The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: danger2007 on September 20, 2013, 01:19:19 AM
-
where there is sun there is mirage
where the temperature is not absolute zero there is mirage
From wikipedia:
"A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere. Passing through the temperature inversion, the light rays are bent down, and so the image appears above the true object, hence the name superior. Superior mirages are in general less common than inferior mirages, but when they do occur, they tend to be more stable, as cold air has no tendency to move up and warm air has no tendency to move down."
This is precisely what is happening there at Chesapeake Bay. A place know for marine layers.
gov't coverup of the truth
***####***ERROR LOADING FACTS***####***
***####****TERMINATING LOGIC****####***
***###***LOADING CONSPIRACY SCAPEGOAT***###***
darknavyseal, do not make low content posts in the upper fora. Consider this a warning.
Nevertheless the earth is flat cannot substantiate their conspiracy theories.
Distrust of the government again causes FE'ers leave reality.
Also I never see a FE'er warned for low content posting.
Why aren't there any round earth moderators??
-
Also I never see a FE'er warned for low content posting.
Why aren't there any round earth moderators??
This is not the place to bring up concerns. We have a forum for that called Suggestions and Concerns. However, I will let you know that I have warned 3 people in the past 24 hours. 2 were FE'ers. In fact, most of the warnings I give are to FE'ers.
Also, markjo used to be a moderator, and he is the biggest RE'er here.
Now, back on topic please.
-
where there is sun there is mirage
where the temperature is not absolute zero there is mirage
From wikipedia:
"A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere. Passing through the temperature inversion, the light rays are bent down, and so the image appears above the true object, hence the name superior. Superior mirages are in general less common than inferior mirages, but when they do occur, they tend to be more stable, as cold air has no tendency to move up and warm air has no tendency to move down."
This is precisely what is happening there at Chesapeake Bay. A place know for marine layers.
gov't coverup of the truth
***####***ERROR LOADING FACTS***####***
***####****TERMINATING LOGIC****####***
***###***LOADING CONSPIRACY SCAPEGOAT***###***
darknavyseal, do not make low content posts in the upper fora. Consider this a warning.
It is not low content. If I said "I think you are refusing to accept facts. Do not abandon logic just to hide behind a conspiracy" it would not have been 'low content'. Just because I stated it in a humorous way (in my opinion) does not make it low content.
Your post was low content. Keep it out of the upper fora.
-
where there is sun there is mirage
where the temperature is not absolute zero there is mirage
From wikipedia:
"A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than the air above it. This unusual arrangement is called a temperature inversion, since warm air above cold air is the opposite of the normal temperature gradient of the atmosphere. Passing through the temperature inversion, the light rays are bent down, and so the image appears above the true object, hence the name superior. Superior mirages are in general less common than inferior mirages, but when they do occur, they tend to be more stable, as cold air has no tendency to move up and warm air has no tendency to move down."
This is precisely what is happening there at Chesapeake Bay. A place know for marine layers.
gov't coverup of the truth
***####***ERROR LOADING FACTS***####***
***####****TERMINATING LOGIC****####***
***###***LOADING CONSPIRACY SCAPEGOAT***###***
darknavyseal, do not make low content posts in the upper fora. Consider this a warning.
It is not low content. If I said "I think you are refusing to accept facts. Do not abandon logic just to hide behind a conspiracy" it would not have been 'low content'. Just because I stated it in a humorous way (in my opinion) does not make it low content.
Your post was low content. Keep it out of the upper fora.
darknavyseal, this is not the place to discuss your concerns. We don't need to derail the thread so I can explain why it is low content. Send me a PM or make a post in the Suggestions and Concerns area. This is another warning.
-
This is not the place to bring up concerns. We have a forum for that called Suggestions and Concerns. However, I will let you know that I have warned 3 people in the past 24 hours. 2 were FE'ers. In fact, most of the warnings I give are to FE'ers.
Also, markjo used to be a moderator, and he is the biggest RE'er here.
Now, back on topic please.
Publicly?? Because thats not evident in your post history.
Also 1 RE person used to be a mod, I don't really think thats good enough.
Now, back on topic please.
-
Gentlemen, I moved your posts to suggestions and concerns. Here, you can complain all you want about the warning that I gave darknavyseal and how terrible I am for issuing it. Please do not do that in the flat Earth fora any more. It just derails the threads and makes it hard to have a real discussion in a thread.
I left the original post and warning in the other thread to serve as a warning to the others, but moved the rest of the posts here. Those two posts are quoted in several of the these posts, so people will know the context of this discussion.
Now, I assume you want an explanation for why I thought that post was low content. Here are my reasons. It had no real content. It was just a joke that basically insulted the people you were arguing with. It brought nothing to the discussion. darknavyseal may as well have said, "You are stupid and can not understand logic." This is considered low content.
When I ask you not to argue about moderation in the original thread, it is because it would just further derail the topic, not because I am avoiding the subject. In the future, please use either the PM function, if you want to discuss it privately, or the Suggestions and Concerns forum, if you want to discuss it publicly. Do not, however, discuss it in the thread in which the warning was given.
-
Gentlemen, I moved your posts to suggestions and concerns. Here, you can complain all you want about the warning that I gave darknavyseal and how terrible I am for issuing it. Please do not do that in the flat Earth fora any more. It just derails the threads and makes it hard to have a real discussion in a thread.
I left the original post and warning in the other thread to serve as a warning to the others, but moved the rest of the posts here. Those two posts are quoted in several of the these posts, so people will know the context of this discussion.
Now, I assume you want an explanation for why I thought that post was low content. Here are my reasons. It had no real content. It was just a joke that basically insulted the people you were arguing with. It brought nothing to the discussion. darknavyseal may as well have said, "You are stupid and can not understand logic." This is considered low content.
When I ask you not to argue about moderation in the original thread, it is because it would just further derail the topic, not because I am avoiding the subject. In the future, please use either the PM function, if you want to discuss it privately, or the Suggestions and Concerns forum, if you want to discuss it publicly. Do not, however, discuss it in the thread in which the warning was given.
I think there does need to be some round earth moderators.
-
I agree, however not solely for the sake of having an RE'er mod. if only we had capable RE'ers. :(
-
It should not matter. Moderators are not here to judge people's beliefs. They have a thankless job of keeping the fora clean. If a mod is doing his job, his personal beliefs should not matter.
Like I said earlier, I give more warnings to FE'ers than RE'ers.
What would the difference be if there were RE mods? The biggest reason there are not any RE mods is because RE'ers do not tend to stay long, and the ones that do are the militant perma noobs who act nasty to everyone.
Mods are not chosen based on their beliefs. They are picked from the members who have shown that they will be here for a long time, know and follow the rules, and are active in all the fora.
-
The mods are very fair here. They are just more lenient to long term members. I can testify that they have never given me a hard time even when I post on the fringes of the rules or even pushing them. However they can also spot light hearted jokes too. The forum is for our entertainment after all.
-
You know the mods are doing their job when people do nothing but baw about them.
-
This batch of angry noobs are very militant. They seem like they are owed something. I think that is sad. but I will try to help.
-
I thinks that's due to the age group this website has need attracting. They still have to raise their hands to go to the toilet. Of course they are going to complain about the authority.
-
This batch of angry noobs are very militant. They seem like they are owed something. I think that is sad. but I will try to help.
I actually started using this website very politely and have tried to maintain that.
But some FE users Ævan to for the most part are often very rude and it wears other people down.
It doesn't help when FE'er is calling you stupid or say a fact which is accepted by the wider scientific community is stupid, you respond in kind, and then a, FE moderator pops up and goes "that's a low content post"
I resent the term militant Noob everything counter argument I post on this forum is substantiated by fact and often the cherished observed examples, and when numerous FE'ers cannot argue something with logic or data or a scientist who isn't Rowbotham (a dubous source at best), it annoys me. But I still try to be polite.
The moderation here seems very one sided, and FE'ers are often treated less strictly than RE'ers
-
Part of the problem for you moderators is that you have too many types of thread to police.
Why don't you just eliminate the QA section entirely?? All debate starts which a question and this is why the QA and debate sections are indistinguishable. If people want FE answers to FE questions they should just go to the believers category, where I personally never go and you can say "challenge this in the debate section"
-
This batch of angry noobs are very militant. They seem like they are owed something. I think that is sad. but I will try to help.
I actually started using this website very politely and have tried to maintain that.
But some FE users Ævan to for the most part are often very rude and it wears other people down.
It doesn't help when FE'er is calling you stupid or say a fact which is accepted by the wider scientific community is stupid, you respond in kind, and then a, FE moderator pops up and goes "that's a low content post"
I resent the term militant Noob everything counter argument I post on this forum is substantiated by fact and often the cherished observed examples, and when numerous FE'ers cannot argue something with logic or data or a scientist who isn't Rowbotham (a dubous source at best), it annoys me. But I still try to be polite.
The moderation here seems very one sided, and FE'ers are often treated less strictly than RE'ers
Don't worry about aevan.
I can attest that the mods aren't earth shape biased, but as mentioned above, they are more lenient to long term members.
-
Part of the problem for you moderators is that you have too many types of thread to police.
Why don't you just eliminate the QA section entirely?? All debate starts which a question and this is why the QA and debate sections are indistinguishable. If people want FE answers to FE questions they should just go to the believers category, where I personally never go and you can say "challenge this in the debate section"
Q&A is there for people to ask questions and get answers. You people treat it like a sandbox, where you can do whatever you want.
The debate section should be the only place you are allowed to argue, yet you do it everywhere.
I am sick and tired of this bunch of perma noobs. They are the worst.
-
Also, I gave Ævan a public warning just the other day. Why do you noobs say that we only give RE'ers warnings? Do you even read these threads, or do you just post whatever comes into your minds?
-
i would like to add, Jroa is the best mod since Markjo. I wish we could give out 6 lit squares, is that possible?
-
Part of the problem for you moderators is that you have too many types of thread to police.
Why don't you just eliminate the QA section entirely?? All debate starts which a question and this is why the QA and debate sections are indistinguishable. If people want FE answers to FE questions they should just go to the believers category, where I personally never go and you can say "challenge this in the debate section"
We have a Q&A sections for questions, and a section for Debates.
They're indistinguishable because of n00bs and REers who seem to think Q&A is for debate.
No. The Believers section is for people who believe in FE to discuss FE.
-
This batch of angry noobs are very militant. They seem like they are owed something. I think that is sad. but I will try to help.
I actually started using this website very politely and have tried to maintain that.
But some FE users Ævan to for the most part are often very rude and it wears other people down.
It doesn't help when FE'er is calling you stupid or say a fact which is accepted by the wider scientific community is stupid, you respond in kind, and then a, FE moderator pops up and goes "that's a low content post"
I resent the term militant Noob everything counter argument I post on this forum is substantiated by fact and often the cherished observed examples, and when numerous FE'ers cannot argue something with logic or data or a scientist who isn't Rowbotham (a dubous source at best), it annoys me. But I still try to be polite.
The moderation here seems very one sided, and FE'ers are often treated less strictly than RE'ers
The moderation isn't one sided here. I just figure the mods are more lenient on long time members, who are usually FEers.
-
Also, I gave Ævan a public warning just the other day. Why do you noobs say that we only give RE'ers warnings? Do you even read these threads, or do you just post whatever comes into your minds?
Can you post the link please? This the point I am trying to make that you should make every point you say in arguments with links to the evidence and credible sources. This frequently does not happen with FE'ers.
Part of the problem for you moderators is that you have too many types of thread to police.
Why don't you just eliminate the QA section entirely?? All debate starts which a question and this is why the QA and debate sections are indistinguishable. If people want FE answers to FE questions they should just go to the believers category, where I personally never go and you can say "challenge this in the debate section"
Q&A is there for people to ask questions and get answers. You people treat it like a sandbox, where you can do whatever you want.
The debate section should be the only place you are allowed to argue, yet you do it everywhere.
I am sick and tired of this bunch of perma noobs. They are the worst.
I still maintain that from what you've said the Believers and QA section serve fundamentally the same purpose, that you can't start a debate with out a question, and Q and A in the real world frequently involves follow up questions. You'll have a lot less trouble moderating if you merge the QA and Debate together.
Unfortunately when you have a website purveying such radical believes you will attract opposition or """"perma noobs""" as you like to call them. If you care so much about this idea, you must be able to put up with this and defend your case politely with proven facts and credible sources
-
danger2007, what you continuously fail to understand is that no one here has to put up with you or defend their case. This forum's purpose is not to try and satisfy the needs of everyone that comes with questions. We try to be accommodating, but there are limits to that.
This is the Flat Earth Society, not the Argue With RE'ers Society.
-
I don't understand why the occasional Q&A thread turning into a debate is a problem. It's bound to happen if the person who asks is unsatisfied with the answer, and once the question is answered it either turns into a debate or becomes a dead thread anyway.
Just don't necessarily expect anyone to "take the bait" and engage in debate with you if it develops that way. In my view if it happens it's cool but if not deal with it.
-
I don't disagree with you, Roundy. It is completely understandable for someone to ask more questions or even debate the answers. However, I do take offence when an answer is given and 10 perma noobs jump into the thread and start spewing RET junk.
The question was for an FET answer. Why should we allow RE'ers to jump in when the poster wanted a FE answer?
-
I don't disagree with you, Roundy. It is completely understandable for someone to ask more questions or even debate the answers. However, I do take offence when an answer is given and 10 perma noobs jump into the thread and start spewing RET junk.
The question was for an FET answer. Why should we allow RE'ers to jump in when the poster wanted a FE answer?
Because if they just hear a FE answer then they can just take that as the answer without considering why it may be wrong. Sounds like an indoctrination forum the way you put it.
-
Everyone knows round Earth theory. Why do you feel the need to spew it here? You are not telling us anything new.
-
Because if they just hear a FE answer then they can just take that as the answer without considering why it may be wrong. Sounds like an indoctrination forum the way you put it.
"Everyone is dumb except me, it's my civic duty to save other people from their dumbness"
-
I don't disagree with you, Roundy. It is completely understandable for someone to ask more questions or even debate the answers. However, I do take offence when an answer is given and 10 perma noobs jump into the thread and start spewing RET junk.
The question was for an FET answer. Why should we allow RE'ers to jump in when the poster wanted a FE answer?
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
-
Can you post the link please? This the point I am trying to make that you should make every point you say in arguments with links to the evidence and credible sources. This frequently does not happen with FE'ers.
Here you go. Bear in mind that Thork (Ævan) used to be a Curator. I am not as direct with him as I am with the noobs because he knows what I am saying.
Thork, you are so jelly. Maybe if you were not so terrible, you might be a mod also. Now, do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just here to be terrible?
-
Everyone knows round Earth theory. Why do you feel the need to spew it here? You are not telling us anything new.
Because not everybody who visits the forum has educated themselves beyond high-school level. Many things in the mainstream theory aren't covered in high-school, and many visitors likely won't see a need to research any further into the mainstream model, thinking they know in depth enough to make a judgement call effectively.
-
Because not everybody who visits the forum has educated themselves beyond high-school level. Many things in the mainstream theory aren't covered in high-school, and many visitors likely won't see a need to research any further into the mainstream model, thinking they know in depth enough to make a judgement call effectively.
"Everyone is dumb except me, it's my civic duty to save other people from their dumbness"
It's like every RE'er on this forum thinks they're the one magical person in the world that looks things up on Wikipedia to explain away FET.
-
Seriously, everyone knows round Earth theory. Even flat Earthers were taught RET. We don't come here for you to teach it to us. And, noobs don't come here for you to teach it to them. They come here because it is The Flat Earth Society. They want to learn about Flat Earth Theory. They can go to a thousand other places to learn about Round Earth Theory.
-
Seriously, everyone knows round Earth theory. Even flat Earthers were taught RET. We don't come here for you to teach it to us. And, noobs don't come here for you to teach it to them. They come here because it is The Flat Earth Society. They want to learn about Flat Earth Theory. They can go to a thousand other places to learn about Round Earth Theory.
And when a perceived flaw is pointed out in the standard model, and nobody says a word about it, it ought not be corrected? It's already been said, but that sounds a bit more like indoctrination than education. It's hardly our fault that the majority of flat Earth models are based on flaws in RE models that don't actually exist.
Because not everybody who visits the forum has educated themselves beyond high-school level. Many things in the mainstream theory aren't covered in high-school, and many visitors likely won't see a need to research any further into the mainstream model, thinking they know in depth enough to make a judgement call effectively.
It's like every RE'er on this forum thinks they're the one magical person in the world that looks things up on Wikipedia to explain away FET.
Not at all. If a point hasn't been acknowledged in a relevant thread, even though the point may be crucial to why FE models fall short, then it's pointed out. Often by multiple people, but that just shows that education is important to everyone. Well, every who subscribes to the standard model, at least.
"Everyone is dumb except me, it's my civic duty to save other people from their dumbness"
Have some sort of problem with a sense of duty to one's fellow man, not to let them fall into falsehoods? I think I can speak for at least the majority of my side on the forums in saying, we don't think we're the only smart ones. We do, however, think that there are those who don't care enough to actively search out information if they feel they know enough. If we inform a hundred people who do care enough, and only one that didn't, then all the redundancy is worth it.
I, personally, feel this for the simple fact that I've witnessed it many times. Even in myself occasionally, in regards to certain specific topics.
-
Have some sort of problem with a sense of duty to one's fellow man, not to let them fall into falsehoods? I think I can speak for at least the majority of my side on the forums in saying, we don't think we're the only smart ones. We do, however, think that there are those who don't care enough to actively search out information if they feel they know enough. If we inform a hundred people who do care enough, and only one that didn't, then all the redundancy is worth it.
I, personally, feel this for the simple fact that I've witnessed it many times. Even in myself occasionally, in regards to certain specific topics.
Quite right. Only it seems you're stuck in a falsehood and seem quite content to ensure others remain the same.
-
Have some sort of problem with a sense of duty to one's fellow man, not to let them fall into falsehoods? I think I can speak for at least the majority of my side on the forums in saying, we don't think we're the only smart ones. We do, however, think that there are those who don't care enough to actively search out information if they feel they know enough. If we inform a hundred people who do care enough, and only one that didn't, then all the redundancy is worth it.
I, personally, feel this for the simple fact that I've witnessed it many times. Even in myself occasionally, in regards to certain specific topics.
Quite right. Only it seems you're stuck in a falsehood and seem quite content to ensure others remain the same.
You're free to hold that position regardless of the facts. I'm just elaborating as to why Q&A threads can often turn into debates, to the best of my ability.
-
You're free to hold that position regardless of the facts.
Passive aggressive remarks like this are why we care so little about your opinion.
I'm just elaborating as to why Q&A threads can often turn into debates, to the best of my ability.
Then we'll continue to elaborate how debating in Q&A threads will get you banned.
-
You're free to hold that position regardless of the facts.
Passive aggressive remarks like this are why we care so little about your opinion.
Couldn't care less what you think about my opinion, even if I tried.
I'm just elaborating as to why Q&A threads can often turn into debates, to the best of my ability.
Then we'll continue to elaborate how debating in Q&A threads will get you banned.
Feel free, I'm not attempting to stop that. I'm just giving a potential reason that it happens.
-
Seriously, everyone knows round Earth theory. Even flat Earthers were taught RET. We don't come here for you to teach it to us. And, noobs don't come here for you to teach it to them. They come here because it is The Flat Earth Society. They want to learn about Flat Earth Theory. They can go to a thousand other places to learn about Round Earth Theory.
I don't agree. I don't deny that indoctrination happens but the claim FE'rs make is that that indoctrination is incorrect. Most people don't know specifically why the accepted view is that the earth is round. I have no doubt that people come here after being taught the earth is round and are gullible. They come here on the interest that any of this could be true after never taking a shot at learning why we have the mainstream views we do. Some people have a distrust in the government and are ready to call conspiracy to everything even without the slightest bit of evidence. I think this forum spreads stupidity. There is nothing zetetic about this forum. Just lots of assumptions, lack of evidence and a lack of desire to explore.
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
Then why should anyone believe what you say??
-
danger2007, what you continuously fail to understand is that no one here has to put up with you or defend their case. This forum's purpose is not to try and satisfy the needs of everyone that comes with questions. We try to be accommodating, but there are limits to that.
This is the Flat Earth Society, not the Argue With RE'ers Society.
I'm going to have to refer you back to my previous point - What do you expect???
If you care so much about this you simply must be able to defend it and be willing to. Why do you believe in the earth being flat yourself if your unwilling and unable to adequately defend it?? By blindly believing in something your just cheating yourself.
You apply so much critique to all RE material and mainstream proven science, why are you not applying it to your own sources?? In the below thread Evan quotes a source from Galileo, and RE scientist. But decides not to mention that this was later shown to be incorrect.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59553.0.html#.Uj9ZlYbvvO0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59553.0.html#.Uj9ZlYbvvO0)
Has he ignored this fact or is he not even reading the full text?? How can you believe in something that you don't have the full facts on??
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
Then why should anyone believe what you say??
You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas.
Don't worry, there are millions of websites that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas...
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
Then why should anyone believe what you say??
You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas.
Don't worry, there are millions of websites that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas...
Joking or not my point stands, where are these links? On top of that where's the credibility?
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
Then why should anyone believe what you say??
You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas.
Don't worry, there are millions of websites, etc. that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas...
Joking or not my point stands, where are these links? On top of that where's the credibility?
"Don't worry, there are millions of websites, etc. that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas..."
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
Then why should anyone believe what you say??
You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas.
Don't worry, there are millions of websites, etc. that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas...
Joking or not my point stands, where are these links? On top of that where's the credibility?
"Don't worry, there are millions of websites, etc. that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas..."
Why is that in inverted comma's?? Let's see them, you should be checking their credibility for yourself not just people like me. Why should you believe something with no credible evidence for it??
Also this "You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas."
Is exactly the rudeness I was talking about.
-
This is a serious forum, danger2007. Please treat it as such.
-
This is a serious forum, danger2007. Please treat it as such.
I'm very much serious. Where have you got the idea that I'm not? As a moderator you should at least quote what statement caused you to say this.
-
Did someone post a link to TFES on an autism forum?
-
Did someone post a link to TFES on an autism forum?
Are you implying I'm autistic??? This is grossly offensive to me and anyone who actually has autism.
You should be banned if this is the case.
-
Are you implying I'm autistic???
Well, are you?
-
No I'm not.
And if I was how does that relate to the questions I'm asking?? They're perfectly legitimate.
Moderators should be at the very least warning people for comments like that. They make the whole FE movement look like a bunch of trolls, you should be embarrassed.
-
Danger, I have no clue what they are talking about with the accusations of autism either. It is offensive.
-
Danger, I have no clue what they are talking about with the accusations of autism either. It is offensive.
I take offense that you are taking offense to things you yourself made up in the first place. You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.
-
People, just stop it. If danger2007 has autism, it is not his fault. Please look for other reasons to tease him other than whether or not he is autistic.
Let's get this back on track.
-
There's really nothing more to talk about in this thread, it should probably be locked (considering where it's heading). The moderation has vastly improved since my initial baw thread here. Basically I baw'd for more moderation and now the RE'ers are upset they're being moderated. It's hysterical.
-
Did someone post a link to TFES on an autism forum?
Are you implying I'm autistic??? This is grossly offensive to me and anyone who actually has autism.
You should be banned if this is the case.
Are you this much fun on every forum you join? You've joined TFES, and you seem to hate TFES. I don't get it.
jroa has been really fair in his moderation. He admits when he makes a mistake and seems to do whatever he can to keep the peace around here. You've been nothing but rude and hateful towards him, for no good reason.
-
Danger, I have no clue what they are talking about with the accusations of autism either. It is offensive.
I take offense that you are taking offense to things you yourself made up in the first place. You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.
I asked if the comment was aimed at me, and you then asked directly. I take offense to that, because not only am I not, but your implying autism is some form of stupidity, it isn't. An autistic person would find this offensive the same way they would if you called them a retard. The fact you find it so hilarious makes the entire thing worse. Your a disgusting human being.
I'd like both of you banned.
Did someone post a link to TFES on an autism forum?
Are you implying I'm autistic??? This is grossly offensive to me and anyone who actually has autism.
You should be banned if this is the case.
Are you this much fun on every forum you join? You've joined TFES, and you seem to hate TFES. I don't get it.
jroa has been really fair in his moderation. He admits when he makes a mistake and seems to do whatever he can to keep the peace around here. You've been nothing but rude and hateful towards him, for no good reason.
You should try visiting the Kerbal Space Program forum. I'm way more fun on there, mainly because people aren't offensive.
I'd like this thread kept open so Adolf Hipster can answer my questions on critiquing sources. Move it to the General section if you must.
Also:
People, just stop it. If danger2007 has autism, it is not his fault. Please look for other reasons to tease him other than whether or not he is autistic.
Let's get this back on track.
Nobody should be teasing eachother at all. I thought this was a forum for civilized debate?? This is exactly the point I was making about bias moderation.
-
Did someone post a link to TFES on an autism forum?
Are you implying I'm autistic??? This is grossly offensive to me and anyone who actually has autism.
You should be banned if this is the case.
Are you this much fun on every forum you join? You've joined TFES, and you seem to hate TFES. I don't get it.
jroa has been really fair in his moderation. He admits when he makes a mistake and seems to do whatever he can to keep the peace around here. You've been nothing but rude and hateful towards him, for no good reason.
Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?
-
I asked if the comment was aimed at me, and you then asked directly. I take offense to that, because not only am I not, but your implying autism is some form of stupidity, it isn't. An autistic person would find this offensive the same way they would if you called them a retard. The fact you find it so hilarious makes the entire thing worse. Your a disgusting human being.
I'd like both of you banned.
You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.
I don't see any big words in this post, I'm not sure how you didn't understand what was being said.
-
I asked if the comment was aimed at me, and you then asked directly. I take offense to that, because not only am I not, but your implying autism is some form of stupidity, it isn't. An autistic person would find this offensive the same way they would if you called them a retard. The fact you find it so hilarious makes the entire thing worse. Your a disgusting human being.
I'd like both of you banned.
You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.
I don't see any big words in this post, I'm not sure how you didn't understand what was being said.
The only pretending going on here is you pretending that there is nothing wrong with what you or SCG said. I concur, you're awful.
-
Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?
Are you autistic as well? There is a debate section, yet you want to debate everywhere. If you are autistic, we will make special accommodations for you. Just let us know what your special needs are.
-
You don't have to believe in the flatness to love the forum, or make friends, or respect our humble little internet home.
And yes, I think making jokes is OK.
-
Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?
Are you autistic as well? There is a debate section, yet you want to debate everywhere. If you are autistic, we will make special accommodations for you. Just let us know what your special needs are.
Really, this is your serious and professional FES? You're a terrible mod.
-
Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?
Are you autistic as well? There is a debate section, yet you want to debate everywhere. If you are autistic, we will make special accommodations for you. Just let us know what your special needs are.
Really, this is your serious and professional FES? You're a terrible mod.
Welcome to the FES, where the mods are terrible and perma noobs are worse.
Now, let's get this back on topic.
-
I asked if the comment was aimed at me, and you then asked directly. I take offense to that, because not only am I not, but your implying autism is some form of stupidity, it isn't. An autistic person would find this offensive the same way they would if you called them a retard. The fact you find it so hilarious makes the entire thing worse. Your a disgusting human being.
I'd like both of you banned.
You're pretending people are making accusations and then being offended by your pretend accusations. I mean, that's hilarious, but pretty sad.
I don't see any big words in this post, I'm not sure how you didn't understand what was being said.
What's that supposed to mean?? I explained why I took offense because you asked in obvious sarcasm. Your talking like a small child in a playground, your pathetic.
Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?
Are you autistic as well? There is a debate section, yet you want to debate everywhere. If you are autistic, we will make special accommodations for you. Just let us know what your special needs are.
Really, this is your serious and professional FES? You're a terrible mod.
Welcome to the FES, where the mods are terrible and perma noobs are worse.
Now, let's get this back on topic.
The topic is bias moderation towards FE'er. The entirety of whats just been said and your behavior throughout is an example of that.
You don't have to believe in the flatness to love the forum, or make friends, or respect our humble little internet home.
And yes, I think making jokes is OK.
Making jokes about autism is not OK. If you said something like this in the work place you'd be disciplined and even fired.
-
Do you expect people that are here to love TFES? There is a debate section. This implies an expectation that people are here who disagree with TFES. Do you think making childish remarks about a disease like autism is OK?
Are you autistic as well? There is a debate section, yet you want to debate everywhere. If you are autistic, we will make special accommodations for you. Just let us know what your special needs are.
Really, this is your serious and professional FES? You're a terrible mod.
Welcome to the FES, where the mods are terrible and perma noobs are worse.
Now, let's get this back on topic.
Oh I'm perfectly on topic. The topic is moderation, or lack thereof. You've shown how bad it is in this very thread, ignoring terrible comments by your own and then joining in on the fun.
-
See, that's the problem. You seem to think it's an us vs them issue, but I guarantee that if I posted crap in a debate thread jroa or some other mod would tell me to knock it off, and if I kept it up I'd get bammed, just like you would.
-
What's that supposed to mean?? I explained why I took offense because you asked in obvious sarcasm. Your talking like a small child in a playground, your pathetic.
www.rif.org (http://www.rif.org)
The topic is bias moderation towards FE'er. The entirety of whats just been said and your behavior throughout is an example of that.
>Acts like a jackass
>wonders why the mods don't give a shit
Oh I'm perfectly on topic. The topic is moderation, or lack thereof. You've shown how bad it is in this very thread, ignoring terrible comments by your own and then joining in on the fun.
It seems to me that there is plenty of moderation now. It just so happens that you were the one being a naughty rule-breaker in the upper forums all along and now you're all "waaaah!" when the mods tell you to stop.
-
I moderate and try to not break the rules. When I tell a noob that he is posting in a low content way, I get jumped by every noob here.
Don't break the rules. That is what I am saying.
If you want to puke all over the webs and nets, do it in either CN or AR.
Don't be a d*ck.
-
The irony of all your responses. Lol. Whatever.
-
>Acts like a jackass
>wonders why the mods don't give a shit
Oh I'm perfectly on topic. The topic is moderation, or lack thereof. You've shown how bad it is in this very thread, ignoring terrible comments by your own and then joining in on the fun.
It seems to me that there is plenty of moderation now. It just so happens that you were the one being a naughty rule-breaker in the upper forums all along and now you're all "waaaah!" when the mods tell you to stop.
Responding to a personal attack is hardly being a jackass.
-
Being a jackass is being a jackass. So is stirring up trouble.
Please do not do either.
-
Being a jackass is being a jackass. So is stirring up trouble.
Please do not do either.
And referring to me and danger as autistic is you trying to not stir things up. Just stop, you and your circle of flatees may think you are right but I see right through your bs.
-
Being a jackass is being a jackass. So is stirring up trouble.
Please do not do either.
I started asking direct but nonetheless valid questions. Just because they are difficult to answer does not mean they are intended to stir up trouble, more to ask you to consider a different point of view, in order to perhaps make you accept mine or find facts that might reinforce your own. Just because I pursue answers with vigor and back up my own with strong evidence does not mean I am stirring up trouble, it means I make a strong challenge to the the flat earth system, one that you should accept and try to answer with credible facts for your own well being. The only jackasses here are those making jokes about autism.
For what good its worth I've reported all three of you.
-
I have been civil up until this point. However, I am sick and tired of you noobs acting like you are entitled to something.
You come here, spewing RET into the threads, and get butt hurt when you post low content posts and we ask you to stop. Seriously, what the heck is wrong with you people?
-
I have been civil up until this point. However, I am sick and tired of you noobs acting like you are entitled to something.
You come here, spewing RET into the threads, and get butt hurt when you post low content posts and we ask you to stop. Seriously, what the heck is wrong with you people?
I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.
-
I have been civil up until this point. However, I am sick and tired of you noobs acting like you are entitled to something.
You come here, spewing RET into the threads, and get butt hurt when you post low content posts and we ask you to stop. Seriously, what the heck is wrong with you people?
I said this earlier on this point.
Unfortunately when you have a website purveying such radical believes you will attract opposition or """"perma noobs""" as you like to call them. If you care so much about this idea, you must be able to put up with this and defend your case politely with proven facts and credible sources, if nothing else than for your own good.
By just accepting these sources, Rowbotham, etc, and not checking them yourself or reading about their credibility, your being just as narrow minded and naive as you claim RE'ers are.
-
I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.
You are a d*ck. If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.
And, yes. Go back to the beginning. I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content. I got an apology from him. Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.
-
I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.
You are a d*ck. If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.
And, yes. Go back to the beginning. I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content. I got an apology from him. Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.
You can't even admit to what I am saying I am offended about. You still think this is about low content posting. I sure hope that whoever is in charge of you isn't biased as well.
-
I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.
You are a d*ck. If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.
And, yes. Go back to the beginning. I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content. I got an apology from him. Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.
Actually we're now making a genuine accusation about you. Why were you letting them get away with casually joking about autism and using it to imply I'm stupid. I've not seen any other moderator letting something like this slide.
At the start of the thread I was trying to say that there are a lot of low content posts from both sides. But most of the time they only seem to get flagged when being made by an RE'er.
This: Are you implying I'm autistic???
Well, are you?
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
-
rottingroom, please lay out your accusations in a clear, precise sentence or two. I know you think I am a bad mod because I have given you a warning in the past, but please, lay out your argument. I really want to hear it.
-
I've not seen any other moderator
That is the problem.
-
I just got a warning from Junker for this comment:
"Comprehension, aka some basic reading skills would help you a lot."
Yet in this thread, 3 people have said me or danger are autistic without hearing a thing. I've had EJ constantly call me a moron, and a fucking idiot. Aevan has called me numerous things in the past.
This just keeps getting more and more ironic. It is conclusively true that this forum is a biased sham.
-
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
Asking you a question is not low content. See, this is why you're running into trouble up here. You have very poor judgement about everyone and seem to be expectant of everyone here to tolerate your behavior. It seems like so many people disliking your behavior would be indicative of a necessary change to it. Instead you just start shooting off insults and then get even angrier when the one mod here let's you know that it's not acceptable to do that. Quite frankly I think this forum owes you nothing less than a boot up your ass, but I suppose that's why jroa's the mod here, not me.
-
I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.
You are a d*ck. If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.
And, yes. Go back to the beginning. I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content. I got an apology from him. Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.
Actually we're now making a genuine accusation about you. Why were you letting them get away with casually joking about autism and using it to imply I'm stupid. I've not seen any other moderator letting something like this slide.
At the start of the thread I was trying to say that there are a lot of low content posts from both sides. But most of the time they only seem to get flagged when being made by an RE'er.
This: Are you implying I'm autistic???
Well, are you?
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
I am sincerely trying not to be disrespectful here. However, I can not refrain from pointing out that arguing that you are not stupid, while failing to show that you know how a question mark works, seems rather ironic. Not in the way that rottingroom thinks ironic means, but in the real way. Seriously, I am really not trying to make you look stupid.
-
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
Asking you a question is not low content.
Of course it is, Rushy. Here, an example.
The big bang would have made everything liquid, and everything would have sorted out according to atomic weight.
Why, and why?
Pyrolizard, please remember the low content rules. Thanks, have a great day!
Not to say that I'm upset about it, I could have been more elaborate in my questioning and Jroa certainly could have been much less polite about it, but it is just a question asked. Two questions, even, that's more than you put in.
-
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
Asking you a question is not low content. See, this is why you're running into trouble up here. You have very poor judgement about everyone and seem to be expectant of everyone here to tolerate your behavior. It seems like so many people disliking your behavior would be indicative of a necessary change to it. Instead you just start shooting off insults and then get even angrier when the one mod here let's you know that it's not acceptable to do that. Quite frankly I think this forum owes you nothing less than a boot up your ass, but I suppose that's why jroa's the mod here, not me.
Correction, so many FE people here disliking my behavior. What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples. I challenge my own beliefs by choice as much as possible to make sure I'm happy with them. In the couple of months I've been on this forum I've happily reinforced my belief that the earth is round and NASA aren't lying about what they do.
When someone challenges my beliefs, I do not shout and scream at them and call them stupid. The only person I've lost my temper with on here is you, I've found other peoples posts to be annoying but I've been civil to them because they haven't been overly offensive.
One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really.
-
I hope you lose your status jroa. You and Junker are the worst mods I've seen on any forum, ever. You're disrespectful of my beliefs, intellectually dishonest, offensive and bias. Stop trying to turn this into something as trivial as low content posts. You and your buddies have made it about much more than that.
You are a d*ck. If I lose my status, I want it to be for a good reason, not because I gave a little warning that everyone is crying about.
And, yes. Go back to the beginning. I gave a warning to someone who admits that his post was low content. I got an apology from him. Now, you people have side tracked this, and are making false accusations about the mods.
Actually we're now making a genuine accusation about you. Why were you letting them get away with casually joking about autism and using it to imply I'm stupid. I've not seen any other moderator letting something like this slide.
At the start of the thread I was trying to say that there are a lot of low content posts from both sides. But most of the time they only seem to get flagged when being made by an RE'er.
This: Are you implying I'm autistic???
Well, are you?
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
I am sincerely trying not to be disrespectful here. However, I can not refrain from pointing out that arguing that you are not stupid, while failing to show that you know how a question mark works, seems rather ironic. Not in the way that rottingroom thinks ironic means, but in the real way. Seriously, I am really not trying to make you look stupid.
I'm typing quite quickly, and being a human being, I may miss a question mark here and there.
Seriously your comment is a bit petty.
-
Not to say that I'm upset about it, I could have been more elaborate in my questioning and Jroa certainly could have been much less polite about it, but it is just a question asked. Two questions, even, that's more than you put in.
My question was much more specific than yours.
Correction, so many FE people here disliking my behavior. What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples. I challenge my own beliefs by choice as much as possible to make sure I'm happy with them. In the couple of months I've been on this forum I've happily reinforced my belief that the earth is round and NASA aren't lying about what they do.
When someone challenges my beliefs, I do not shout and scream at them and call them stupid. The only person I've lost my temper with on here is you, I've found other peoples posts to be annoying but I've been civil to them because they haven't been overly offensive.
One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really.
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful." Really? That is really the best logical reason you could come up with? People don't like you because you're just so correct all the time? No, we don't like you because you have the social aptitude of a doorknob. I've tried my best to explain that to you in plain, simple words. It's why the question of whether or not you are autistic came up, because, and I'm being completely serious, not being able to see even text-based social cues is a common symptom of autism. A lot of adults go through life not knowing they have it, so you might need to see a proper physician and get yourself checked.
-
Could be described under your rules as a low content post. No warning for him, and thats beside the fact its offensive.
Asking you a question is not low content.
Of course it is, Rushy. Here, an example.
The big bang would have made everything liquid, and everything would have sorted out according to atomic weight.
Why, and why?
Pyrolizard, please remember the low content rules. Thanks, have a great day!
Not to say that I'm upset about it, I could have been more elaborate in my questioning and Jroa certainly could have been much less polite about it, but it is just a question asked. Two questions, even, that's more than you put in.
You are correct, and I could have issued a real warning instead of just reminding you about the rules. I try not to be a bad person. People just get butt hurt when they are reminded about the rules.
-
People, just stop it. If danger2007 has autism, it is not his fault. Please look for other reasons to tease him other than whether or not he is autistic.
Let's get this back on track.
This post right here was jroa warning us about low content posts in this thread. He did it in a joking way, but I knew what he was saying. Also, look, we're not going to be banned for wondering if you guys are autistic. We've been warned. You have to cause problems on the forums to be banned. If I were to keep on making spammy comments then I would be seriously warned, and if I kept it up, then I would receive a vacation.
jroa that's the first time I've ever received a warning on TFES >:( I think I will create a new thread to bawwww about it.
-
Thank you, SCG. I look forward to getting spanked in that thread as well.
-
Do you have any links to sources and credible references, jroa? You shouldn't ever post anything anywhere without them.
No, everything I have ever said is invalidated, unfortunately.
Then why should anyone believe what you say??
You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas.
Don't worry, there are millions of websites, etc. that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas...
Joking or not my point stands, where are these links? On top of that where's the credibility?
"Don't worry, there are millions of websites, etc. that also believe in FE for us to backup our ideas..."
Why is that in inverted comma's?? Let's see them, you should be checking their credibility for yourself not just people like me. Why should you believe something with no credible evidence for it??
Also this "You fail. I'm pretty sure he is joking about the fact you REers always are dying for backup claims to our ideas."
Is exactly the rudeness I was talking about.
You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.
-
I've had EJ constantly call me a moron, and a fucking idiot. Aevan has called me numerous things in the past.
EJ was banned for a week for his little temper tantrum. Other FE'ers get warned or banned all the time. Aevon was warned when he made a low content post the other day. Please, don't act like you are being persecuted.
-
Not to say that I'm upset about it, I could have been more elaborate in my questioning and Jroa certainly could have been much less polite about it, but it is just a question asked. Two questions, even, that's more than you put in.
My question was much more specific than yours.
As I pointed out, what I asked got the intent across perfectly fine. I could have asked, "Why would everything have been a liquid, and why would everything separate according to density without gravity?" But the quote I was referring to allowed it to be perfectly clear what was being asked.
You are correct, and I could have issued a real warning instead of just reminding you about the rules. I try not to be a bad person. People just get butt hurt when they are reminded about the rules.
In other words, I could have warned you instead of warning you. As polite as you were, it was still a referral to abide by a rule that either I wasn't breaking, or Rushy broke himself earlier in the thread. If the first, the post was pointless and in reality contributed nothing. Low content if anything can be defined as such. If the second, a clear show of bias toward your own side.
-
I think you guys are taking the friendly warnings a little too personally, or maybe you think they are more serious than they are?
-
In other words, I could have warned you instead of warning you. As polite as you were, it was still a referral to abide by a rule that either I wasn't breaking, or Rushy broke himself earlier in the thread. If the first, the post was pointless and in reality contributed nothing. Low content if anything can be defined as such. If the second, a clear show of bias toward your own side.
You are welcome to let me know if you think I am breaking the rules. I do that from time to time. I try not to, but once in a while, I slip. Please let me know when I do. I just ask that you don't derail a whole thread over it.
I also, in kind, ask that you do not derail a thread if I remind you about the rules.
I want to remind everyone that the report function will draw a mod to a post that you think is inappropriate.
Have a wonderful day! :)
-
Jroa for FE!
-
iwanttobelieve, these are the upper fora and we are discussing how terrible I am. Please don't make me ban you for low content posting.
-
Not to say that I'm upset about it, I could have been more elaborate in my questioning and Jroa certainly could have been much less polite about it, but it is just a question asked. Two questions, even, that's more than you put in.
My question was much more specific than yours.
Correction, so many FE people here disliking my behavior. What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples. I challenge my own beliefs by choice as much as possible to make sure I'm happy with them. In the couple of months I've been on this forum I've happily reinforced my belief that the earth is round and NASA aren't lying about what they do.
When someone challenges my beliefs, I do not shout and scream at them and call them stupid. The only person I've lost my temper with on here is you, I've found other peoples posts to be annoying but I've been civil to them because they haven't been overly offensive.
One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really.
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful." Really? That is really the best logical reason you could come up with? People don't like you because you're just so correct all the time? No, we don't like you because you have the social aptitude of a doorknob. I've tried my best to explain that to you in plain, simple words. It's why the question of whether or not you are autistic came up, because, and I'm being completely serious, not being able to see even text-based social cues is a common symptom of autism. A lot of adults go through life not knowing they have it, so you might need to see a proper physician and get yourself checked.
Again, when have I been insulting to anyone else on this forum?? "Autistic", "social skills of a doorknob" : - You are being highly hypocritical. Your one of the most offensive people I've encountered on here.
Its not my fault you get angry when someone challenges flat earth well and start flaming them on here, your discrediting the other people with your point of view by talking a like a neanderthal.
-
You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.
This exactly my point. The lack of credible sources shows the flat earth theory to be incomplete, and thus why should you trust it? If you treated it with as much scepticism as you do RE science you would see it does not hold up.
I just can't understand this angry, blind, belief in something that doesn't answer all the questions, or even tries.
-
You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.
This exactly my point. The lack of credible sources shows the flat earth theory to be incomplete, and thus why should you trust it? If you treated it with as much scepticism as you do RE science you would see it does not hold up.
I just can't understand this angry, blind, belief in something that doesn't answer all the questions, or even tries.
You keep talking about the lack of credible sources.
Barack Obama is the president of the USA. Would you like a credible source to prove that?
Angry, blind belief? I'm pretty calm about it. I wouldn't call it blind either.
-
You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.
This exactly my point. The lack of credible sources shows the flat earth theory to be incomplete, and thus why should you trust it? If you treated it with as much scepticism as you do RE science you would see it does not hold up.
I just can't understand this angry, blind, belief in something that doesn't answer all the questions, or even tries.
You keep talking about the lack of credible sources.
Barack Obama is the president of the USA. Would you like a credible source to prove that?
Angry, blind belief? I'm pretty calm about it. I wouldn't call it blind either.
I have a many credible sources. The American people, The Senate, House of Repressentitives, and everyone else who knows anything about America, even your a source. This is eactly my point. Many many sources who I trust say Barak Obama is president and therefore I believe this to be a fact. Not very many sources, none of whom I trust, say the earth is flat and thus I view the theory with scepticism. That's why I find it strange that people on here get so angry when it's challenged.
Your pretty calm about it, but some people on this forum are not, and sometimes the mods fail to pick up on this.
-
Rushy is indeed an extremely offensive person. It's part of his persona. You get used to it after a while. I think he's just scared of being boring.
I think the real issue here is one of miscommunication. Different people seem to have very different ideas of how serious a warning is. This, in fact, is kind of what made me a bad mod, I think. I've never considered them to be a big deal. When someone does something dumb, you warn them in-thread. If it blatantly breaks a rule or they continue to do it, you send a private, official warning. It's not like a ban. It's just a reminder to follow the rules. It's not like we keep track of how many warnings you get and judge you accordingly.
I will admit that we're more lenient towards regulars than to newer members. However, it's not a case of RE vs FE. It's a case of established, well-known members vs noobs. Markjo and myself get similar treatment. Although he breaks the rules much more frequently than I do and is therefore warned more often, we would get the same warning for the same post.
-
Many many sources who I trust say Barak Obama is president and therefore I believe this to be a fact.
You sound like the kind of person who would believe in most of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions). You may also want to educate yourself about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum). The fact that you know a lot of people who told you about something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not what you heard is true.
That's why I find it strange that people on here get so angry when it's challenged.
Yes, see, the problem isn't that it's challenged, but how it's challenged. We have no patience for people like you - people who spew unsubstantiated accusations left and right while committing two logical fallacies per sentence. If you want to discuss, do so in a civil manner. Understand that you are in no way privileged here, and that we are not obliged to put up with your quirks.
-
You still fail. " is because I was quoting myself. It's also called a quotation mark.
We can check the credibility as much as possible, but we have limited sources and resources.
Stop bawling about 'rudeness'.
This exactly my point. The lack of credible sources shows the flat earth theory to be incomplete, and thus why should you trust it? If you treated it with as much scepticism as you do RE science you would see it does not hold up.
I just can't understand this angry, blind, belief in something that doesn't answer all the questions, or even tries.
You keep talking about the lack of credible sources.
Barack Obama is the president of the USA. Would you like a credible source to prove that?
Angry, blind belief? I'm pretty calm about it. I wouldn't call it blind either.
I have a many credible sources. The American people, The Senate, House of Repressentitives, and everyone else who knows anything about America, even your a source. This is eactly my point. Many many sources who I trust say Barak Obama is president and therefore I believe this to be a fact. Not very many sources, none of whom I trust, say the earth is flat and thus I view the theory with scepticism. That's why I find it strange that people on here get so angry when it's challenged.
Your pretty calm about it, but some people on this forum are not, and sometimes the mods fail to pick up on this.
True. However, FE theory is very limited and rejected by mainstream science, so we can't always bring forth credible sources.
I know it can be, and must be frustrating, that we can not always bring forth sources, but we try our best. Some members don't, though.
Yea, sadly some people are either trolls, or just very defensive about FE.
-
Thanks for the acknowledgement that there can be a little bias, and that some people need to be warned, these are probably two of the only measured responses I've ever received! You two are perhaps the only two people on here man enough to admit it.
As for this:
Many many sources who I trust say Barak Obama is president and therefore I believe this to be a fact.
You sound like the kind of person who would believe in most of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions). You may also want to educate yourself about this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum). The fact that you know a lot of people who told you about something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not what you heard is true.
That's why I find it strange that people on here get so angry when it's challenged.
Yes, see, the problem isn't that it's challenged, but how it's challenged. We have no patience for people like you - people who spew unsubstantiated accusations left and right while committing two logical fallacies per sentence. If you want to discuss, do so in a civil manner. Understand that you are in no way privileged here, and that we are not obliged to put up with your quirks.
Unfortunately you are exactly the person I'm on about. If you go through my posts you'll see I have a very long temper, but there is no place anywhere for miss-use and casual jokes about autism. I'm also patient the first thread I posted hasn't really been answered by FE, and I'm still waiting, and I personally do not "spew unsubstantiated accusations left and right". Maybe some do but not me.
-
No one has ever told you there isn't any bias. FES is a forum, not a courtroom. We are not here to tolerate your childish whims and incessant whining.
-
Unfortunately you are exactly the person I'm on about.
Yes, I'm sure I am. I am exactly the kind of person that annoys you in the upper fora, because I definitely post there these days. ::)
Didn't you say something about checking your facts before making statements?
If you go through my posts you'll see I have a very long temper
I suppose that depends on your definition of "temper". It may be that you're being insulting in a very calm manner, just like I am to you in this thread - that hurts your case rather than help it.
but there is no place anywhere for miss-use and casual jokes about autism.
Well, that's, like, your opinion, man. The problem is that you're still the guest here, and we're the hosts. We have both joke and serious threads about the holocaust, rape, nuclear weapons not existing, and even transsexuality. The only thing that's currently off limits is black people.
You are not in the position to come to our playground and tell us what we are and are not allowed to talk about. If that offends you, I'm sure we're all very sorry, but you may want to considering getting over it and/or moving on.
I'm also patient the first thread I posted hasn't really been answered by FE, and I'm still waiting, and I personally do not "spew unsubstantiated accusations left and right". Maybe some do but not me.
Ahhh, so many proven facts and credible sources to confirm your claim! Yes, now I see your point. ::)
You've made less than a 100 posts. I'm not sure if you realise, but reading through all of them is easy, so there's no point in you lying about their content. Just going through this thread I've found a large number of unfounded accusations (examples: "angry, blind belief" to Adolf, "One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really." to Rushy, "narrow minded and naive" to jroa, "What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples." to Rushy, "he's trolling on here for fun or maybe some kind of personality disorder." about Tom Bishop) - you do spew them left and right, and you do provide no logic/evidence to support them - all it takes to note this is a quick skim through your posts.
On top of that, you keep committing logical/informal fallacies - most notably the ad populum (to which I already linked you - hopefully you've actually read it, since you seem to be quite particular about people reading things) and the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) (example: "If you care so much about this you simply must be able to defend it and be willing to." aimed at me and previously at others in similar form).
Finally, you seem to think we owe you something. You seem to think you can tell us how to do things, and expect us to adjust to your opinions without you even trying to explain them. Briefly looking through your posts just now I've found demands of:
- Banning two long-standing members of the forum for making a joke you didn't like;
- Telling people they have to put up with your crap, or else they're not actually FE'ers (see above);
- Changing the structure of the upper fora, because you don't like one of the subfora;
- Appointing different moderators, because you don't like the current ones;
- Having Tom Bishop prove to you that one of our old Sodahead troll accounts is not his own account (How do you expect not to be accused of being autistic when you come up with this crap?);
- Banning FE'ers from using evidence you dislike or consider disproven;
You seriously need to change your attitude if you want to be taken seriously here. We're not going to turn the forum upside-down just because you think we should.
-
- Having Tom Bishop prove to you that one of our old Sodahead troll accounts is not his own account (How do you expect not to be accused of being autistic when you come up with this crap?);
On this point I have to defend danger, Tom hasn't proven anything. Not that he can, or even that he should be able to, but all we have is his word to go by. Seeing as danger doesn't know Tom personally to judge the validity of his word, and has already found that in his own opinion that Tom acts like a troll, it's not unreasonable for danger to believe that it may in fact be Tom.
I am not, in any way, saying that I believe the account to be Tom's. I don't, as far as I'm concerned his word is enough. My only point is that, from the perspective of danger, it's just the accused pleading not guilty with no further evidence, and that it's danger's call whether to believe him or not.
-
On this point I have to defend danger, Tom hasn't proven anything. Not that he can, or even that he should be able to, but all we have is his word to go by. Seeing as danger doesn't know Tom personally to judge the validity of his word, and has already found that in his own opinion that Tom acts like a troll, it's not unreasonable for danger to believe that it may in fact be Tom.
Sorry, I might not have been entirely clear on this. I only meant to say that he demanded for Tom to prove it, not that the demand has been met. Agreed on all points so far.
I am not, in any way, saying that I believe the account to be Tom's. I don't, as far as I'm concerned his word is enough. My only point is that, from the perspective of danger, it's just the accused pleading not guilty with no further evidence, and that it's danger's call whether to believe him or not.
There is a number of issues with this train of thought.
If danger2007 has any reason to believe that the Sodahead account belongs to Tom, he should state them. This is something he very frequently asks of others, and in a condescending manner at that. It's only fair that he adheres to his own standards. One of my complaints about him is that he throws unsubstantiated accusations (which he seems to deny), and I believe this is a great example of that.
Besides, if we follow this logic, anyone could make an alt with a name similar to (or even indistinguishable from) "danger2007", start posting stupid things, and then ask danger2007 to prove that it wasn't him. It's just far from fair.
Of course, everyone does have the right to believe what they want, be that with or without evidence. I guess it just strikes me as objectionable when it comes from a guy who keeps attacking the beliefs' of others by calling them "angry, blind belief".
-
On this point I have to defend danger, Tom hasn't proven anything. Not that he can, or even that he should be able to, but all we have is his word to go by. Seeing as danger doesn't know Tom personally to judge the validity of his word, and has already found that in his own opinion that Tom acts like a troll, it's not unreasonable for danger to believe that it may in fact be Tom.
Sorry, I might not have been entirely clear on this. I only meant to say that he demanded for Tom to prove it, not that the demand has been met. Agreed on all points so far.
Ah, that much is fair, then.
I am not, in any way, saying that I believe the account to be Tom's. I don't, as far as I'm concerned his word is enough. My only point is that, from the perspective of danger, it's just the accused pleading not guilty with no further evidence, and that it's danger's call whether to believe him or not.
There is a number of issues with this train of thought.
If danger2007 has any reason to believe that the Sodahead account belongs to Tom, he should state them. This is something he very frequently asks of others, and in a condescending manner at that. It's only fair that he adheres to his own standards. One of my complaints about him is that he throws unsubstantiated accusations (which he seems to deny), and I believe this is a great example of that.
If I'm not wrong, he has. The fact that the accounts share a name and a profile picture were the reason, if I remember. As I said, Tom has denied it, but it's up to each individual to evaluate Tom's word. In the case of danger, he's already concluded that Tom is likely a troll, so the conclusion of Tom lying about it not being his account isn't a terribly large leap in logic.
Besides, if we follow this logic, anyone could make an alt with a name similar to (or even indistinguishable from) "danger2007", start posting stupid things, and then ask danger2007 to prove that it wasn't him. It's just far from fair.
Yes, that's entirely possible. In fact, something similar happened with muggsybogues on this very forum not long ago, didn't it?
Of course, everyone does have the right to believe what they want, be that with or without evidence. I guess it just strikes me as objectionable when it comes from a guy who keeps attacking the beliefs' of others by calling them "angry, blind belief".
Not saying anything about danger's manner of posting, I was only defending his position. Again, the only evidence there is to go on is that which need be evaluated based on one's opinion of the one giving it. In this case, there is no concrete evidence for anyone but Tom. Or, I suppose anyone with access to the IP of the ones who registered both accounts, although that's likely a group exclusive to the point of no membership and isn't definite even assuming they're different.
-
The fact that the accounts share a name and a profile picture were the reason, if I remember.
[...]
In this case, there is no concrete evidence for anyone but Tom.
Isn't that pretty much as bad as no evidence at all? If I went to a bunch of sites and made accounts named danger2007, people would likely be confused at first - but I'm sure that if danger said "Those accounts aren't actually mine", no one would ask for proof.
Yes, that's entirely possible. In fact, something similar happened with muggsybogues on this very forum not long ago, didn't it?
People were confused by the similar names and identical avatars, but I don't recall anyone trying to suggest that the two accounts belong to the same person. That said, I have been fairly inactive in the past 2 months, so I might have just missed it.
-
The fact that the accounts share a name and a profile picture were the reason, if I remember.
[...]
In this case, there is no concrete evidence for anyone but Tom.
Isn't that pretty much as bad as no evidence at all? If I went to a bunch of sites and made accounts named danger2007, people would likely be confused at first - but I'm sure that if danger said "Those accounts aren't actually mine", no one would ask for proof.
I'm sure if someone was particularly unfond of danger2007, and already believed him to be a troll and the accounts you made were also trolling, there would be someone who believed it was really him. If you disagree, you know how the saying goes, I'm content to let you believe that as long as you feel the same toward me.
Yes, that's entirely possible. In fact, something similar happened with muggsybogues on this very forum not long ago, didn't it?
People were confused by the similar names and identical avatars, but I don't recall anyone trying to suggest that the two accounts belong to the same person. That said, I have been fairly inactive in the past 2 months, so I might have just missed it.
I was under the impression that it was rather rapidly concluded that they were one and the same, although I wasn't following the moderation quite so closely at the time so I may be mistaken. I'll look back and see if I can find clarification sometime later.
-
Didn't you say something about checking your facts before making statements?
If you go through my posts you'll see I have a very long temper
I suppose that depends on your definition of "temper". It may be that you're being insulting in a very calm manner, just like I am to you in this thread - that hurts your case rather than help it.
My definition of temper would to not instantly answer someone angrily the first time you post in a thread to them. I try not to do this wherever possible.
but there is no place anywhere for miss-use and casual jokes about autism.
Well, that's, like, your opinion, man. The problem is that you're still the guest here, and we're the hosts. We have both joke and serious threads about the holocaust, rape, nuclear weapons not existing, and even transsexuality. The only thing that's currently off limits is black people.
Do you really think threads like these help people take your society seriously?? Anyone who comes on here, who you might want to take you seriously, and sees joking about rape and the holocaust is going to be repulsed, and if they're not, the problem gets worse.
You are not in the position to come to our playground and tell us what we are and are not allowed to talk about. If that offends you, I'm sure we're all very sorry, but you may want to considering getting over it and/or moving on.
Well this forum doesn't hold my attention very much anyway so it's not difficult for me to move on.
You've made less than a 100 posts. I'm not sure if you realise, but reading through all of them is easy, so there's no point in you lying about their content. Just going through this thread I've found a large number of unfounded accusations (examples: "angry, blind belief" to Adolf, "One of Rowbotham's followers sent death threats to someone who challenged his theories. It just about sums you up really." to Rushy, "narrow minded and naive" to jroa, "What they don't like is that I challenge their beliefs, I ask polite questions with examples." to Rushy, "he's trolling on here for fun or maybe some kind of personality disorder." about Tom Bishop) - you do spew them left and right, and you do provide no logic/evidence to support them - all it takes to note this is a quick skim through your posts.
You are not using all of these in context, and I think you may need them clarified. Perhaps try reading the other posts in the threads to see where mine fit in.
"Angry, Blind, Belief" - Not directed specifically at him but an example of the type of behaviour I see on this forum sometimes. Not an unfounded accusation at Adolf. An observation about the society in general.
"Death Threats from one of Rowbotham's followers" - The notion of death threats appears to be anecdotal but read the link below:
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm (http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm)
This is transcript from the court room during the case of the follower I was on about John Hampden. In this case he is found guilty of libel and spreading slander about Alfred Russell Wallace, who disproved the Bedford level experiment. Again I was making comparison between Rushy's (and other members of FE community's) angry behaviour towards me and other RE'ers.
"narrow minded and naive" - Again not specific accusation at jroa, just a warning that for his own sake he should check as must of the information as possible.
"he's trolling on here for fun or maybe some kind of personality disorder." - See bellow.
On top of that, you keep committing logical/informal fallacies - most notably the ad populum (to which I already linked you - hopefully you've actually read it, since you seem to be quite particular about people reading things) and the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) (example: "If you care so much about this you simply must be able to defend it and be willing to." aimed at me and previously at others in similar form).
Having read this I'd like to see some more examples, because personally I disagree. The above statement certainly does not "modify the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric" because I wasn't making a counter argument to something that you had said, I was proposing a claim, neigh an opinion on the nature of belief.
- Banning two long-standing members of the forum for making a joke you didn't like;
[/b]
- I didn't like the joke because I don't like people insulting others (or using their condition as a by-word for stupid) for something they can't help. I'm not autistic, but it’s the principle I find offensive. Tausami agreed that:
Rushy is indeed an extremely offensive person. It's part of his persona. You get used to it after a while. I think he's just scared of being boring.
- Telling people they have to put up with your crap, or else they're not actually FE'ers (see above);
I only base my deductions on whether some one is an FEer or not on the answers they choose to give. If I post a thread and the society chooses to ignore it then I may bump it once or twice if I perceive there to be a reason for it and then probably forget about it. As you can see however I find the lack of answers doesn't help the FE case.
- Changing the structure of the upper fora, because you don't like one of the subfora;
- This is only a suggestion to make help the moderators. I posed bluntly but not a demand.
- Appointing different moderators, because you don't like the current ones;
[/b]
- I have never suggested this. I may have said certain moderators have not be fair, but never said any should be removed from their posts. I have asked why there are none or few RE moderators, as this would achieve some balance and help the society's credibility. You should have spotted that reading through my profile.
- Banning FE'ers from using evidence you dislike or consider disproven;
I can't remember the specific instance you refer to, but it does not help the FE cause when one of your members uses bad evidence. If its the case I'm thinking of, Evan used an extract from a source which said itself that the theory it was discussing was shown to be incorrect. In the discussion we were having it weakened the RE case. Perhaps this is not worth a ban, but it surely does not look good for the FE society.
On the subject of Tom Bishop and the soda head account:
I thought very carefully about making this accusation, because of the argument that you and Pyrolizard have suggested, and you may have answered it for me.
- Having Tom Bishop prove to you that one of our old Sodahead troll accounts is not his own account (How do you expect not to be accused of being autistic when you come up with this crap?);
Can you explain specifically what you mean by "our old Sodahead troll accounts"
Are you using it just to troll on another website for fun?? This would compound the points I made above on joking about rape, autism and the holocaust. They are not credible to this society.
It's also pretty harsh that you would use Tom as an alias to cause trouble. [/list]
-
Can you explain specifically what you mean by "our old Sodahead troll accounts"
Are you using it just to troll on another website for fun?? This would compound the points I made above on joking about rape, autism and the holocaust. They are not credible to this society.
It's also pretty harsh that you would use Tom as an alias to cause trouble.
A few of us joined Sodahead some time ago, and yes, we trolled them. We used the names of well-known users here simply as a way of winking to one another. The intention was to have some fun, not to cause trouble for anyone.
-
My definition of temper would to not instantly answer someone angrily the first time you post in a thread to them. I try not to do this wherever possible.
Excellent, then no one here is guilty of having a bad temper! One shitty complain down, so many to go!
Do you really think threads like these help people take your society seriously??
We're not here to be taken seriously, we're here to enjoy the company of like-minded people. Like I've told you before many times now, we're not here to cater to your kind. What about this do you not understand?
Anyone who comes on here, who you might want to take you seriously, and sees joking about rape and the holocaust is going to be repulsed, and if they're not, the problem gets worse.
Actually, most people have a sense of humour.
Well this forum doesn't hold my attention very much anyway so it's not difficult for me to move on.
Fantastic. The exit is this way: Click! (http://)
You are not using all of these in context, and I think you may need them clarified. Perhaps try reading the other posts in the threads to see where mine fit in.
I have. It doesn't help.
"Angry, Blind, Belief" - Not directed specifically at him but an example of the type of behaviour I see on this forum sometimes. Not an unfounded accusation at Adolf. An observation about the society in general.
It's still an unfounded accusation - you've just decided to change who to direct it at. It is no less an accusation, and no less unsubstantiated (since, y'know, you have yet to substantiate it).
"Death Threats from one of Rowbotham's followers" - The notion of death threats appears to be anecdotal but read the link below:
[...]
Again I was making comparison between Rushy's (and other members of FE community's) angry behaviour towards me and other RE'ers.
Again, your "clarification" doesn't make it any less unsubstantiated accusations.
"narrow minded and naive" - Again not specific accusation at jroa, just a warning that for his own sake he should check as must of the information as possible.
Would you stop with the irrelevant crap, already? If you're hoping to save your face, you should start either backing your claims up or taking them back.
Having read this I'd like to see some more examples, because personally I disagree. The above statement certainly does not "modify the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric" because I wasn't making a counter argument to something that you had said, I was proposing a claim, neigh an opinion on the nature of belief.
In that case I would recommend that you do some research of your own. Hold yourself up to your own standards - if Wikipedia didn't work for you, find another source and learn from it.
I didn't like the joke because I don't like people insulting others (or using their condition as a by-word for stupid) for something they can't help.
I'm not sure what makes you think I care. We don't ban people because someone didn't like a joke. You're welcome to continue not liking it, but stop wasting people's time with it.
I'm not autistic, but it’s the principle I find offensive.
Again, you assume anyone cares about you and your autism.
Tausami agreed that:
Rushy is indeed an extremely offensive person. It's part of his persona. You get used to it after a while. I think he's just scared of being boring.
I'm sorry, are you trying to make a point?
I only base my deductions on whether some one is an FEer or not on the answers they choose to give.
No, you don't. They give you an answer ("Yes, I'm a FE'er"), and then you take a poo all over it and say "LOL NO UR NOT BECAUSE SODAHEAD AND BECAUSE YOU MAKE A JOKE I DISLIKE!!!!".
If I post a thread and the society chooses to ignore it then I may bump it once or twice if I perceive there to be a reason for it and then probably forget about it.
Yes, this is why we don't like you.
I realise the word "netiquette" hasn't been in use since something like 2001, so you might be unaware of it; but seriously, you should learn some of that.
As you can see however I find the lack of answers doesn't help the FE case.
Yes, I can see that you find that. I don't understand what makes you think that I'm interested in what you find. I also don't understand what you mean by "FE case". I've explained to you what this forum is about many times by now - we're not here to make a "case". We're here to enjoy each other's company in discussion.
This is only a suggestion to make help the moderators. I posed bluntly but not a demand.
Bluntly, and frequently. It's almost as if you didn't understand the first time people said "no". It's almost as if your suggestion was more than a suggestion. After all, if it was just that - a suggestion - you wouldn't be proposing it over and over until everyone gets tired of it.
I have never suggested this. I may have said certain moderators have not be fair, but never said any should be removed from their posts.
Do you understand what the word "appointing" means? No one is talking about anyone being removed. Yet another completely irrelevant response from you.
I have asked why there are none or few RE moderators, as this would achieve some balance and help the society's credibility.
Yes, you claim that. You forgot to substantiate it.
You also failed to realise that we already have RE'er mods. Historically, we had more, but they ended up either quitting or being terrible at their job. If anything, I'd say RE'er mods were a failed experiment.
You should have spotted that reading through my profile.
And I have. You simply chose to misinterpret my post and respond to something I didn't say. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
[...] Perhaps this is not worth a ban
Finally! Something I can agree with!
I thought very carefully about making this accusation, because of the argument that you and Pyrolizard have suggested
Apparently you haven't. It really takes the mental ability of a kindergartener to put the facts together and realise that the Sodahead account is not real Tom Bishop.
Alternatively, if common sense isn't good enough for you, you could have used this very forum's search feature to find the truth (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30613.0.html). This REALLY shouldn't be challenging for you.
Can you explain specifically what you mean by "our old Sodahead troll accounts"
See above.
This would compound the points I made above on joking about rape, autism and the holocaust. They are not credible to this society.
Yes, because making jokes is truly outrageous.
-
This is no longer about the OP. It is about personal attacks. I am closing it.