As the replacement Moderation page has developed the old bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, so here is yet another page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
This site is basically an anti-UD, anti-ID, anti-Arrington echo-chamber where anyone not with the home team, more or less, gets personally attacked. If you’d really like civil debates/discussions with those you disagree with (which I doubt), letting OMagain, RHughes, Flint, Dazz and Adapa run around throwing feces at visitors like poorly-trained pet monkeys isn’t a good way of going about it. Having moderators that feel free to personally insult and stalk visitors isnt a good way to go about it.
But, this site is what it is. The only problem is when one mistakes this site for something other than what it is.
William J Murray,
A more accurate translation, not that one is needed, would be “Don’t you think I can respond to your name calling on Noyau and still treat you fairly on other threads?”
That’s not an answer, that’s a thinly veiled criticism of behavior you don’t happen to agree with. I’ll ask you the same question I asked phoodoo:
Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible to responsibly and fairly fulfill an admin role while still participating actively in discussion like any other commenter without taking advantage of those privileges?
I know what RB thinks was the irony in my comment – it wasn’t irony. As soon as IDists start posting, civility goes out the door and they’re attacked and ridiculed. I wasn’t being humorous by saying opposite. He just didn’t exactly understand the implication I was making. You guys are civil enough with each other, for the most part (outside of when keiths is involved).
I also know what he thinks the “meta-irony” is — but, that’s RB utterly ignoring my several years-long record of about 99% civil posting (in the face of continuous, uncivil personal attack) to score a cheap, quick “gotcha” point. Which means there’s no real meta-irony there. Just RB being a dick.
Oh, and BTW, I’ve decided that since there’s no benefit here for being civil (nor any points in having established a long history of being civil), I’ve decided to change my behavior here. It’s a pit. No sense pretending otherwise.
Further unintentional irony courtesy William “go fuck yourself” Murray.
It’s also possible that 500 fairly tossed coins can all lands heads up. So? Whether or not a thing is possible is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.
William, you might consider your pattern of posts just recently in this thread. You have accused the moderators of bias, you have accused a list of posters of being feces-throwing monkeys, you have dismissed civility in all but one thread as irrelevant, and here you call someone a moron. And you describe yourself as “99% civil” while responses to you are characterized as “continuous uncivil personal attack.”
And you can’t see any irony in this vitriolic name-calling while complaining that it is everyone else engaged in this name-calling, but not you?
How about you make a reasoned case for something for once, instead of insisting that your idiotic beliefs be accepted because you say so?
Of course you were, you uncivil jackass. You’re just too self-unaware to realize what an a-hole you are and always have been.
Of course he did, you’re just a boor who blithers on without catching on to the irony of a ranting fool like yourself whining about civility.
Not necessarily, but at least we typically follow the basics of reason. That helps greatly, as you wouldn’t know.
Look, you come in anywhere and everywhere claiming that “Darwinists” or whatever name-calling you have for those who accept science are uncivil and evil and what-not, and you think people are supposed to accept your “truth.” You’ve never had any acquaintance with truth.
How would you know?
How would you know?
How would we know?
I have yet to see you treat anyone you disagree with properly, or to back up your endless bullshit claims.
Oh, poor you, you shit in the nest and whine about nest sanitation.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson said:
ROFL! I don’t know who you have me confused with, dumbass, but I’ve never even claimed my beliefs represent anything true or real, much less have I ‘insisted” anyone accept them.
Er … I just told you in an earlier post, dumbass.
Oh, except for all of the truth claims you make.
But you’re not even honest about that, are you, fuckwit?
Glen Davidson
What a great site! Everyone stays on Noyau and Moderation-Noyau hurling insults, and the few participants in “moderated” threads hurl more subtle insults. Well, what do you expect from The Shit Zone?
Another ironic comment from the honesty-impaired?
Anyway, asshole, you didn’t, because you don’t acknowledge your hateful bigotry and continual incivility.
Glen Davidson
I prefer “fucking tool,” like you said.
It’s what you wanted to make it.
Wallow in your filth. It’s within your capabilities, unlike almost everything else.
Glen Davidson
This from the guy who thinks that bare quotes on a website represents “quote-mining”. ROFL!! What belief do I have, Glen, that I have insisted that others accept? Quote and link, please.
And you’re not wallowing in it? ROFL!
It’s been done, and I’m not taking orders from a pig wallowing in his own shit.
So you’re too stupid to recognize why bare quotes are clipped by creationists as they are? Or too dishonest?
More likely, both.
But you can sit in your excrement, content in your ability to soil conversations. I’m out of this thread for now.
Glen Davidson
I acknowledge you’re projecting.
GlenDavidson said:
Even if one assumes why, the motivations of those who post the quotes don’t make them quote-mines, dumbass. Perhaps your inability to understand this simple fact also you projecting and being blinded by bias.
So, Gen makes an assertion about something I’ve supposedly done here and bitches about me supposedly not backing up my supposed claims, and when I challenge him to back up his assertion, he declines to do so.
Hypocrite much, Glen? By golly, I think you are projecting. Dumbass.
Bad week for ID, ladies?
WJM, another member in good standings of the Butthurt Christians Club.
Technically, this is true. If you should happen to trip me when I walk by, this might be an accident. When you attempt to trip me every time I go by, sooner or later I begin to suspect that this is intentional.
And so, if someone’s words are clipped out of context, and inserted into a different context with the EFFECT of creating a false impression, this might be a simple misunderstanding the first time. After many thousands of times, almost without exception, and always without correction or apology, one suspects a motivation.
William,
I think your self-image needs some adjustments.
From December:
keiths,
Walking previous thoughts back is standard for WJM, as evidenced by his books. One wonders why, with such a hilarious history of failure, he feels comfortable telling folks what’s what and continues to do so?
Actually that aligns chakras and can restore youth and health to the vigours!
Oh, there are facts now are there?
Mung:
Alan, to Mung:
Patrick, to Mung:
Patrick, to Alan:
Alan,
Patrick has set a good example for you here. Please study it.
Note that he didn’t unilaterally invent a new rule and impose it on everyone else. He didn’t make excuses by pointing to his agreement with Lizzie’s aims. Instead, he asked Lizzie herself to consider a rule change, and he did so publicly so that others could weigh in on the proposal. In the meantime, he is honoring the existing rules.
By exercising self-control and restraint, he has shown far more respect for Lizzie’s project than you have with your repeated autocratic interventions.
No matter how many times creationists actually quote mine, a page of quotes bereft of all context one way or another is still not a page of quote mines. That’s not a “technical” truth; it’s a definitional fact.
Any fact that can be made by definition can be rejected by definition.
I agree. Have you ever suggested this to Barry?
Sure, if you just make up your own definition, which I guess is how you came by the definition of quote-mine you employ.
I’m not hung up on labels. If you don’t want to call it quote mining, I’ll revert back to my second choice.
The practice you describe is degenerate, dishonest, shit-sucking, mother whoring and generally unpleasant.
Fell better?
And here’s keiths, the worst a bona-fide quote miner here, who defends his quote-mining by insisting that he knows what the author meant in contradiction even to the author attempting to correct him.
What’s creepy about it that keiths apparently has some list of quotes of mine somewhere on his hard drive, probably annotated and indexed, just waiting for me to utter some phrase he can use them on. I wonder if such a list would be, ipso facto, a list of quote mines, under Glen Davidson’s or petrushka’s definition?
You spend far too much time imagining what goes on in my head, keiths, and imagining what my emotions are. Icky.
If any of those context-eliminated quotes are USED, then you have to wonder. Since whoever uses them has NO IDEA what context they were extracted from, wouldn’t you say the risk of misrepresenting them is high?
Let’s go one baby step further. Let’s say the quotes in this list are all from evolutionary biologists, and are all USED by creationists making creationist arguments. Would you suspect a motivation there?
Now, one last baby step. Let’s say these quotes were mined by dedicated creationists, extracted from their context, and put into a list for creationists to use any way they saw fit. Would you suspect any motivation there at all?
In general usage, we say that quotes extracted from their context, and presented without context, have been mined. Mining is the very process of combing through the literature looking for sentences or phrases which can be misrepresented by anyone with the motivation to be dishonest. Why ELSE omit the contexts?
But of course you cannot possibly know his motivation, by your own argument.
Flint:
Do you not know the difference between (1) what an argument is about, and (2) what an argument is not about? I was arguing about what the term “quote-mining” meant. That’s it. That’s all I was arguing about. Those qoutes, where they are, are not quote mines on that page. Period. Even if every time anyone uses a quote after finding it on that page uses it as a quote mine, that doesn’t make those quotes, on that page, quote mines.
Glen thinks it does. Glen is wrong. Petrushka at least thought it did. Petrushka was wrong.
IMO, the reason you and others keep trying to make that argument about something other than what I was arguing is because I was right, and Glen and Petrushka were wrong. You can’t just say, “Okay, you’re right, they’re wrong.” … without adding a “but ….” and then going off into something I’m not even arguing about.
His motivation doesn’t matter, dumbass. When keith uses a quote of mine and asserts that it means X, and I correct him about what it means, and he insists that no, it means X. then keith is an unrepentant quote-miner.
No, since you are fond of definition, the definition of a quote mine includes misrepresentation.
William,
Seriously? You’re arguing that this is a quote mine?
It isn’t quotemining to point out that your statement is at odds with reality.
Jesus, William. That’s paranoid.
I simply remember the more ridiculous things that you’ve written, and then I Google them when I want to quote them. Don’t assume that my memory, or my skills, are as limited as yours.
No, I simply read what you write. Anyone reading the quote above can see how sharply your “calm and collected” self-image diverges from the reality illustrated by your behavior in this thread.
keiths,
Ironic that he’s started threads on ‘quote mining’. Open up wider WJM, you can fit your other foot in!
Nonsense. They are quotes. They were all mined. They were clearly mined for the PURPOSE of misusing them.
They are mined quotes. I asked you WHY they had been removed from their context. What good are they without the context they were extracted from? This is an important question, and you ignore it.
They are mined quotes, taken from their context. I suppose that, purely by accident, someone using those quotes could guess the actual context, since it wasn’t provided. Which of course simply ignores the fact that they were extracted for the PURPOSE of misrepresentation.
To be as charitable as possible, you were talking about how they MIGHT be used, and Glen and Petrushka were talking about how they ALWAYS ARE used. Glen and Petrushka are also aware (as is any sapient person) of WHY those particular quotes were removed from their context.
And I notice you are yourself sensitive when someone extracts a quote from one of your posts to make an argument you don’t like.
William J Murray,
If you feel that I’ve abused my admin privileges in any way, please present the evidence here. If you just wish to cast vague aspersions, do carry on as you are.
I see the idea that moderation issues thread is to raise issues about moderation is blossoming! 🙁
They were all examples of quotes that had been dishonestly used by Creationists to misrepresent actual scientific work. Squirm and wordsmith all you want but that fact won’t change
Can you imagine what would happen in a murder trial if the defense attorney argued “that gun is not a murder weapon Sure the ballistic marks match the deadly bullet and the gun had my client’s fingerprints all over it but it’s not actively murdering someone now!
That’s exactly how stupid your argument is WJM.
Alan,
Yes, despite your outrageous attempt to prevent me from doing so during the Wine Cellar debacle.
Also, don’t miss this.
keiths,
Leaving aside your disagreements with Alan, I’d like to go a step further than respecting the existing rules. As Mung noted, the Moderation Issues thread has become a Noyau clone. That makes it unfit for its purpose of addressing questions and objections to moderation decisions and for discussing the site rules. Even over just the course of today it’s getting worse.
As the resident anarchist, I’d like to show that we don’t need no stinkin’ rules. Accordingly, I will no longer treat Moderation Issues as if all rules have been suspended. I will use it only to discuss moderation issues and the rules. I will address the content of the comments and the ideas rather than the commenter. I will assume that everyone is commenting in good faith.
Under the current rules, the admins do not have the option to move comments out of this thread. I hope that at least some of you will also choose to voluntarily constrain your behavior in order to make Moderation Issues usable for its intended purpose.
Seconding Patrick, there would be no need for moderators, rules, moderation threads etc if members could just manage to exchange views without rancour.
Alan Fox,
And when you can’t, Noyau is right over there ————>.
Alan,
Yet when controversial issues are discussed, rancor tends to follow, because people are people. That includes you, Alan.
Don’t forget that your own ethical lapses — including the false accusations you made against me several months ago, which were followed by your admission that you have a lying problem — are often fueled by rancor.
Lizzie wants real, imperfect people, including you, to be able to comment here, so she doesn’t demand rancor-free discussions or pretend that they are a realistic expectation.
You tend to project your wishes onto Lizzie rather than listening to her. She has stated more than once that she doesn’t want TSZ to be a particularly polite place. The rules aren’t intended to eliminate rancor (nor could they). They are intended to keep substantive discussions from degrading into substanceless flamefests.
When you volunteered for moderator duty, you agreed to moderate within the boundaries set by Lizzie’s rules. You are acting as a proxy for her. This is her website, not yours. Try to keep your own unhelpful wishes and desires out of your moderation decisions and things will go much more smoothly.
Stick to Lizzie’s rules instead of inventing your own.