moving plug-in, which means I can do it from the front-end which is a lot simpler. The old one had to be done by the dashboard, and didn’t show the whole post, so I had to keep checking with the front end, memorising the first few words in order to find it at the back end, then select, rinse and repeat.

    Nightmare.

    Now all I have to do is remember the post number for alternative destinations and move directly from the front end. That should help me keep on top of things.

    Having said that, it would be nice if people internalised the game rules and managed to stick to them! I do understand that some people are more prone to go off on a bender than others, but if you see yourself doing that, be like Joe and go off and make a snowman 🙂

    Cheers

    Lizzie

  32. Neil Rickert: Give Elizabeth a break. It’s a bit hard to control a spewing volcano.

    Seconded. Unfortunately, they’ll give anyone an internet connection these days.

    @the whole truth – you seem to have been ferreting out Joe’s trollisms in order to get annoyed by them!

    One sure sign of “here be lots of things to get annoyed by” is a thread where Joe is the OP! If you lift that rock, you can’t blame anyone else for what you might find under it!

    Anywhere “religion vs science” is discussed is a troll-magnet. I’m not sure why you get so bugged with bloggers for not protecting you from nonsense or bad behaviour – are your sensibilities that delicate?

  33. Usual preamble about how guano isn’t particularly a place where I put stuff I find morally reprehensible – in fact I just moved some housekeeping stuff out of Joe Felsenstein’s thread just to get it out of the way.

    But I just want to clarify a couple of principles that are guiding me when it comes to stuff that seems to me to violate the game rules:

    Potty-mouth stuff isn’t my prime concern, although if you call someone a moron or a fucking faggot, the post is likely to be moved. But it’s not the words themselves that bother me, it’s the fact that it violates the principle of “assuming the poster is posting in good faith”. So general swipes at evotards or IDiots are less likely to be moved than specific jibes or jeers at specific people here. On the other hand, fairly mild posts that nonetheless imply that a poster is not posting in good faith (however good the evidence) will be moved.

    But the most important thing to remember is that the whole point – of this site is to provide a forum in which we can actually find out where we disagree, in an atmosphere of respectful enquiry, putting our prejudices to one side, and actually trying to figure out why the other person has come to the conclusions s/he has.

    We all stand to learn, and even to have our minds changed.

    There are plenty of places on the web where we can hole up in our tribal lands and chuck guano over the barricades at the barbarians. This place is supposed to be different. Please Make It So 🙂

  34. Elizabeth —

    Sorry, but I am having a problem. In this post I noticed that the phrase in the first pargraph “against that this theorem is incorrect” should actually read “that this theorem is incorrect”. However, try as I can I cannot retroactively edit the post. When I go to the Dashboard it shows the post but no option for editing it. Do I need to ask you to do this edit, or is there some way?

Comments are closed.