This post violates site rules

Statement from administrator team:  This post is in violation of site rules, that we should discuss the message, not the poster of the message.

In the interest of transparency, we are making the post public.  We want to be clear that the administrator team does not agree with the accusations made in the post.  Our initial reaction was to make the post private, to give us time to review the situation.  We are now making it public again, but comments are closed for this topic.  If the original author of this post requests that we make it private once again, that will be considered.

We have kept Elizabeth informed of what we are doing.  And she has given one brief email response, which I am taking as tacit approval of our initial reaction.

Neil Rickert.

Original title: Swamidass caught lying at PeacefulScience.org

If you need some entertainment, here’s a story that follows a familiar Uncommon Descent plot line:

Charlatan lies; charlatan gets caught; charlatan digs the hole deeper; gets caught some more; and charlatan, in desperation, finally bans the messenger.

In this case the charlatan is Joshua Swamidass, the blog is PeacefulScience.org, and the ban is for a week, not permanent. But it’s basically the same old UD story.

It starts here. I hope the comments don’t get deleted. Given the recent censorship kerfuffle there, Swamidass will be feeling pressure not to delete them. But the evidence is pretty damning, and it will be painful for him to leave them in place. We’ll see what happens.

28 Replies to “This post violates site rules”

  1. keiths keiths says:

    Straight from the Arrington playbook. These guys never learn:

  2. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Is this appropriate? “Caught lying”? Seems to me OPs should at least conform to the same aims and rules that Lizzie set out for comments.

  3. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Is this appropriate? “Caught lying”?

    Yes, it’s appropriate and it’s true, and the evidence makes that obvious.

    It would be pretty ridiculous for a site called The Skeptical Zone to prohibit the exposure of obvious falsehoods!

  4. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths,
    I wasn’t asking you. Admins?

    keiths: It would be pretty ridiculous for a site called The Skeptical Zone to prohibit the exposure of obvious falsehoods!

    You accuse Dr Swamidass of lying. You need to establish that he made a statement that he knew was wrong at the time he made it for you to be able to call it a lie. Can you do that?

  5. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    At the very least, we should have a disclaimer making clear the OP is the personal view of Keiths and not endorsed by TSZ or its owner, Dr Elizabeth Liddle.

  6. keiths keiths says:

    Alan:

    I wasn’t asking you.

    If you ask a question, don’t be surprised when someone answers it.

    The thread establishes that Swamidass was lying.

    As for appropriateness, suppose someone published an OP entitled “Trump caught lying.” Would you actually object? If so, why shouldn’t public figures be called out on their dishonesty? Challenging falsehoods is exactly the kind of thing The Skeptical Zone is about.

  7. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths,

    Justify your accusation that Dr Swamidass lied.

    ETA change “the” to “your”

  8. keiths keiths says:

    Go read the thread, Alan. I provided a link.

  9. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths: don’t be surprised

    I was neither surprised that you answered nor at the answer itself. You are nothing if not predictable.

  10. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths,

    Prove the lie. Hoiw do prove Dr Swamidass made a statement that he knew to be wrong when he made it? You do the legwork.

  11. keiths keiths says:

    I’ve done the legwork. Now go read the thread.

    If you’re too lazy to do that, then butt out of the conversation.

  12. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths:
    I’ve done the legwork.Now go read the thread.

    You’ve done no such thing. Had you accused Swamidass of incompetence in operating his forum, I could be persuaded. Nothing in that thread demonstrates that he lied.

    If you’re too lazy to do that, then butt out of the conversation

    Such a sweetheart! 🙂

  13. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Admins?

    Accusations of lying in OP titles? OK? Not OK? Unsubstantiated accusations of lying OK?

  14. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Nothing in that thread demonstrates that he lied.

    Sure it does, and it couldn’t be more obvious. However, given your own disgrace here at TSZ — which included being caught in brazen lies of your own — it isn’t surprising that you’d want to give Swamidass — and by extension, yourself — a pass.

  15. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths,
    Assertions and repetitions are not demonstrating that Dr Swamidass lied in making some statement. Prove he lied or stop making unsupported assertions. At least make clear which statement of his you claim is a lie.

  16. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths:…a pass.

    Sorry to repat* myself but

    Support your assertion that Dr Swamidass lied. Preferably with facts.

    ETA repeat, I would never repat myself.

  17. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Support you assertion that Dr Swamidass lied. Preferably with facts.

    Your demands are irrelevant.

    If you want to participate in the discussion, then read the thread. After doing so, if you still want to defend Swamidass, then be my guest.

  18. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths:
    Alan,

    Your demands are irrelevant.

    I’m asking you to support your assertion that Dr Swamidass lied. You seem to be finding that difficult.

    If you want to participate in the discussion, then read the thread.After doing so, if you still want to defend Swamidass, then be my guest.

    I’m not defending Dr Swamidass. We haven’t got to that point as you have not even told us which statement by Dr Swamidass is the lie you assert he told.

    Stop asserting and get demonstrating.

  19. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    @ Keiths

    And a reminder that you are a guest on Dr. Liddle’s site.

  20. keiths keiths says:

    I’m asking you to support your assertion that Dr Swamidass lied.

    You’re good at making demands, just like Mung and J-Mac. Your demands are no more important or relevant than theirs. Arguably less so, since you are the disgraced ex-moderator, and they are not.

    You seem to be finding that difficult.

    It’s easy, and I’ve done it already. You’re just too lazy to read it, or unable to rebut it.

    Make your case, if you can. If not, then step aside and we’ll see if someone else can.

  21. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    keiths: Make your case, if you can

    The case at the moment is your unsupported accusation that Dr Swamidass lied. Let’s see some support for that claim. Your claim, you support it.

    I mean, by your lights, I could claim that you are a soviet agent planted to discredit Christian scientists. Now make your case that my claim is false! 🙂

  22. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Like the ad hominems, BTW! So you! 🙂

  23. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    I have to say, it also looks a little, can I say, vengeful?

  24. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Well, I’ve made my point about unsupported accusations. I’m out for the rest of the day. I’m adding a question mark in the title of the OP as a temporary measure until admins get a chance to consider the issue.

  25. keiths keiths says:

    Too funny.

    Having already disgraced himself as a moderator, Alan is now doing so as an ex-moderator by abusing privileges he supposedly relinquished, including the privilege of changing OP titles.

    It’s remarkable how some people simply cannot resist the temptation to abuse whatever power they have. Alan would have failed the marshmallow test for sure.

  26. keiths keiths says:

    What’s nice is that even with moderator power in the hands of the corrupt, such as Alan or Swamidass, an ordinary commenter can still make an impact by exposing the corruption.

    Alan has again publicly abused his moderator privileges — despite having supposedly relinquished them. Swamidass, facing mounting evidence that he can’t refute, has simply banned his accuser for a week. Corruption reveals itself in both cases.

    It will be interesting to see what tack Swamidass takes now that the evidence is public and highly visible. My best guess is that he’ll try to minimize it without actually addressing it. He already tried to do that by labeling it “incoherent”, which it obviously isn’t. Or he might try the Jon Garvey approach and label me “disgruntled”, as if doing so could somehow magically make the evidence disappear.

  27. J-Mac says:

    keiths: It would be pretty ridiculous for a site called The Skeptical Zone to prohibit the exposure of obvious falsehoods!

    Oxygen!!! I need some oxygen!!!

    You missed a very important little piece of information, keiths…
    The prohibition of the exposure of falsehoods at TSZ is only allowed on one side of the spectrum… If it had been me, if I still had had the publishing privileges, or someone else who supports ID, it would be a different story… The publishing privileges would be taken away… Because a supporter of nonsense and on the top of it you posted this OP, the admins have to weigh the pros and cons of this OP… I hope they do the right thing and take your publishing privileges away as you deserve it …

    You can’t understand it but lying is subjective among narcissists, including some from UD…

  28. Gregory Gregory says:

    A thread does not a ‘lie exposed’ make.

    Repeat. Please formulate a specific sentence in your own words, of what this ‘lie’ or these ‘lies’ are.

    Swamidass posted the private message. He’s completely mangled the thread with his manipulations / management style in any case. But you won’t get love just for posting a link. Your case isn’t strong re: ‘lies!’ at the moment.

Comments are closed.