http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61125

1. Instructions/warnings given in the function of moderator are to be taken as a strict guidelines. Non-compliance may have a range of results; receiving an infraction, editing/deleting of offending posts, moving of threads to more appropriate subforums/cesspool, temporary bans.

This is in the Biology and Genetics forum.

The problem is that this sets up a situation in which there is one set of rules for some people and another set for another. No one is going to, and no one should be held responsible to read every thread to find out what the moderator has ruled on. It would seem that in the HIV thread I may be required to provide sources for every little thing like a statement about the way someone was treated in the media while those who are on the other side of the controversy aren't required to prove anything. Once more, no level playing field for ideas.

There is currently no rule in the rules and guidelines saying that I have to show sources for everything that I say or risk removal. If there were how would the moderator enforce it? Would he enforce it?

It's like this all over the world, and for a reason too. Because even if you have all the proof leading to something, there is still the impossible to deny fact it may still be wrong. In which case it makes this more acceptable as so everyone can clarify certain points for themselves.

metakron,
do you believe the science forums should be held to a higher level of excellence than free thoughts?

what is it about the thread in question do you disagree with?
all anybody can do is put forth their arguements, they cannot cange laws or reverse time or alter physics.

I disagree with making up rules on the spot that won't go into the forum's rules and guidelines. This "I told you" stuff makes one set of rules for some participants and different sets of rules for others.

I also disagree with holding two sides of the controversy to different standards. Spurious holds the "orthodox" side of the AIDS controversy to no standards at all, a condition that no responsible reporter or researcher would want even for their own work. He's trying to hold me to strict standards for any casual statement. The point is to use his moderator's powers to harass dissidents out of the conversation.

That whole blow-up was because people from the dissident side have been sick and tired of this treatment for a long time. In AIDS there is actually a sort of governing body that thinks that it has the right to mistreat anyone who contradicts its edicts. Spurious has been acting as one of those people. He has been playing headgames. His "resignation" seems not to be genuine, and he seems to be planning to do exactly as he did before, and that is to make me chase my own ass and then cesspool threads that I worked hard on. It is a form of deliberate mental torture. It is abuse of a user. It is wrong.

I also disagree with holding two sides of the controversy to different standards. Spurious holds the "orthodox" side of the AIDS controversy to no standards at all, a condition that no responsible reporter or researcher would want even for their own work. He's trying to hold me to strict standards for any casual statement. The point is to use his moderator's powers to harass dissidents out of the conversation.

That whole blow-up was because people from the dissident side have been sick and tired of this treatment for a long time. In AIDS there is actually a sort of governing body that thinks that it has the right to mistreat anyone who contradicts its edicts. Spurious has been acting as one of those people. He has been playing headgames. His "resignation" seems not to be genuine, and he seems to be planning to do exactly as he did before, and that is to make me chase my own ass and then cesspool threads that I worked hard on. It is a form of deliberate mental torture. It is abuse of a user. It is wrong.

Worked hard on? You haven't provided any proof. I'd hardly consider typing working hard. After all, if you have proof to back up your claims, you should have nothing to hide.

I provided proof of the opposing view to your own in that thread. If I didn't, I'd imagine Spurious would tell me to. If you are making scientific claims, don't you think you should provide some back up for such claims instead of expecting us to rely on your unsubstantiated words alone?

His rules apply to everyone in that thread and presumably the biology forum. Why are you saying it's not? Everyone who has posted a different view in that thread or has made a claim about AIDS/HIV has provided proof of it, except for you. Why should you be the exception?

The problem is that this sets up a situation in which there is one set of rules for some people and another set for another.

So don't post there. Try the Pseudoscience forum or another forum all together. There are any number of conspiracy theorist sites you can post at.

Dear Metakron,


I'm terribly sorry if I offended your sensibilities by asking you to substantiate your sentiment.


regards,

your friendly biology & genetics moderator.

ps.
To be honest when I refered to the rules in the HIV/AIDS thread in one of your posts I was myself more thinking about this rule:
13. Propaganda

For the purposes of this forum, "propaganda" is defined as material copied verbatim from other web sites, books or articles, which demonstrates clear bias for or against a particular scientific idea or organization. It does not include articles which examine an issue objectively, without a particular religious or political bias.

Posts consisting solely or partly of propaganda, as defined, may be edited or deleted as appropriate to remove the propaganda. Links to other sites on the web which demonstrate this kind of bias may also be deleted.

Original material posted by sciforums members will not be regarded as propaganda, provided that any arguments made for or against a particular view are supported by evidence and appropriate references to source material.

Moderators will have regard to the percentage of original material in a post in taking any decision to edit or delete it. Members who post their own views will be treated with greater respect and a lighter hand than those who merely cut-and-paste the views of others.

I will try to put more effort into being more specific in the 2007. I hope you can do the same.

I think you're still playing the same game.

You are playing the game over the backs of million of suffering and dying people.

I rate you on the same level as Holocaust denialists. And with that I leave you to your macabre games.

The game that you are playing here is quite unacceptable, Spurious. You redefine terms like "trolling", "plagiarism", and "propaganda" to serve your own sick agenda. You deliberately disrupt threads using the pretense of moderation. You have been abusing your moderator status since you started.

Resign.

Also, isn't Tiassa a sock puppet of SpuriousMonkey and why does a moderator have a sock puppet who is also a moderator?

Heh. The very thought.

Hilarious.

You are playing the game over the backs of million of suffering and dying people.

I rate you on the same level as Holocaust denialists. And with that I leave you to your macabre games.

I wish you would leave, damn you.

Also, isn't Tiassa a sock puppet of SpuriousMonkey and why does a moderator have a sock puppet who is also a moderator?

You're really losing it, man.

Spurious had something about it in his signature but he's changed that.

Maybe he was fucking with you.
He's not Tiassa. They hate each other. Big feud long time ago.

Well, I didn't think that I knew for sure one way or the other. I don't even remember what exactly his signature said about Tiassa.

Everything that I have told you for certain about Spuriousmonkey is true. I don't know how long it is going to take you or the rest of the board to realize this, but he is exactly what I said he is. I have told you the truth about AIDS, what little he would let me say, and I have told you the truth about him.

Metakron.
No.
I'm sorry.
But no.
You're wrong.
I'm stepping out of this discussion. I've tried.
I'm sorry.

Just about all that I have left to say about Spuriousmonkey is that he is moderating his forum under false pretenses.

Metakron.
No.
I'm sorry.
But no.
You're wrong.
I'm stepping out of this discussion. I've tried.
I'm sorry.

You haven't said anything convincing and I know I'm right about this. This is a road that I have been down before. He's doing the same thing to me that he's done to people on other forums. I don't know exactly which one he is, but there are only about a half dozen on the net that I know of and I don't know all of their real-life names.

I am not wrong about this. He played this game to hurt you and me and we all lost except him. He has gained a truly sickening kind of victory here.

Also, isn't Tiassa a sock puppet of SpuriousMonkey

Err... no. They are quite distinct.

It would help if I remembered what he said about Tiassa in his signature. I didn't think anything of it until I saw the name as one of the moderators, but I thought it was saying that he used the name Tiassa.

Hi Metakron,
It was a joke. He put on a "mod-hat", which he indicated was a trademark of Tiassa.

Look, we'll keep an eye on spuriousmonkey. But I recommend that you both take a break from each other for a while. Take a holiday from SciForums. Go to the beach, or a hike in the mountains for a weekend.

Pete

I like this one especially since by its sheer audacity it pulls every other "serious" rule down the drain along with it:7. Repeat offenders

The moderators here are not paid for their work, and have limited time.Lol! Charity work? Or, Vote-For-Me-As-Moderator-Cuz-I-Really-Really-Wannabe-Moderator? Mmm.

It was a joke. He put on a "mod-hat", which he indicated was a trademark of Tiassa.

Ah, yeah, that's what you're talking about. Ok. I get it.

Yeah. The mod hat thing was something that Tiassa always did in his forum when he came in as a moderator to a discussion. Spurious kinda adopted that in a humorous way in his own forum.

They are definitely not the same person. Like I said, they despise one another.

Not only are they not the same person, but Tiassa's cap was conceive during an era when most of us were genuinely inspired by much that was Sciforums. I doubt the original cap thing would remotely be possible today.

Not only are they not the same person, but Tiassa's cap was conceive during an era when most of us were genuinely inspired by much that was Sciforums. I doubt the original cap thing would remotely be possible today.

Indeed. It isn't.

They are definitely not the same person. Like I said, they despise one another.

No, I don't. I learned to like Tiassa. Not that we hold hands or anything, but I learned to appreciate his writings.

All of this does not change the fact that you are here for the purpose of destroying discussions concerning AIDS, by any means necessary including harassment of members and deliberate deception.

I don't see the problem. You're free to discuss anything about HIV/AIDS you would like as long as you have legitimate sources that back what you're saying. You should no more be allowed to spew forth with pseudoscientific babble of AIDS denialist propaganda in the Biology forum than you would be allowed to do the same with Holocaust denial propaganda in the History subforum.

Either there is evidence for your wild claims or there isn't.

Skinwalker, your attitude about this kind of thing is antithetical to the purpose of a forum like this.

The Biology subforum is about science, not pseudoscience. I don't see what the problem is. Either you have scientific evidence for your claims and propaganda, or you don't. Period.

I think its time for you to stop crying and move on.

You need to see what the problem is.

I've read enough of the thread and your rants. No need to "see" anything further from my perspective.

So you fail to impress me one more time. Nothing new here.

By the way, I actually am eating Christmas candy as we speak.

I've already given a response in the original thread, but I think I should repeat myself so my message is sure to be read.

MetaKron, you are being asked for sources while our side is not because you are saying something akin to "The sky is red!". In a debate over the color of the sky, the "blue sky" side would not have to cite evidence, because it is currently accepted scientific fact that the sky is blue. However, since the "red sky" side is challenging the overwhelmingly accepted scientific fact, they must provide some sort of evidence before they can be taken seriously.

Is it SO hard to just cite something?

So you basically think virologists are being duped, while you can see through the propaganda perfectly? Come awwwn! As much as I'd like to take your side, simply because of the other party involved, any and all appeal in doing so is trumped by the fact that I have a brain and use it.

Have a nice day.

By the way, I actually am eating Christmas candy as we speak.

What, you don't believe that sugar causes tooth decay either? :p

Why don't you look at the virusmyth.net site and just get an idea how many sources they site and how many books on the subject are available? Then tell me that you have just my lonely statement.

It's not hard to cite something. What is hard is making nice to someone like Spuriousmonkey when I know what he will put me through, and I know that he has done the same thing to me under other aliases.

Why don't you look at the virusmyth.net site and just get an idea how many sources they site and how many books on the subject are available?

Let's take that link you posted in some thread the other day with 132 references. Note how many of those references reference the same sources. Note how the sources are themselves conspiracy themed rather than a real scientific journal of any kind. Note also how many references are made to popular media outlets.

There are references and then there are references...