Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate

  • 37 Replies
  • 6575 Views
Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2015, 01:39:43 PM »
And taking rather a risk here, but proving that my interest is in proper moderation rather than my own personal benefit, if you really think I have broken so many rules that I should have been banned out of existence, then surely admitting you haven't done it is admitting that you are indeed shit at moderating?

Perhaps, but if you want to make this argument then you must recant all the times you've said we're ban-crazy and show overt favortisom to flat-earthers. You cannot both say these things and call us shit mods for not banning you.

OK, good point. You're not ban crazy, but you do indulge in inappropriate posting.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2015, 06:03:30 AM »
And taking rather a risk here, but proving that my interest is in proper moderation rather than my own personal benefit, if you really think I have broken so many rules that I should have been banned out of existence, then surely admitting you haven't done it is admitting that you are indeed shit at moderating?

Perhaps, but if you want to make this argument then you must recant all the times you've said we're ban-crazy and show overt favortisom to flat-earthers. You cannot both say these things and call us shit mods for not banning you.

OK, good point. You're not ban crazy, but you do indulge in inappropriate posting.

And the favoritism.  You cannot both say our moderation skews heavily to non-flat-earthers and also say we are shit mods for being so lenient on you.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 06:05:34 AM by Pongo »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2015, 07:12:34 AM »
And taking rather a risk here, but proving that my interest is in proper moderation rather than my own personal benefit, if you really think I have broken so many rules that I should have been banned out of existence, then surely admitting you haven't done it is admitting that you are indeed shit at moderating?

Perhaps, but if you want to make this argument then you must recant all the times you've said we're ban-crazy and show overt favortisom to flat-earthers. You cannot both say these things and call us shit mods for not banning you.

OK, good point. You're not ban crazy, but you do indulge in inappropriate posting.

And the favoritism.  You cannot both say our moderation skews heavily to non-flat-earthers and also say we are shit mods for being so lenient on you.

Sure he can.  He is engaged in a witch hunt, not at finding the truth or improving anything.  Silly Pongo.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2015, 12:21:42 PM »
And taking rather a risk here, but proving that my interest is in proper moderation rather than my own personal benefit, if you really think I have broken so many rules that I should have been banned out of existence, then surely admitting you haven't done it is admitting that you are indeed shit at moderating?

Perhaps, but if you want to make this argument then you must recant all the times you've said we're ban-crazy and show overt favortisom to flat-earthers. You cannot both say these things and call us shit mods for not banning you.

OK, good point. You're not ban crazy, but you do indulge in inappropriate posting.

And the favoritism.  You cannot both say our moderation skews heavily to non-flat-earthers and also say we are shit mods for being so lenient on you.

Nay. I shall not concede this point. You are simplifying it by saying "because we haven't banned you, therefore we don't favouritise FE'ers" which is a non sequitur. If you were to take your moderation as a whole, including telling people to stop posting low content and not to debate in Q&A, you are skewed in favour of the flat side. All of us are free to comb through your post history to check if I am simply speaking opinion or fact. You and jroa also appear to be blind to each other's transgressions. You especially Pongo, are unable to resist debating in Q&A, and the reaction when I pointed this out was for jroa to simply to chop my post out of the thread. Highly professional. Then when I tried to raise honest debate and opinion on whether you were debating, the thread was moved from Debate (which it was) to Angry Ranting (which it wasn't, but at least being in the lower forum allowed me to openly insult you.) And even there, the balance of opinion was that you had been debating in Q&A.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2015, 02:29:48 PM »
Imagine, in the UK it is illegal in most parts to carry a firearm... yet almost every police officer carries a firearm in the UK. Should the police officers then be thrown in prison for breaking the law? This is basically what you're advocating.

Speaking as a UK citizen, the answer to that is ... yes, absolutely they should.

Only AFOs are allowed to carry firearms in the UK, and they account for 5% of the police force. Any other officer carrying a firearm, which thankfully they don't, would be in violation of the laws they would be upholding and subject to the same penalties under law as a regular citizen.

Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2015, 02:48:43 PM »
Imagine, in the UK it is illegal in most parts to carry a firearm... yet almost every police officer carries a firearm in the UK. Should the police officers then be thrown in prison for breaking the law? This is basically what you're advocating.

Speaking as a UK citizen, the answer to that is ... yes, absolutely they should.

Only AFOs are allowed to carry firearms in the UK, and they account for 5% of the police force. Any other officer carrying a firearm, which thankfully they don't, would be in violation of the laws they would be upholding and subject to the same penalties under law as a regular citizen.

Furthermore, the police who carry firearms (the AFOs) have an allowance in law to do so, and regulations governing their use. But I wouldn't expect Vauxhall to understand such an advanced concept as the law permitting a right to some people and not others. It must baffle him how some people are allowed to drive a car and others aren't, or why his attempt to set himself up as a gynaecologist was not recognised by the General Medical Council.  ::)
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2015, 03:00:43 PM »
As an American I even thought, wait, no don't most UK police not carry guns? But didn't know so I kept my yap shut. :P
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Answering questions in sections where we're not supposed to debate
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2015, 03:26:47 PM »
Seems my strawman has been skillfully deconstructed. I will have to go back to the drawing board.
Read the FAQS.