Noyau (1)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)

  1. Patrick: Discussion of moderation issues belongs in the Moderation Issues thread. That’s not censorship, it’s housekeeping. No posts or comments were deleted and obviously the discussion is still going on.

    As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, my response was not a suggestion to censor but to understand how to apply Lizzie’s rules in that situation. The post seemed to me to violate those rules. This is Lizzie’s experiment, she’s the sole person who can provide a binding interpretation.

    Revisionist history Patrick. You’re better than this.

    Here are your original posts:

    Patrick: Elizabeth,

    I would like to raise a point of order or two about the thread “Barry Arrington’s Bullying”.

    First, this thread seems to violate the rule of “Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards.”

    Second, one of the many things I despise about Uncommon Descent is the tendency to have threads focused on participants by name. This is often done by those with author privileges to leverage their attacks against those without such privileges. I find the technique distasteful as well as a violation of the spirit of “Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.”

    I request that you reconsider whether that thread is appropriate here. If you happen to agree with me that it is not, I suggest disallowing new comments but leaving it as an example of a mistake we don’t want to make again.

    Patrick: Elizabeth,

    With the latest “The War Against Barry A.”, TSZ is looking more and more like UD with posts focused on named individuals instead of ideas. As I noted earlier, I think that’s a bad direction and not aligned with the goals of the site.

    Your house, your rules, of course, but I do hope you’ll consider my suggestions.

    Nary a word about these threads belonging in Moderation Issues. There’s no reason for you to support a false narrative. None. Please try to do better.

  2. Adapa: I agree.Mung could be a worthwhile human being despite the fact his testicles are kept in Barry’s purse.Mung just chooses not to be.

    Okay, I give up, you win.

  3. Mung,

    Thank you for providing specific quotes to support your position. Too few IDCists here know how to do that.

    You’ll note that both of my comments referred to the rules of this site and how Elizabeth wants them interpreted. I do find the UD proclivity for naming individuals in post titles to be in bad taste. I do not think that it is in accordance with Elizabeth’s rules and intentions for this site. That’s why I asked.

    However, as I have repeatedly made clear, if I were making the rules here then all of that would be allowed and people would be free to call out what they see as bad behavior without the pretense of assuming good faith in the face of all evidence. Despite my preference is for far fewer rules, I am curious to see how Elizabeth’s experiment turns out here and thus far she hasn’t asked the admins to do anything (like deleting or editing comments) that I am unwilling to do in that context.

    I hope that makes my position clear.

  4. hotshoe_

    Jesus, you two sexist bigots. No, not Mung, you Adapa and you RichardHughes.

    Will either of you ever wake up and recognize that testicularity is not a measure of worth of a human being?

    In that case, would it be preferable to talk about a guy’s ovaries?

  5. stcordova: In that case, would it be preferable to talk about a guy’s ovaries?

    Not unless you wish to imply that integrity is a virtue known only to women, just as by linking integrity to testicles, you are implying that integrity is a virtue known only to men.

  6. Graeme: Not unless you wish to imply that integrity is a virtue known only to women, just as by linking integrity to testicles, you are implying that integrity is a virtue known only to men.

    No, the issue is that you can’t take away the organs with which men think and expect any kind of good result.

    Glen Davidson

  7. phoodoo: Likewise, Percy at EvC is almost as bad as Coyne. He just deletes posts by pretending they are all off topic. Then he makes all kinds of excuses just like Patrick.

    He (Percy) hides posts. He doesn’t delete them. You can use the “Peek” button to see what was posted.

    (For those who do not know what this is about, it’s a reference to “www.evcforum.net”).

  8. phoodoo: He bans people.

    Yes, he does. And I have disagreed at times.

    But banning people is not the same as deleting posts. So you mispoke.

    He does delete spam (but so does TSZ).

    It just so happens that all the people they ban are those who disagree with them.

    Percy has banned people from both sides of the evolution/creation debates.

  9. stcordova:

    hotshoe_

    Jesus, you two sexist bigots. No, not Mung, you Adapa and you RichardHughes.

    Will either of you ever wake up and recognize that testicularity is not a measure of worth of a human being?

    In that case, would it be preferable to talk about a guy’s ovaries?

    Huh? No, of course not.

  10. Graeme: Not unless you wish to imply that integrity is a virtue known only to women, just as by linking integrity to testicles, you are implying that integrity is a virtue known only to men.

    Thanks!

  11. GlenDavidson: No, the issue is that you can’t take away the organs with which men think and expect any kind of good result.

    Glen Davidson

    On a similar vein, there was a post on FB the other day. I don’t know if it is true, but it should be.

    The first cup to protect the testicles was worn in 1874. It took another 100 years before helmets were required in hockey.

  12. Neil Rickert,

    I did not misspeak, he has deleted or moved many posts in the past.

    And as we have seen here, like with Patrick, anyone can make excuses about why a poster should be banned, and claimed they are doing it fairly. The fact that there are essentially no more opposing viewpoints on EvC proves my point. He bans opposing viewpoints, but his pet insulters are allowed to do whatever they like. Like Coyne, like Dawkins, like virtually every evolution website. TSZ is different, they allow every conversation to devolve into a cesspool of meaningless insults.

    Which is better? UD I would say.

  13. stcordova: What’s this about KF dissing Mung? Can anyone enlighten me. I don’t visit UD much.

    It’s probably over entropy and order/disorder. I disagree with other IDists all the time, in case you haven’t noticed, lol.

  14. Patrick: You’ll note that both of my comments referred to the rules of this site and how Elizabeth wants them interpreted. I do find the UD proclivity for naming individuals in post titles to be in bad taste. I do not think that it is in accordance with Elizabeth’s rules and intentions for this site. That’s why I asked.

    Right. But Elizabeth stated that there was nothing wrong with the title of the OP. And by your own admission, the OP discussed issues, not personalities. It did not discuss the antics on other boards, it was not focused on Barry A., and OP’s here regularly name persons without being closed down.

    Every reason you have given for calling out my OP for attention is easily refuted. What did you think Elizabeth was going to do? You over-reacted, she over-reacted, and here we are, two steps back after having taken one step forward.

    There was absolutely nothing wrong with my OP. I think on reading the posts in the thread it’s hard to find anything wrong with the posts in the thread. It was closed to comments for no good reason. Censored.

    What exactly am I supposed to learn from this experience?

  15. Neil Rickert: Then why are you wasting your time posting here, when you could be over at UD?

    Because there’s more ignorant people here who need to be educated and who can’t post over at UD because they don’t know how to control themselves.

    Just look at this site. It not only needs a Guano section it also needs a Noyau section. That speaks volumes.

  16. Mung,

    It needs a guano, a noyau, AND a moderation thread. Because frankly only one place for scrotum remarks is really not enough.

    Plus the entire site is littered with Richard’s butthurts.

  17. phoodoo: It needs a guano, a noyau, AND a moderation thread. Because frankly only one place for scrotum remarks is really not enough.

    I’d have a lot more respect for the admins if they repeatedly reminded folks that their comments belong in Noyau. But there’s no rule requiring anyone to post in Noyau and there’s no rule requiring anyone to post in Moderation Issues. If you actually look at the URL for “Moderation Issues” it’s the former “Whine Cellar” created by Alan Fox.

    If that doesn’t suggest a big circle I don’t know what does.

    This is the same Alan Fox who claims that admins can only send comments to Guano.

  18. Mung,

    What did KF say to you? Can you link to the where he said something negative about you. Please? What was Keiths referring to?

    Thanks.

  19. Why are you asking me questions if you’re ignoring me?

    I stopped ignoring you briefly when I heard Keiths claim that KF dissed you.

    Unfortuately, taking you off the ignore list resulted me seeing some of your other remarks.

    But for now, you are no longer being ignored. I’m giving you attention now. Can you point me to where it was that KF dissed you. What did he say?

  20. stcordova.What did he say?

    He said Sal Cordova’s a sniveling slimy little shit who never misses a chance to attention whore over his favorite subject, Sal Cordova.

  21. Sal,

    Mung got the brush-off from KF on Christmas Eve:

    Mung:

    Merry Christmas kairosfocus,

    You’ve been a good friend for a long time. Thank you.

    KF:

    Mung, Happy Christmas. As Orgel and Wicken pointed out so long ago, order [as in a crystal] is not to be confused with either randomness [e.g. a tar] or organisation…

  22. Sal has had some stick regarding publishing an email he received from Barry Arrington without Barry’s explicit permission. Glancing at Uncommon Descent (of which Barry’s the owner), I see the Discovery Institute has been refused permission to exhibit “educational material” at a Methodist conference. Following the links I find John West complaining of unfair treatment. In support of his complaint, he publishes email correspondence, including several from United Methodist Church officials. I don’t see any requests to publish or permissions explicitly granted?

    Would those objecting to Sal’s action like to comment on whether John West’s action is justified?

  23. Unless there is a crime potentially involved, or it is a matter of public safety, or one has permission, I don’t see where making private emails public is ever acceptable.

  24. William J. Murray:
    Unless there is a crime potentially involved, or it is a matter of public safety, or one has permission, I don’t see where making private emails public is ever acceptable.

    The feud between Barry and Sal is not only personal, but also a clash of ideas. It involved Sal being removed from a post at UD. It may be an intra-UD affair, if you insist, but it’s not private.

    To me it looks like the conflict of DI and UMC is far more obviously a subject to possible legal action.

  25. Erik

    To me it looks like the conflict of DI and UMC is far more obviously a subject to possible legal action.

    On what even remotely possible grounds?

  26. phoodoo,

    I did not misspeak, he has deleted or moved many posts in the past.

    And as we have seen here, like with Patrick, anyone can make excuses about why a poster should be banned, and claimed they are doing it fairly.

    I have never suggested that any participant be banned, in any forum. Your complaints about other sites have nothing to do with TSZ except as a transparent example of throwing rich organic matter at the walls to see what sticks.

    Which is better? UD I would say.

    In that case, I strongly encourage you to spend a significantly larger fraction of your online time there.

  27. Mung,

    You’ll note that both of my comments referred to the rules of this site and how Elizabeth wants them interpreted. I do find the UD proclivity for naming individuals in post titles to be in bad taste. I do not think that it is in accordance with Elizabeth’s rules and intentions for this site. That’s why I asked.

    Right. But Elizabeth stated that there was nothing wrong with the title of the OP.

    After I asked her. Now I better understand her intentions for this site.

    And by your own admission, the OP discussed issues, not personalities. It did not discuss the antics on other boards, it was not focused on Barry A.,

    I don’t recall “admitting” any such thing. The title itself crossed the line of those two rules, in my view. Elizabeth disagreed. Her board, her rules.

    and OP’s here regularly name persons without being closed down.

    Would you care to provide some examples that do not include discussing published works by the people named in the title?

    Every reason you have given for calling out my OP for attention is easily refuted. What did you think Elizabeth was going to do? You over-reacted, she over-reacted, and here we are, two steps back after having taken one step forward.

    I disagree. I didn’t overreact, I asked for clarification. I still think that those kinds of topics violate the rules as written. Elizabeth has clarified that she doesn’t think they do. That’s the end of it.

    There was absolutely nothing wrong with my OP. I think on reading the posts in the thread it’s hard to find anything wrong with the posts in the thread. It was closed to comments for no good reason. Censored.

    I didn’t close it, so I can’t speak to that. Neither your original post nor any of the comments have been removed. Anyone, including you, is free to discuss the topic in other threads. Either your conclusion is wrong or Elizabeth is really bad at censoring.

    What exactly am I supposed to learn from this experience?

    I don’t think anyone’s intent was to educate you. What I learned is a bit more about how Elizabeth wants to conduct her experiment here. I’m still willing to participate after gaining that knowledge. Are you?

  28. Mung,

    Because there’s more ignorant people here who need to be educated and who can’t post over at UD because they don’t know how to control themselves.

    Yes, those poor theists that blustering Barry has banned.

    Just look at this site. It not only needs a Guano section it also needs a Noyau section. That speaks volumes.

    Those are the consequences of having explicit rules, unlike the arbitrary, capricious, and dishonest moderation mechanisms at UD.

    Guano serves the dual purpose of never deleting a comment and of ensuring that the admins are only moving comments that violate the rules. Both of those are essential on a site that values freedom of expression.

    Noyau is an outlet for letting off steam. While not as essential as Guano, it seems quite popular. There are plenty of people here who don’t always want to play by the rules, including me.

    Those threads are the signs of a healthy site.

  29. Mung,

    This is the same Alan Fox who claims that admins can only send comments to Guano.

    That’s Lizzie’s rule. I specifically asked about moving comments to Moderation Issues and she declined to change the rule.

  30. Alan Fox:

    Would those objecting to Sal’s action like to comment on whether John West’s action is justified?

    Yeah Mung, what do you think now?

  31. Patrick: This is the same Alan Fox who claims that admins can only send comments to Guano.

    That’s Lizzie’s rule. I specifically asked about moving comments to Moderation Issues and she declined to change the rule.

    Indeed. I’d still suggest it makes sense to move comments that should have been posted in another thread and respond to them in that thread partly because it is less work but also de-clutters the wrong thread from off-topic comments. But Lizzie decided that she’d rather keep it simple and that means admins now should only move comments to guano.

  32. William J. Murray:
    Unless there is a crime potentially involved, or it is a matter of public safety, or one has permission, I don’t see where making private emails public is ever acceptable.

    If someone sends me an email and insults me, I have every right to publish it far and wide. This pissed Barry off, but maybe he should have thought about that before sending his inflammatory email. I don’t recall anything in the email asking Sal to keep the contents of the email confidential. But even if it did, these sorts of statements are requests, not demands, unless there is some sort of confidentiality agreement in place.

    I don’t agree with much of what Sal says about ID and YEC, but I have not seen him partake in the type of character assassination that Barry obviously takes sick pleasure in.

  33. Alan Fox: That has nothing to do with undirected evolution, ie natural selection, drift and neutral changes.

    It is a testable and verifiable entailment. Find anomolies in the nested hierarchy and common descent with modification is seriously challenged.Nonsense. How could I possibly be less equivocalWe haven’t established the ground rules yet. You haven’t stated any entailments for ID biology. Or is inane soundbites all you have? Let’s have some substantive material from you for once.

    Common descent does not expect a nested hierarchy. And a nested hierarchy doesn’t say anything about a mechanism- this debate is about the mechanism, ie natural selection, drift and neutral construction vs design.

    What are the testable entailments for the posited mechanisms, Alan?

  34. Acartia: I don’t agree with much of what Sal says about ID and YEC, but I have not seen him partake in the type of character assassination that Barry obviously takes sick pleasure in.

    There are kinds of emails that should be considered private.

    Emails containing secrets (personal, corporate, national), emails containing drafts of copyrightable material, and so forth.

    Emails telling you that you have been fired are not among these.

  35. Acaratia:

    I don’t agree with much of what Sal says about ID and YEC, but I have not seen him partake in the type of character assassination that Barry obviously takes sick pleasure in.

    Thanks.

    I used to partake in character assassination a lot, I try not to any more, especially now that I made friends here at TSZ.

Comments are closed.