Moderation

Quote from: Rushy on September 22, 2013, 04:43:23 PM

Quote from: danger2007 on September 22, 2013, 04:38:49 PM

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.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 21, 2013, 06:42:39 PM

Quote from: odes on September 21, 2013, 06:41:14 PM

The big bang would have made everything liquid, and everything would have sorted out according to atomic weight.

Why, and why?

Quote from: jroa on September 21, 2013, 09:15:42 PM

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.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 22, 2013, 02:24:16 PM

Quote from: danger2007 on September 22, 2013, 02:22:10 PM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 22, 2013, 02:08:17 PM

Quote from: danger2007 on September 22, 2013, 01:29:52 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 22, 2013, 11:10:57 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 22, 2013, 10:54:07 AM

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. 

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 22, 2013, 04:54:22 PM

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.   

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 22, 2013, 04:54:22 PM

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.

Quote from: danger2007 on September 22, 2013, 04:55:09 PM

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.     

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 22, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

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.

Quote from: danger2007 on September 23, 2013, 03:20:15 AM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 22, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

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. You may also want to educate yourself about this. 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.

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 23, 2013, 04:20:13 AM

Quote from: danger2007 on September 23, 2013, 03:20:15 AM

Quote from: Adolf Hipster on September 22, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

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:

Quote from: danger2007 on September 23, 2013, 05:14:48 AM

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. You may also want to educate yourself about this. 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.

Quote from: danger2007 on September 23, 2013, 05:14:48 AM

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 (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".

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 23, 2013, 09:00:18 PM

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.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 23, 2013, 09:00:18 PM

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.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 24, 2013, 01:57:26 AM

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.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 24, 2013, 01:57:26 AM

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?

Quote from: danger2007 on September 23, 2013, 04:27:30 PM

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.

Quote from: danger2007 on September 23, 2013, 04:27:30 PM

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

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 (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: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Click!

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:

Quote from: Tausami on September 23, 2013, 12:01:29 PM

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.

[...] 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. 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.