…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
Jesus, Gregory.
What a sad sack of shit Gregory opens, whenever he opens his mouth around here.
You don’t think he can possibly be like that all the time, can he?
hotshoe_,
I think that is the best excuse we can offer for his writing “style”. If it is deliberate rather than a “Tourettes” twitch, then he is a sad man.
Meh. Hates atheists. For some reason.
Man, we’re having a hot time in the old town tonight. Erm, this morning. Or whatever time it is in your time zones.
Lotsa guano flying.
And fifthmonarchyman has completely lost the plot, accusing people of wanting to murder the mind(s) behind the universe.
What a worthy example he is!
hotshoe_,
I have remarked to him before, a little unfairly perhaps, that it’s a good job the voice of “revelation” does not give him the idea to do something about all the prostitutes. It’s certainly happened before.
Just looked over a bunch of Gregory’s recent posts here. They seemed legible too!
Maybe KN’s screen is dirty or something? Or…there are a bunch of programmers here. Maybe one of them knows this: Could KN have a virus or something that would make Gregory’s posts here illegible, but his writings elsewhere clear??
Perhaps KN is using an AMD CPU, which censors the Intel from intelligible.
Neil Rickert,
It was probably reviewed by some grumpy atheist without the necessary background in HPSS.
Apologies to all concerned but it has been pointed out to me that we were indulging in outing here. I’m sorry I didn’t think about it before joining in and sincere apologies to the person concerned. Hence comments moved to guano and personal info redacted.
BTW, [redacted], you have not yet thanked me for rounding up some additional “views” for your (apparently highly legible, though otherwise worthless) musings on whatever the hell [redacted] was supposed to be about. I know that the view count is highly important to you so maybe I can expect something in my xmas stocking from you other than the coal this year?
Oh my lord, the world is ending: walto has gotten mad enough to write things which get moved into guano.
Well, Gregory will have to quit whining about prejudiced mods, for a while at least.
Or if he doesn’t quit whining — more reason to point and laugh at his embittered anti-atheist views.
The vast majority of the USA population (which I am quite thankfully not a part of) is anti-atheist, or at least doesn’t trust atheists. Muslims & atheists come in about the same position.
*All* mods/admins at TAMSZ are atheists (a rather imbalanced representation of ‘normal’ society worldwide, obviously). Talk about prejudice protecting atheists who violate the rules and are not Guano’d more regularly. Lizzie protects atheists at her blog, apparently by passive choice.
Was there meant to be any point to Gregory’s whine?
No?
Right-o, then, Gregory, do feel free to keep up your pointless whining about TSZ and moderation, while you freely keep reading and commenting here.
If I were you, I’d grow up and move away from a site if it made me want to whine so much.
But, suit yourself. You always do!
By posting here, I find I whine far less at work. So I consider it a long term strategy for job retention.
Lizzie’s minions:
sorry i hurt your feelings
stupid people
Good evening. My first post in this thread.
Can Alan Fox please confirm that Patrick is one of the mods? If so, then here’s something:
Patrick has extensively been exercising rule-testing on my person. He has gone out of his way harrassing me with questions that don’t apply to my position, and doing so in an off-topical way, in order to catch me with bad faith – which is obviously itself an act of bad faith on his part.
And I can easily prove my case, unless he purges the relevant thread of his participation entirely. And of mine.
My humble request is that he axe himself publicly as many times as he has repeated his questions to me. Just to be fair and balanced.
Patrick is indeed one of Elizabeth’s chosen minions.
Unwilling or incapable of self-moderation, he relies on the cowardice of his co-admins and the “if I don’t look I can’t see it” policy of mommy Lizzie.
But somehow Alan Fox always seems to be able to have his eye on “Frankie” and Gregory. Two cheers for Alan.
Neil Rickert? Lost in Space.
Erik,
Stop whining, Erik. Patrick’s questions are appropriate and on-topic.
We are talking about the literal interpretation of scripture, and you are on record as saying that the Genesis flood was an actual historical event:
And:
Given that the Flood could not possibly have happened as described in the Bible, Patrick (and the rest of us) would like to know what you do and don’t believe about this purportedly historical event. His questions could not be more relevant.
I realize that you are deeply ashamed of your beliefs — it’s obvious given that you’ve been avoiding Patrick’s questions for weeks, and it’s something you share with your fellow believer Mung. But your shame is no excuse for refusing to argue in good faith.
keiths,
This is the kind of offensive twaddle so typical of the angry atheist posters at TAMSZ, who make up about 1/3 of the ‘community’. The notion that ‘belief shaming’ is welcome and applauded at Lizzie’s lair just leaves a dark smear of ‘skeptical’ abuses.
Gregory,
It’s a simple inference. You, Erik, and Mung run for cover when questioned about your beliefs. Not only do you refuse to defend them, you refuse to even tell us what they are.
Sure looks like shame to me. What’s your explanation?
Had I known that he is a moderator here, my response would have been very brief and concrete: Moderate yourself!
He has been whining about the rules for weeks already. And he’s a moderator here, they are his rules! Based on his behaviour, I suspected he was an ignorable troll like hotshoe, but he is a moderator!
I am quite okay with the rules. He knows he broke them. “I don’t understand” mixed with accusations of bad faith for a dozen pages in a row do not show any good faith on his part.
As for his questions, I have shown him a way to make it on-topic. He should expose his full stance, leading it to its logical conclusion. Or stop presupposing the answers (which he is incapable of).
Erik,
They are already on topic.
Erik,
Patrick’s questions pertain to a statement you made, which makes his questions topical. His other remarks are in clear violation of the rules, as I have already pointed out. However, if it weren’t for the stated (but inconsistently enforced) rules here I wouldn’t have said anything about his other remarks. He’s actually right about your excuses and avoidance of answering his questions.
Not if we consider the following evidence.
– Patrick consistently includes this statement among his questions, “I am not at this time interested in analyzing the story (of the flood in the Bible)” while the topic is The Varieties of Religious Language.
– To make the former point more explicit, walto chimed in saying, “Erik, please forget about whatever the Bible may or may not say for a moment. I believe that Patrick would like to know YOUR OWN views on these questions:…” to which Patrick concurred, “You have summarized my position very clearly and succinctly. Thank you.”
Insofar as I talk about how scripture (religious language) should be interpreted and Patrick inquires about my beliefs concerning the flood, even when the specifics of my beliefs can be accessed in many of my responses (the list of links I recently provided), he is both off topic and engaging me in bad faith.
Now, I am not complaining about his behaviour towards me. Rather, I find the following aspects alarming here.
– Patrick is a moderator specifically fomenting rule-breaking behaviour in order to punish the regular unprivileged member for it.
– To make matters worse, when he fails to provoke, he calls for change of rules in order to more conveniently continue his trolling.
In other words, he lacks the character for moderation.
As for you, keiths, it’s forgivable that you lack the understanding concerning the topic you started – this is indeed a good reason for you to have started the topic. But Patrick should at least have shown some moderator integrity. He should observe the rules he was made to enforce and he should stop poisoning the atmosphere.
Discussion is a dialogue. I have my own terms which I observe when engaging in it. My terms are simple: Follow the topic. My request to Patrick is to show how he is engaging in discussion about the varieties of religious language, instead of jumping on my beliefs when historical evidence is minimal for reasons that should be understandable. Since he has been doing so for weeks, somebody should correct him appropriately.
Sadly, it seems there is no one who has the courage to scold and correct their fellow atheist / ‘skeptic’, bad faith/no faith, unelected mod/admin at TAMSZ. There is a troubling trend of religiophobia and intolerance on this site and the “Varieties of Religious Language” thread has demonstrated that amply.
Mung,
I don’t see why you’re complaining. All you ever do is act like a two-faced, shit-stirring troll yet your comments are rarely Guanoed.
Why is it that you never complain about your buddy Joe G, aka Frankie, and how about “nutsack” phoodoo, and Gregory? Joe was “permanently” banned yet he is still projectile vomiting his bile here. Shouldn’t the moderators enforce Joe’s “permanent” ban?
Gregory,
I am “no one” then.
If you lie down with dogs etc…
Gregory,
And look who’s bitching about intolerance. Sheesh.
Erik,
That is an absolute falsehood. You made this claim:
You reiterated it several times with comments like this:
That is a positive claim about a supposedly historical event. I am attempting to understand exactly what it is you are claiming. In order to do so, I have asked three simple questions:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
You have evaded answering these questions in direct opposition to the goals of this site:
Either answer the questions or retract your claim. There is no other honest option open to you.
Erik,
Comments are not deleted here. Your cowardice and dishonesty are preserved for all to see.
Erik,
They are on topic because they address a claim you made about a supposedly historical event.
I’ve already explained to you several times that my position depends on exactly what it is you are claiming. When you clarify your claim, I will be happy to address it.
I am doing the opposite of presupposing. I am asking you to clarify exactly what you mean.
It’s high time you stopped with the evasions and answered those simple questions.
Erik,
The topic is this claim of yours:
That is a claim about a supposed historical event. I’m not interested at this point in analyzing stories, because I first need to understand exactly what you mean when you make this claim.
Refusing to clarify your meaning by hiding behind “It’s off topic.” is just more cowardice and bad faith on your part.
It’s beyond stupid to claim that these are “your terms” when YOU were the one who extended the topic from general religious/spiritual language to your unclear but specifically-historical statement about the Flood.
If you didn’t want to go off topic, YOU should not have done that.
But since you did, YOU should have the common decency not to say it’s someone else’s fault.
Well, of course it’s not “common decency” to the kind of man like you who says I am a troll. To you, it would be an act of intellectual heroism to tell the truth about your backwoods beliefs on the Flood. Go ahead, be an intellectual hero: prove you’re a better man than the evidence has shown so far; explain yourself simply and honestly!
Yes, Patrick is one of the mods (or, technically, administrators).
I don’t see that at all.
Then it is up to you to clarify why those questions don’t apply to your position.
I take Patrick to be repeatedly asking for that clarification. And I take you as repeatedly failing to provide it.
So sayeth Gregory, who has practiced shaming in almost every post.
And you are too?
Erik,
Your evasions have moved well beyond ‘pitiful’ into ‘grotesque’.
The topic is religious language, including scripture and its interpretations. Patrick’s questions are designed to reveal what you believe about the Flood — beliefs that are the result of your interpretation of scripture. His questions are on topic.
You keep trying to divert the conversation to vague discussions of how you would go about interpreting scripture, but we’d like to know the actual beliefs resulting from your interpretation of the Genesis flood story, so that we can judge them against the scientific evidence.
You seem to have no confidence whatsoever in those beliefs, having dodged Patrick’s straightforward questions for weeks. Why not just say so instead of pretending that the questions are off-topic?
Yes.
And you don’t see it as your duty to give an adequate answer to what I actually pointed out? (Hint: Not Patrick’s trolling of me, which is bad enough, but his request to change the rules in order to troll more effectively. “I don’t see that at all” does not qualify when this is explicitly happening in front of your face.)
If not, then I think I must patrick you until you get the point.
Erik,
Your accusation of trolling is unfounded. I am asking you to clarify a claim you made. I am suggesting a rule change to stop you from continuing to hide behind the rules while acting in opposition to the goals of this site.
It’s been clear for some time that you are terrified of clarifying your claim. That doesn’t change the fact that you have an obligation to either do so or retract it.
Despite the fact that you present yourself in these discussions as the type of person who inspired the invention of waterboarding, I do have some compassion for you. It must be hard to have only your faith to cling to in the big scary world. Perhaps if your mother had ever demonstrated unconditional love or your father hadn’t failed to teach you how to be a man in the world things might be different.
The bright spot is that you now have the opportunity to work through some of your issues.
After all, what’s the worst that could happen? You’ll get the benefit of no longer behaving like a dishonest coward and only need take the risk of subjecting your claims to disconfirmation. Sure, that could lead to you inspecting and possibly questioning your beliefs, but . . . .
Ah, I’m beginning to see the problem.
LoL.
First, you are re-writing history. Never a good sign if an honest debate is the objective. There is ample evidence available on this site that I am able to say what I believe and defend what I believe.
Second, your previous challenge to me was that I should defend my faith, not that I should defend my beliefs. So now you’re changing the subject.
Third, there’s still the matter of a claim you made against me of making a false accusation, a claim you have declined to support/defend. Pot. Kettle. Black. Until you clear up that matter, trying to please you isn’t high on my list of priorities.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Patrick has expressed opinions about the rules. Changing the rules is the prerogative of Elizabeth. So there’s no need for me to “give an adequate answer.”
Mung,
My questions still await your answers: link, link
If you can’t summon the courage to answer them, you’re reinforcing my point: when questioned about your beliefs, you run for cover. Just like Erik. And Gregory.
I see. There is no such thing as moderator integrity in this place. This explains everything. It feels awkwardly liberating 🙂
I have no further questions. When “I don’t see that at all” and “I don’t understand” run the place, there’s nothing to ask.
Yes.
You do understand, don’t you, that I am not an admin here? If people here are doing things you don’t like I have no control over that. Take it up in the Moderation thread.
Erik,
Your attempts at distracting from the core issue continue to be transparent.
You made this claim:
I have asked for clarification:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
Your only honest responses at the point are to either answer those simple questions or retract your claim. It’s well past time that you do one or the other.
Mung and Reality,
Lizzie has chosen to allow Frankie to continue participating here, despite suspicions that he may be a sock puppet of a banned commenter.
The only allowed action within the rules is to Guano any comments that suggest that Frankie, or anyone else, is Joe Gallien. That kind of insult is beyond the pale here.
Of course not.
Amen.
Mung,
I’m curious. What site or sites do you two put forward as places that do exemplify”moderator integrity”?