Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 57

Thread: Moderating the Conspiracy Theories section - SAMU's opinions

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    [Moderator Note]This thread has been created by splitting posts from the 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea' thread, as the posts SAMU wrote with two exceptions, are about the moderation of the Conspiracy Theories section (not debating tactics and how to challenge ATM ideas, in the ATM section).
    [/Moderator Note]
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    That's why the EU/PU threads (among others) went on nearly endlessly, right?
    I have seen some threads go on a long time. The proponent usually has a weak argument and the moderators seem to be ok with the bashing of them as long as the proponent will take it. But a proponent with strong supportive evidence does get his thread locked quickly. An example would be my most recently locked thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    From what I've seen, threads usually get closed quickly when the ATMer starts ad hom arguments, gets into religion or politics, or starts multiple threads, shotgunning many assertions, and doesn't bother to answer any pertinent questions.
    Which there was none of on my part in that thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post

    The author of a paper is expected to understand the subject, and to have done careful research to arrive at his conclusion. It is expected that he would have abundant evidence and references. He should be able to answer obvious questions about his argument.
    But should not be required to repeatedly answer ad infinitem questions that have already been answered and questions that a peer should not ask. A peer has a certain responsability to seek answers that satisfy himself. For example; in my "levee" thread I mentioned that many people heard explosions. I was requested to provide "proof of this. I provided links to some testimony of such but the links Iprovided could have been fabricated by me. The the peer would know that by having a computer with internet access and searching the words "heard explosions" could find stated evidence as much as exists to satisfy himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    If the author plans to fundamentally change physics, or has interpretations of evidence that are at odds with what known physics would indicate, he will have to do a great deal of research and provide a great deal of material (with math, obviously) in support of his position. He certainly shouldn't expect his arguments to remain unchallenged.
    "A great deal" is too general and subjective. The difference between the Ptolemaic universe and the Copernican is the power of the telescope. The peer understands the difference. The ignorant opposing questioner merely demands "proof" that that makes a difference. By understanding the difference the proposer recognises the ignorance of the question. Badastronomy is no more immune to critical analysis than any other group. It can lock threads that expose this and ban posters. But it will have its weaknesses pointed out.

    What the moderators should consider is that if a proposal of ATM with strong evideciary support sparks intrest in readers of this site and gets locked then this site will get boring with only the weak argument bashing that goes on and on. I personally don't even read threads that have a long list of pages as that is a tipoff that that is what is happening. I may read the first post if the topic intrests me.
    Last edited by SAMU; 2006-Sep-27 at 10:06 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    I have seen some threads go on a long time. The proponent usually has a weak argument and the moderators seem to be ok with the bashing of them as long as the proponent will take it. But a proponent with strong supportive evidence does get his thread locked quickly. An example would be my most recently locked thread.

    Which there was none of on my part in that thread.

    But should not be required to repeatedly answer ad infinitem questions that have already been answered and questions that a peer should not ask. A peer has a certain responsability to seek answers that satisfy himself. For example; in my "levee" thread I mentioned that many people heard explosions. I was requested to provide "proof of this. I provided links to some testimony of such but the links Iprovided could have been fabricated by me. The the peer would know that by having a computer with internet access and searching the words "heard explosions" could find stated evidence as much as exists to satisfy himself.


    "A great deal" is too general and subjective. The difference between the Ptolemaic universe and the Copernican is the power of the telescope. The peer understands the difference. The ignorant opposing questioner merely demands "proof" that that makes a difference. By understanding the difference the proposer recognises the ignorance of the question. Badastronomy is no more immune to critical analysis than any other group. It can lock threads that expose this and ban posters. But it will have its weaknesses pointed out.

    What the moderators should consider is that if a proposal of ATM with strong evideciary support sparks intrest in readers of this site and gets locked then this site will get boring with only the weak argument bashing that goes on and on. I personally don't even read threads that have a long list of pages as that is a tipoff that that is what is happening. I may read the first post if the topic intrests me.
    Er, SAMU, the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea' (my bold).

    However, "my most recently locked thread", is* They blew up the levee, which is in the Conspiracy Theories (CT) section of BAUT, not the Against the Mainstream (ATM) one.

    Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.

    If you have examples to support your assertions, from ATM threads, by all means please present them. If you want to talk about the CT section instead, then please do so in a thread other than this one.

    *presumably; if I got it wrong, please set me straight.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Peer Review firstly requires that the reviewer is a peer. A peer is an equal. Not an equal in the sense of the American Constitution of "All Men Are Created Equal" but in the sense that he is equal in the ordinary inteligence and instrumentality required of a peer to the task of reviewing the evidence as published.
    *Moose's hubris-meter[tm] squeals as it briefly pegs.*

    Of course badastronomy is not a legitimate peer review. It is a private site run by your slightly above average ignorant internet population. The best you can hope for here and in any true scientific publication is that the reader is interested and understands what you have written by the time a moderator locks your thread because you do not comply with the illigitimate demands of this site.
    *Moose's hubris-meter[tm] explodes, peppering his cubicle with plastic and silicone shrapnel.*
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    I very much agree. But further, the rule "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner." has been interpreted by moderators here to mean that all questions; repeat questions that have already been answered, lazy questions that legitimately require the questioner to perform some task to his own satisfaction, and fallacious questions. Threads are locked by moderators because of the refusal to comply with these illegitimate demands.
    Also the statement
    "People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do."
    Is factually untrue.
    Peer Review firstly requires that the reviewer is a peer. A peer is an equal. Not an equal in the sense of the American Constitution of "All Men Are Created Equal" but in the sense that he is equal in the ordinary inteligence and instrumentality required of a peer to the task of reviewing the evidence as published.

    A publisher of a paper for peer review need only publish information that a peer interested in reviewing can repeat. He need not perform any extraordinary efforts for a reviewer.

    If a publisher states that by pointing a telescope of a certain magnification in a certain direction he saw a comet then it is the responsability of a peer to read the information with the ordinary thouroughness expected of a peer, understand the information as a peer and have the equipment of a peer to repeat the task as published. The publisher isn't required to provide a telescope for all and sundry who question his claim nor does he have to provide an education for same who do not nor brain transplants for nitwits who will not understand what was written. He doesn't have to repeat ad infinitum the information in the paper or point out the errors or misunderstandings in replies for all who do not read it with the ordinary thouroughness of a peer. He isn't required to dance on the head of a pin or perform any extraordinary efforts on demand of a reviewer.
    The reviewer must have the resources both intellectual and technical to repeat the instructions of the publisher and the same to explain where by following the instructions he got a different result to make his challange valid as a peer review.

    That is not to say that the publisher is not often requested to make a demonstration. For example surgeons often perform demonstrations of new surgical tecniques for interested parties. But the interested parties are often required to pay for the service and expence of the demonstration. Some surgeons make a living mearly performing demonstrations for other surgeons.

    Of course badastronomy is not a legitimate peer review. It is a private site run by your slightly above average ignorant internet population. The best you can hope for here and in any true scientific publication is that the reader is interested and understands what you have written by the time a moderator locks your thread because you do not comply with the illigitimate demands of this site.
    The only thing I'd like to add to Van Rijn's excellent response to this post of yours, SAMU, is a request for some specific examples.

    In particular, can you please give at least one example of each of the following (from the ATM section, not any other section; my bold in all cases):

    "the rule "Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner." has been interpreted by moderators here to mean that all questions; repeat questions that have already been answered, lazy questions that legitimately require the questioner to perform some task to his own satisfaction, and fallacious questions."

    "Threads are locked by moderators because of the refusal to comply with these illegitimate demands" (you my use my recent analysis of locked ATM threads, or perform your own analysis).

    Oh, one more thing: "the illigitimate demands of this site". There is a sticky thread, in this About BAUT section, called Rules discussion. If you would like to discuss any of the rules, please contribute to that thread.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    ...the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea....

    Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.
    Then why is this thread itself not in the ATM section? Your point is a dodge of my point. The fallacy of changing the subject. My bad but by your own principal you posted in the wrong forum. It should have been in the ATM section yes? The rest of your questions relate to the ATM section which is not of much intrest to me. My replies were intended to be relavant to BAUT generally which is where you posted this thread. I suspect that you posted in this forum rather than the ATM because you wanted more readers than those who are interested in ATM.

    I did read your analysis of ATM locked threads but I am not the peer to evaluate them as I am not interested in that section. However I have read the thread of "rules discussion". Besides the the fact that the "signal to noise ratio" in that thread is rather high there does not seem to be any conclusion amoung the moderators or BA to many of the arguments applicable to this thread or that one.

    Yet again, my strong argument relavant to the topic as a BAUT topic met with requests by a moderator to leave the thread regardless of the applicability of the argument to the this topic as a BAUT topic.

    But since you are a moderator can I request that you and any other moderators and BA himself answer these direct questions. The first two can be answered by yes or no and the second three by true or false.

    Rule 13 states "you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner".

    Do you intend to enforce an interpretation of this rule as;

    "Repeated questions must be answered by the proposer ad infinitum"?

    "Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?

    "Refusal of a poster to comply with the above will be grounds for locking of the thread"?

    "Moderators have no responsability to discuss the above issues when locking a thread"?

    "Moderators (or others) who have participated in a thread can get other moderators who may have no interest in reading the thread in question to lock the thread so as to have plausable deniability that a strong argument pointing out their above mentioned errors is why they want a thread locked"?

    Answer at your own risk as I do intend to compare your answers here to your actions throughout BAUT.
    There are many other illigitimate policies here but these are the ones on my mind for the present.

    Mind you, it is my intention here to point out areas where the policies here could stand for improvement to make this site more enjoyable to legitimate discussion not just to engage in bashing or debate for its own sake. Not to say that others here musn't do that but the moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    *Peer Review firstly requires that the reviewer is a peer. A peer is an equal. Not an equal in the sense of the American Constitution of "All Men Are Created Equal" but in the sense that he is equal in the ordinary inteligence and instrumentality required of a peer to the task of reviewing the evidence as published..*
    Moose's hubris-meter[tm] squeals as it briefly pegs.
    Moose's hubris-meter[tm] explodes, peppering his cubicle with plastic and silicone shrapnel.*
    Not very specific but I take it you disagree? If so how would you define a more humble but still legitimate scientific or intellectual peer?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    ...the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea....

    Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.
    Then why is this thread itself not in the ATM section? Your point is a dodge of my point. The fallacy of changing the subject. My bad but by your own principal you posted in the wrong forum. It should have been in the ATM section yes? The rest of your questions relate to the ATM section which is not of much intrest to me. My replies were intended to be relavant to BAUT generally which is where you posted this thread. I suspect that you posted in this forum rather than the ATM because you wanted more readers than those who are interested in ATM.
    Wow. You've really got Nereid pinned down now. There's no escape. Pour it on.

    Unless, of course, instead of meaning: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (in the CT Section), Nereid actually meant: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (here in this forum, just like this ATM version already under way).

    Ever consider reading Nereid's words that way? What do you think? Could it be?
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,986
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001 View Post
    Wow. You've really got Nereid pinned down now. There's no escape. Pour it on.

    Unless, of course, instead of meaning: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (in the CT Section), Nereid actually meant: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (here in this forum, just like this ATM version already under way).

    Ever consider reading Nereid's words that way? What do you think? Could it be?
    That sounds plausible, especially considering that according to the description of the "About Baut" section this section is for things, well, about Baut. That is, announcements, comments or questions about Baut, which includes Baut rules and policy, and discussions about how things are or should be done. This is unlike the ATM section which (according to the description) is for discussion of ATM ideas, or the CT section which is for the discussion of CTs. Also, the threads found in each section would also seem to be consistent with the descriptions.

    SAMU, it seemed quite clear to me that this thread was for the discussion of ATM debate and challenges, and I answered your previous post with that in mind. From your later posts it appears that you have something else in mind, though I'm not sure what exactly. Perhaps you should start another thread here, in this section, about it?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Not very specific but I take it you disagree?
    You take it right.

    If so how would you define a more humble but still legitimate scientific or intellectual peer?
    "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while."

    Pinning a person's legitimacy to respond strictly on their qualifications is a logical fallacy. If a person's right, they're right. Regardless, the onus still must remain on you to support your assertions.

    And Nereid asked you an especially pertinent question so please stop changing the subject. I'd like to see an answer as well: could you please provide examples (preferably by links) of where a thread was locked where you were asked repeat, fallacious and/or impertinent questions?

    But my response is more personal than that. I think you may be overestimating your acumen somewhat and grossly underestimating the quality of the folks who choose to examine your proposals. You're not surrounded by cretins, by any means, but if you're unable (or unwilling) to recognize that, I would suggest you need to reevaluate your appraisal of your surroundings.

    Next, if journal-based peer review is so much better and easier than posting in ATM, and your material is worthy of it, why on Earth aren't you submitting your material to peer review? Isn't that irresponsible of you?

    And last, Nereid suggested your CT complaints should go in its own thread. Nobody suggested you're in the wrong forum. CT != ATM, and the rules are different, so it's almost certainly best handled by two different discussions to avoid potential confusion.
    Last edited by Moose; 2006-Sep-28 at 06:34 PM. Reason: Several grammatical errors. No cookie for me.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Rule 13 states "you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner".

    Do you intend to enforce an interpretation of this rule as;

    "Repeated questions must be answered by the proposer ad infinitum"?
    If it's repeated and has already been answered, a link would suffice. If it hasn't been answered, the repeat is pertinent.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    "Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?
    If the error has already been corrected, a link would suffice. Of course, you may have a disagreement on whether or not the correction is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    "Refusal of a poster to comply with the above will be grounds for locking of the thread"?
    Not necessarily locking of the thread, the banning of the poster is a possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    "Moderators have no responsability to discuss the above issues when locking a thread"?

    Nope, but they generally do. You have a particular thread where it wasn't discussed or mentioned?

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    "Moderators (or others) who have participated in a thread can get other moderators who may have no interest in reading the thread in question to lock the thread so as to have plausable deniability that a strong argument pointing out their above mentioned errors is why they want a thread locked"?

    That's an assumption on your part. Could you point to a thread where the above has happened? Plus the point to where you can show that that moderator called in didn't read the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Answer at your own risk as I do intend to compare your answers here to your actions throughout BAUT.
    I'm sure all the moderators are shaking in their boots. Just for the record, I happen to like the job the moderators are doing. I've seen one or two instances where I didn't agree, it was discussed and changed or discussed and not changed. It's their rules, live by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    There are many other illigitimate policies here but these are the ones on my mind for the present.
    As the BA has said before, if you don't like the policies, get your own webspace, set up a forum, and set the rules to how you like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Mind you, it is my intention here to point out areas where the policies here could stand for improvement to make this site more enjoyable to legitimate discussion not just to engage in bashing or debate for its own sake.
    Not everyone will agree with you on what policies need improvement. I happen to think the policies are quite good, just the way they are. But that discussion is for another thread. As for this thread, I would also like to see an answer to the question Moose repeated from Neried: "Could you please provide examples (preferably by links) of where a thread was locked where you were asked repeat, fallacious and/or impertinent questions?"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,

    None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule
    Quote Originally Posted by Badastronmer View Post
    7. Second & Third Party Posting

    Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves.
    Thus your responses are a violation of rule 7.
    Possibly Nereid is researching the issue further before popping off with (to quote Moose) "cretinous" replies.
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001 View Post

    Unless, of course, instead of meaning: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (in the CT Section), Nereid actually meant: you could have a discussion of <<debating tactics in the CT Section of BAUT>> (here in this forum, just like this ATM version already under way).
    Your post is gramatically and logically incomprehensable. What does <<--->> mean anyhow? I must have been asleep when thay tought that in grammer school.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    Pinning a person's legitimacy to respond strictly on their qualifications is a logical fallacy. If a person's right, they're right. Regardless, the onus still must remain on you to support your assertions.
    Legitimacy is based not on their qualifications but on the qualification of their question. If the question is obviously based on a misreading or ignoring of previous statements then the question is cretinously illegitamate. To use the telescope example: If a publisher writes that by pointing a telescope of power 10x in a certain direction you will see a comet and a responder says that he pointed his telescope of power 8x exactly as the publisher said and saw nothing then the responder is obviously not a peer either in equipment or in intelect. Even if the responder claims to have better than normal eyesight or claimes to have his 8x telescope hooked to a computer that he claimes gives him an effective magnification of 10x. A responder could be the head of the Royal Astronomical Society but if he doesn't follow the instructions of the publisher his response is illegitimate and any peer would recognise it as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    If it's repeated and has already been answered, a link would suffice. If it hasn't been answered, the repeat is pertinent.
    Again, you are not a moderator so your response is irrelevant. I would like to think that it will be interpreted that way but it was not in my example of my "Levee" thread. A moderator three times repeted erroneous questions second party that were based on erroneous missreading of the material or had already been answered and a second moderator locked the thread based on those erroneous assersions with no disscussion possible except to start a second thread about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    "Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?.
    If the error has already been corrected, a link would suffice. Of course, you may have a disagreement on whether or not the correction is valid.
    This reply is incomprehensable. But if you mean that the publisher must provide links ad infinitum to point out the errors of questioners who refuse to view them then I'm glad you are not a moderator.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    "Refusal of a poster to comply with the above (refusing to respond to erroneous and illegitimate questions) will be grounds for locking of the thread"?
    Not necessarily locking of the thread, the banning of the poster is a possibility.
    Even worse.

    All of this is why I addressed my post to moderators and BA rather than you hoi poli.
    Last edited by SAMU; 2006-Sep-29 at 06:30 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,813
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,

    None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule Thus your responses are a violation of rule 7.
    Yeah, that's exactly what they were doing. They weren't responding to it on their own behalf, they were finding out what Nereid had to say and posting in on their own. You're so right!

    Your post is gramatically and logically incomprehensable. What does <<--->> mean anyhow? I must have been asleep when thay tought that in grammer school.
    Also when they explained the proper spelling of "tought" and "grammer"? Before you criticize others--and I found that post perfectly clear--you might want to take a minute to run spellcheck on your own posts.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by samu View Post
    01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,

    None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule Thus your responses are a violation of rule 7.
    Yeah, that's exactly what they were doing. They weren't responding to it on their own behalf, they were finding out what Nereid had to say and posting in on their own. You're so right!.

    If Nereid had something to say then he should have posted it himself. That's what the rule says.
    Quote Originally Posted by Badastronomer View Post
    Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it.
    (And are you sure "they were finding out what Nereid had to say"? If they had then they should have posted saying so not you. Now you are violating rule 7.) And your point is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post

    Also when they explained the proper spelling of "tought" and "grammer"? Before you criticize others--and I found that post perfectly clear--you might want to take a minute to run spellcheck on your own posts.
    I have no doubt that you do understand it. Many people believe they understand things that do not stand up to logical review. I notice you do not publish your understanding of it for logical review. You just point out some spelling errors. Is that the best you can do? Fortunately there is no rule against spelling errors.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    If Nereid had something to say then he should have posted it himself. That's what the rule says.
    Nereid did post the question. I referred to it because you'd dodged it. And you have yet again dodged the question on spurrious grounds. Despite the lack of an answer to Nereid's quesiton, however, I'm beginning to see exactly why your thread got locked.

    Your aggressive misinterpretation of rule 7 isn't worth the dignity of a reply other than this: do yourself a big favor and grow up, SAMU. This exercise in belligerence of yours isn't doing your image any good.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,986
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    (And are you sure "they were finding out what Nereid had to say"? If they had then they should have posted saying so not you. Now you are violating rule 7.) And your point is?
    If you think that I or someone else has broken a board rule, report it. However, from my reading, rule 7 is not meant to stop ongoing discussion between board members, but is meant to stop board members speaking for non-board members that can't speak freely for themselves.

    Not that it needs to be said, but I do not see Gillian's voicing her opinion to be in any way speaking for me or anyone else.

    As for me, regarding the comment subject to your complaint, I explained why I would expect this thread to be in this section, based on section descriptions and normal use. I would have thought it would have been obvious without explanation, but you seemed to be in need of it.

    I have no doubt that you do understand it. Many people believe they understand things that do not stand up to logical review.
    That is very ironic, given a number of statements you have made in this thread.

    I notice you do not publish your understanding of it for logical review. You just point out some spelling errors. Is that the best you can do? Fortunately there is no rule against spelling errors.
    If she hadn't pointed it out, I would have. That was extremely ironic.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,813
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    If Nereid had something to say then he should have posted it himself. That's what the rule says. (And are you sure "they were finding out what Nereid had to say"? If they had then they should have posted saying so not you. Now you are violating rule 7.) And your point is?
    Sarcasm, in fact. The rule only applies if there was talk in the background about what Nereid (whom I believe is a she) wanted to say but wasn't going to. If there wasn't, it was other people replying to you besides the person to whom the post is addressed, which, if it is against a rule here, is the single most violated rule we have.

    I have no doubt that you do understand it. Many people believe they understand things that do not stand up to logical review. I notice you do not publish your understanding of it for logical review. You just point out some spelling errors. Is that the best you can do? Fortunately there is no rule against spelling errors.
    01101001 meant, as everyone but apparently you could determine, to use quotation marks. Why he didn't is unclear, but the meaning of the sentence is not. The point was not the section of the board. The point was the title of the thread. This is about ATM. Your complaint, if we understand you correctly, is about CT. You could start another thread, in this section of the board, about the use of debating topics vs. challenging a CT. You have not. You are, instead, complaining about a CT thread in a discussion of ATM threads. If you aren't, please do enlighten all of us as to which thread you're discussing.

    It is true that there's not a lot I can contribute to the science aspects of things, and it is further true that my function around here does seem to be Grammar/Spelling Queen. Fair enough. I can, however, still ask questions that you never bother answering about flaws in logic.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    01101001, Van Rijn, Moose, Tensor,None of you are moderators or are you Nereid. Since I addressed my post to them your posts are irrelavant and against rule
    Ahhhhhhhh, an erroneous question. The rule means that you are not allowed to post for someone else. For an example, someone comes to me and asks me to post their idea on the forum for them. That is what rule 7 applies to. My post was by me, for me and doesn't fall under rule 7. And, it does't matter whether you addressed the comment to Nereid or not. These are open forums and any memeber is allowed to comment on any post. If you didn't want answers from others, you should have taken it to PM.


    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Again, you are not a moderator so your response is irrelevant.
    You questioned what would happen in a certain circumstatnce, I responded with what the rules say. That is pertinent, whether I'm a moderator or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    I would like to think that it will be interpreted that way but it was not in my example of my "Levee" thread. A moderator three times repeted erroneous questions second party that were based on erroneous missreading of the material or had already been answered and a second moderator locked the thread based on those erroneous assersions with no disscussion possible except to start a second thread about it.
    That is your interpretation of it. I happen not to agree. I think the moderators acted properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    This reply is incomprehensable. But if you mean that the publisher must provide links ad infinitum to point out the errors of questioners who refuse to view them then I'm glad you are not a moderator.
    Well, read it again. It simply states that what you consider answered, your questioner may not. Did it cross your mind the the questioner may think that your links or explanations may be in error?

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Even worse.
    I'll have to retract this, my error. When putting the quotes in, I missed the connection and answered based solely on the quote and not the contenxt of the quote. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    All of this is why I addressed my post to moderators and BA rather than you hoi poli.
    As I said, it a open forum, if you don't like our answers, go to PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,441
    SAMU - Your posts are, once again, the exact reason that so many of the threads in ATM tend to degenerate. If ATM posters are interested in respectful, productive exchanges they should be prepared to meet other posters halfway and show the respect they wish to have shown to them. Since posters such as you refuse to do that... the result is exactly as you see here.

    I am not defending... just pointing out. Since I have been criticized by ATM posters several times for supporting a double standard, I doubt my advice will be taken so I doubt that ATM posters will be taken seriously any time in the near furture.

    Your choice folks...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    ...the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea....

    Now it's OK to have a discussion of 'debating tactics', etc in the CT section of BAUT, and the extent to which there are similarities (and differences) between this and the ATM section, but this particular thread is about the ATM section.
    Then why is this thread itself not in the ATM section?
    I thought about starting it there, and did indeed start one such. However, the ATM section is not the place for a discussion on how the ATM section should be run (or discussions in it conducted) - this kind of 'meta' topic is what this About BAUT section is for.
    Your point is a dodge of my point.
    I'm sorry to say that I don't know what your point is (or was) - would you be so kind as to repeat it?
    The fallacy of changing the subject. My bad but by your own principal you posted in the wrong forum. It should have been in the ATM section yes? The rest of your questions relate to the ATM section which is not of much intrest to me. My replies were intended to be relavant to BAUT generally which is where you posted this thread. I suspect that you posted in this forum rather than the ATM because you wanted more readers than those who are interested in ATM.
    OK, I will split out your posts in this thread - that concern 'debating tactics' and 'challenging' in sections of BAUT other than the ATM section, into a separate thread (but I'd like your OK first, if you don't mind).

    In this case, I hope I've set the record straight as to why I started this thread here, and not in the ATM section; pace SAMU, it was to avoid having an 'about' discussion in the section itself (which, IMHO, can lead to confusion, if only because it's rather easy to slip between levels).
    I did read your analysis of ATM locked threads but I am not the peer to evaluate them as I am not interested in that section. However I have read the thread of "rules discussion". Besides the the fact that the "signal to noise ratio" in that thread is rather high there does not seem to be any conclusion amoung the moderators or BA to many of the arguments applicable to this thread or that one.

    Yet again, my strong argument relavant to the topic as a BAUT topic met with requests by a moderator to leave the thread regardless of the applicability of the argument to the this topic as a BAUT topic.
    In the BAUT rules, one covers this kind of situation:
    If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.
    Further discussion of a CT thread is not appropriate in this thread.
    But since you are a moderator can I request that you and any other moderators and BA himself answer these direct questions. The first two can be answered by yes or no and the second three by true or false.

    Rule 13 states "you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner".

    Do you intend to enforce an interpretation of this rule as;

    "Repeated questions must be answered by the proposer ad infinitum"?
    I have no idea what you are asking, sorry.

    Earlier, I asked for specific examples of repeat, lazy, and fallacious questions, in one (or more) ATM* thread.

    Perhaps if you could provide such examples, I could better understand what you are asking.
    "Errors of a questioner must be pointed out by the proposer ad infinitum"?
    Ditto.
    "Refusal of a poster to comply with the above will be grounds for locking of the thread"?
    Ditto
    "Moderators have no responsability to discuss the above issues when locking a thread"?
    Ditto
    "Moderators (or others) who have participated in a thread can get other moderators who may have no interest in reading the thread in question to lock the thread so as to have plausable deniability that a strong argument pointing out their above mentioned errors is why they want a thread locked"?
    Ditto
    Answer at your own risk as I do intend to compare your answers here to your actions throughout BAUT.
    There are many other illigitimate policies here but these are the ones on my mind for the present.

    Mind you, it is my intention here to point out areas where the policies here could stand for improvement to make this site more enjoyable to legitimate discussion not just to engage in bashing or debate for its own sake. Not to say that others here musn't do that but the moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard.
    [snip]
    Please do so in the rules discussion thread (that is what it is there for).

    *Note that the examples have to come from an ATM thread, not because this thread is about the ATM section, but because rule #13 applies to only the ATM section.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    Second party posting is the equivalent sock puppetry. It's also a form of revisionism. It allows the posters the illegitimate out of; "Sorry I misunderstood what he meant to say. What he really meant to say was "Yada Yada Yada" How do you answer that smarty pants?". It moves the bar, it allows a poster to have it both ways, it opens the door to the demand of having your cake and eating it too. It is logically illegitimate.

    Not to say that the owner and moderators can't want it. Not to say that they can't have it. This is a privately funded site and they can. But they can't have logical illegitimacy and have it morph into logical legitimacy just because they own or moderate this site.

    It does not matter that a poster is supporting a mainstream idea or a moderator or anything else. If he is using an illegitimate tactic then it's still illegitimate. And it means that the poster doesn't really understand the mainstream idea well enough to make a legitimate argument anyway.

    I have perfect understanding of why ATM discussions degenerate into the kind that has been pointed out with this one; illegitimate arguments are used. In ATM both sides use illegitimate arguments. That is why I am uninterested in that section.

    I include a link to a fallacy site in my signature not so that people can learn to use fallacy in their arguments but so they can be aware of how to identify fallacious arguments. I also include a link to a site describing "Flame Warriors"(A humorous and entertaining site. If you havent seen it you should.). I do not do this to provide a menu of personas that people can adopt. I do it to illustrate the kind of behaviors that are common, annoying and disruptive in the internet (I see them in real life too).

    Nereid has responded to my last post addressed to him. Any reply the rest of you hoi polli post has absolutly no merrit to the questions asked of him.

    Since Nereid has written that this thread is only for discussion related to ATM and not to BAUT generally and since my discussion is generally applicable not specific to ATM I am going to avoid a charge of hijacking "his" thread before continuing in this thread. I would like to address some of the issues here but they are not specific to ATM. If somebody here wants to start another thread in "about BAUT" for further discussion relating to a general application of the principles I have been defending and/or describing in this thread I will continue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Your point is a dodge of my point..

    I'm sorry to say that I don't know what your point is (or was) - would you be so kind as to repeat it?.
    My point was
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    a proponent with strong supportive evidence does get his thread locked quickly. An example would be my most recently locked thread.
    (a reference to a non ATM post but other posters have referenced non ATM posts in this thread and you yourself started this thread with a refference to a non ATM post. It was only after I posted that you narrowed the scope to exclusively ATM.)
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    (a poster) should not be required to repeatedly answer ad infinitem questions that have already been answered or questions that a peer would not ask.
    Your reply, which did not address the issues I posted but pointed out after I posted them that
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    SAMU, the title of this thread is 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea' (my bold).
    Which dodges the point and changes the subject by narrowing of this discussion to exclusively ATM argument tactics which you had not made clear prior to your using it in you reply.

    My point
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Then why is this thread itself not in the ATM section? Your point is a dodge of my point.
    appears to have been acknowledged by
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    I thought about starting it there, and did indeed start one such. However, the ATM section is not the place for a discussion on how the ATM section should be run (or discussions in it conducted) - this kind of 'meta' topic is what this About BAUT section is for...).
    Since I also posted
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    I suspect that you posted in this forum rather than the ATM because you wanted more readers than those who are interested in ATM.
    Nereid replies
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    In this case, I hope I've set the record straight as to why I started this thread here, and not in the ATM section; pace SAMU, it was to avoid having an 'about' discussion in the section itself (which, IMHO, can lead to confusion, if only because it's rather easy to slip between levels).
    If you are to avoid confusion of "about BAUT" threads with exclusively "ATM" threads then fusion in the "about BAUT" forum with exclusively "ATM" threads should also be avoided to avoid replies like mine that applied the discussion to a broader scope than strictly ATM.

    I am going to have to decline to research your dittos regarding exclusively ATM to find posts where moderators locked threads illigitimately. It would be second party for one thing and there is always the out for the locking moderator to revise the specific reason posted to be modified as "that was not the only reason". Also, while there is a lot of illegitimate argument in ATM by the hoi polli in support of the mainstream, I do not intend to plow through those threads in ATM that I am not interested in to find examples of where the locking by a moderator was illigitimate. I could and have pointed out an example from another forum to illustrate an illegitimate locking but as you wrote you consider that to be irrelavant to this ATM thread.

    As addendum I will point out why I think there is so much misreading and misquoting on this site. When a quote is intended a nested quote is not included by the system. This takes the quote out of context. I do some browser gymnastics to retain the contextual integrity of quotes but I can see how others make so many misquotes.
    Last edited by SAMU; 2006-Sep-30 at 05:12 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    [Moderator Note]This thread has been created by splitting posts from the 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea' thread, as the posts SAMU wrote with two exceptions, are about the moderation of the Conspiracy Theories section (not debating tactics and how to challenge ATM ideas, in the ATM section).
    [/Moderator Note]

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    FYI (SAMU): Nereid.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    I am going to have to decline to research your dittos regarding exclusively ATM to find posts where moderators locked threads illigitimately.
    Either you know can't or you realize how weak your argument is.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    It would be second party for one thing
    Nope, providing a link and expessing your opinion is not second party.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    and there is always the out for the locking moderator to revise the specific reason posted to be modified as "that was not the only reason".
    Ahhhhh, accusing the moderators of revisionism ahead of the time. Actually, the BA stated the reason for leaving those posts up. Fraser and Phil want the reasons to be clear. And, the admins frown on revisionism.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Also, while there is a lot of illegitimate argument in ATM by the hoi polli in support of the mainstream, I do not intend to plow through those threads in ATM that I am not interested in to find examples of where the locking by a moderator was illigitimate.
    Another cop out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    I could and have pointed out an example from another forum to illustrate an illegitimate locking but as you wrote you consider that to be irrelavant to this ATM thread.

    Well, since the rules for ATM are different, it is.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    624
    So I guess this thread can now include direct illustrations of illegitimate points by moderators and locking of threads for those illegitimate points.

    The first illegitimate point made by a moderator was by moderator Wolverine in the "They Blew Up The Levees" thread was

    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=76
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Take my word for it
    On a science board?????
    Out of context quote. Against the rules for this board.http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845
    No, R.A.F.'s post is not a rules violation. He trimmed down the quotation without altering the content or context. He is not misquoting you nor misrepresenting your original statement.
    It was a missquote because the original statement was
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    Take my word for it and the word of many others.
    By taking it out of context misrepresents the original statement by implying that I am expecting the reader to take only my word without the substantial corroberation that the other witnesses are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    His point stands. Your assurance and/or that of others is no substitute for the evidence required to substantiate what you're claiming.
    The word "substantiate" has as its root the word substance. When I point out that there are corroberating witnesses that is substance. If I write that there are other winesses and there are none only then is there is no substance to the claim that there are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    I'd add that you never addressed his question:
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Did you visually view these explosions or not?
    Before Wolverine even posted this R.A.F. had already acknowledged that he had misunderstood my post by this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
    That he mentioned a sound delay implies to me that he saw something previously that he associated the sound with.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Yep...I sure misundertood that...
    Which shows the question had been answered before R.A.F had even asked it. A carefull reading of the original post answered it.

    Wolverine illegitimately repeated the demand here http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=87 and here http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...7&postcount=92
    where he insisted that I am
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    not entitled to dictate the terms under which you're willing to reply.
    .
    I only argue that legitimate questions need be answered. Illegitimate questions may be answered if politely asked and/or if due to honestly misinterpreted reading of the text. If obviously intentional misquoted, misreading or repeated for already answered questions of the text is the nature of the question then the questions are illegitimate and could be merely a form of flooding.

    At which point Wolverine posts:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    Because I've become a participant in this thread, I will recuse myself from moderating the discussion. But please recognize your obligations -- this thread will be monitored by the forum staff, and you will be expected to follow our guidelines, regardless.
    Since I do not expect that illegitimate questions are required to be answered and have illustrated that Wolverine's points are illegitimate I did not see any reason for the locking of the thread.

    The next moderator to post in the discussion was the moderator who subsequently locked the thread, Antoniseb. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=99 Who makes a couple of subjective arguments and arguments based on the erroneous postings of
    Quote Originally Posted by Antonseb View Post
    other posters (who) say was after the breach had happened.
    The "other posters" had misread, misinterpreted, misquoted, misrepresented and otherwise illegitimately argued against my posts. I suspect that Antoniseb's post was in illegitimate support of an illegitimate charge by another moderator (Wolverine) that I was in violation of the rules and that, without investigating the substance of the charge, he took a stand against me.

    Moderator Antoniseb's next action http://www.bautforum.com/report.php?p=823785 was to lock the thread citing
    Quote Originally Posted by Antonseb View Post
    on the matters of the conspiracy that you bring up here, you have the burden to press the case, and it is not up to everyone else to find proof that you are wrong.
    This point is nonspecific as to the rule that supports or the violation I commited against it. It is nonspecific in the "proof" required. I did "press the case" with quite substantial supporting evidence of the specific factual data if the reader took the bother to look at it. I never asked anyone to prove me wrong. I did ask that they support aspersions against the evidence that supports my argument with evidence that is legitimate, equaly substantial (has substance, not fabricated or imagined) and not just speculative or inconsistant with all the evidence such as the speculation that the explosions could have been electrical transformers. That speculation is not supported by any evidence and is in conflict with the fact that the electricity was off so the transformers could not have been what we heard.

    This supports my assertion that moderators take illegitimate actions on this site and that that is a bad policy and bad example for the hoi polli here of how to act, argue, discuss, "challenge", "attack" and post their points.

    As this site is viewed by children it should be incumbent, on the moderators at least, to exemplify the propper way of discussion and not imply that illegitimate argument is acceptable.

    Addendum:
    As you can see there are a couple of "nested" quotes in this post. The system does not give these nested quotes. I have had to perform some browser gymnastics to maintain the contextual integrity of them. I point this out as this is what I believe to be a prinicipal reason for unintentional misreading and misquoting in replies and arguments.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    It was a missquote because the original statement was By taking it out of context misrepresents the original statement by implying that I am expecting the reader to take only my word without the substantial corroberation that the other witnesses are.
    And did you cite these "other witnesses" prior to R.A.F's reply, or was he supposed to take "their" word for it too? Speaking of second handing.

    SAMU, you know better than that... or you should by now, certainly. Cite your sources, present your evidence, or kindly put your griping where the sun don't shine*.

    (* Seattle. Where did you think I meant?)
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,441
    Yeah... I read that thread from initial post to the bitter end. I think the moderators made the right decision to lock that thread. The only evidence I saw put forward was that "there were witnesses who heard and thought what they saw were explosions.

    What I thought was most difficult to deal with in the thread were the issues (such as the strippers) which were brought in to indicate that misdeeds were done, but which had nothing to do with whether any levees were blown up or not.

    In this instance, I am 100% behind the moderators decision. In fact, I think they were far too ready to let an innappropriate thread run on far too long, but then I leave such choices up to them.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,986
    Quote Originally Posted by SAMU View Post
    The first illegitimate point made by a moderator was by moderator Wolverine in the "They Blew Up The Levees" thread was

    http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=76


    It was a missquote because the original statement was By taking it out of context misrepresents the original statement by implying that I am expecting the reader to take only my word without the substantial corroberation that the other witnesses are.
    In this post, the full statement is:

    Take my word for it, and all the other people unrelated to me who I'm sure you've heard be fore, the explosions happened.


    No, I haven't heard these other people and I haven't seen any physical evidence for your CT. I only have your word for it.

    The word "substantiate" has as its root the word substance. When I point out that there are corroberating witnesses that is substance.
    No, that is a claim. You would need to provide evidence to support your claim of witnesses to substantiate it. You would also need to provide details of their statements and corroborating physical evidence.

    The next moderator to post in the discussion was the moderator who subsequently locked the thread, Antoniseb. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=99 Who makes a couple of subjective arguments and arguments based on the erroneous postings of The "other posters" had misread, misinterpreted, misquoted, misrepresented and otherwise illegitimately argued against my posts.
    In your opinion. In my opinion, you are far too close to this subject to be at all objective, and were extremely emotional in your comments and responses. There are subjects where I am not objective. I have asked not to be on a Jury in a case that was too close to one of those subjects. Everybody has issues like that.

    I did "press the case" with quite substantial supporting evidence of the specific factual data if the reader took the bother to look at it.
    You may believe that, but it was not at all obvious from your posts.

    This supports my assertion that moderators take illegitimate actions on this site and that that is a bad policy and bad example for the hoi polli here of how to act, argue, discuss, "challenge", "attack" and post their points.
    I saw someone who was too close to a subject that could not substantiate their CT with evidence. I saw a thread that wasn't going anywhere. Given your emotional attachment, I suspect sooner or later you would have said something that could have gotten you banned. Better that the thread be shut down before that.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker View Post
    In this instance, I am 100% behind the moderators decision. In fact, I think they were far too ready to let an innappropriate thread run on far too long, but then I leave such choices up to them.
    Agreed. There was no doubt in my mind that the thread would be locked. The only question was when. I have no disagreement with the decision.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Agreed. There was no doubt in my mind that the thread would be locked. The only question was when. I have no disagreement with the decision.
    I posted it before, but I agreed with the decision at the time also.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    I posted it before, but I agreed with the decision at the time also.
    Take my word for it, and all the other people unrelated to me who I'm sure you've heard be fore, it was the right decision.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
    'cause I trapped th' little devil... roasted 'em on a stick... and 'et 'em...

Similar Threads

  1. maybe this should be in the conspiracy section, but here goes..
    By novaderrik in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2009-Oct-18, 09:50 PM
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-26, 08:43 AM
  3. ATM section - theories, ideas, and others
    By Nereid in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-19, 04:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •