I've decided to devote a thread to like-minded people who are pissed about the permanent eviction of one of Sciforum's most controversial and unique posters: Dr Lou Natic.

Post here to express your dissatisfication against the the attack made on Sciforums by do-gooder mods, who are obtusely making the forum a more homogenous source of opinion!

Remember: "At the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Martin Luther King.

Ehh, Natic wouldn't be happy about me quoting a pacifist, but I guess he's not here to complain! :p

And so it goes, sciforums, like society, plummets into the level depths of mediocrity; destined to be extinguished in a whimper.

Ya it's B.S

It's a milestone, definitely. A sad time.

On a related note: if Sciforums isn't a democracy, what is the purpose of the Open Government forum? Does it have one, beyond putting a 'friendly' gloss on things? And if not, shouldn't it be removed? 'Site Feedback' too.

Of the ordinary members who've spoken up, I've yet to see anyone demand anything other than the good Dr.'s immediate reinstatement. His views on most things were ludicrous but I'm now missing one of my favourite cartoons. Banning him's a huge mistake.

I probably have, but I don't remember reading any of his posts,
so I can express neither satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Open Government is just a vestige from days long gone, remains of an unsuccessful social experiment.
Nobody has cared to invent another name for this subforum.

Then dump it. And dump Site Feedback too.

It's an outrage.

What was the final nail in the coffin, so to speak?

Where was the post that had him banned?

I heard it was something to do with anti-jewism. :confused:

I do not know who he is, I think I saw his words once as sderenzi...

Now let's pretend you do unban him, has anyone ever been unbanned from the forum? Would they be willing to take that action?

More importantly you must ask yourselves, just how will Lou even know he's unbanned? They can try e-mailing him but the chances are he's got a new e-mail addy and moved on... so who's gonna let the guy know? I'm sure he doesn't read the forum anymore.... so yea it'd be hard to bring him back when nobody knows how to get in touch with him.

:shrug:

He's gone.

Good riddance.

End of story.

and than he shall rise from the dead and pay the sins with actions dearly...

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/2077/crazyscientistnt2.jpg

...in blood all shall drown

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8610/sshz5.jpg

I never saw the post that got him banned, but if the mods are going to start banning members on the basis of political incorrectness irrespective of context or member's history, then we may, most of us, give up now.

I never saw the post that got him banned, but if the mods are going to start banning members on the basis of political incorrectness irrespective of context or member's history, then we may, most of us, give up now.

don't give up, not now, not ever.

Here's the offending post and James's response:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1410528

Ofcourse, liberal faggotry is based on jewness.
US jews are against everything, they comprise the bulk of this overly politically correct culture we are enduring at present.
It stems from self-hate, which was invented by jews.
Dr Lou Natic has been permanently banned from sciforums.
And a follow-up statement later in that thread from James:
He wasn't banned solely for that statement, but for a continuing pattern of behaviour.

oh its discussion about jews again....yawn...

I'm dissatisfied it took so long to boot the a-hole.

He wasn't banned solely for that statement, but for a continuing pattern of behaviour.

I did not find Lou's statement offensive, he merely expressed an opinion on Jews and wasn't even insulting, makes me wonder if his 'continuing pattern of behaviour,' was merely based on him stating his opinions in a similar manner, which was neither being offensive nor insulting. If I could be bothered, I could find hundreds of posts with insulting and offensive statements by all manner of people that still happen to be members.

I can appreciate that mods have a difficult job, but I think that in the case of long standing members there should be ample warnings and possibly short-medium term bans, before something as drastic as a permanent one.

Another way to determine permanent bans is to create a Jury sub-forum and let the members vote on it after the mod/s have made their case.

It seems he was trying to get banned.

...here it goes again...discussion about jews...

...here it goes again...discussion about jews...

I can't wait until someone brings up Nazis (Godwin's Law).

If you do a search on older best member threads or best poster threads you will notice that Dr lou natic pops up all the time. I had already noticed him after a month on sciforums.

He is a valuable asset to sciforums. And to deny this is moronic.

Rules Rules Rules just because Dr Lou was free from them doesn't mean he should be a victim of them.

Also, why is that people can never admit they have made a mistake?

Racism isn't a problem in itself. It is moronic racism that is a problem. People who copy past crap from racist websites are a problem: no intelligent discussion; standard posts of low level racist crap with standard crap replies.

His post wasn't that bad. It wasn't very PC, but then that doesn't matter.

I fail to see what rules he broke there.

He stated an opinion, like many members do, that some may not agree with. It wasn't anti-semitism or even offensive.

JamesR seems to have a hardon for dishing out the punishment recently.

another reason why this forum is going down the shithole

This should be made into a social forum. There could be chat about social events, sales at local retail stores, lists of camping trips, all the ammenities of a friendly lovely characture of family...

I'm sooo out of it...

Science rules!

There could be chat about social events, sales at local retail stores, lists of camping trips, all the ammenities of a friendly lovely characture of family...
Not on my watch!

This should be made into a social forum. There could be chat about social events, sales at local retail stores, lists of camping trips, all the ammenities of a friendly lovely characture of family...
Without people like Lou that's exactly what it will become.

Another thread bemoaning the loss of a poster who called himself Dr Lou Natic. (Really, the name ought to tell you something.)

But once again, no reasons are given for why anybody ought to be upset.

This is just like teenage rebellion against authority for the sake of it.

I never saw the post that got him banned, but if the mods are going to start banning members on the basis of political incorrectness irrespective of context or member's history, then we may, most of us, give up now.

if i were allowed to ban based on those grounds i can name a few members who would be gone in an instant. i saw no reason to ban lou, worst decision since banning 'undecided'.

We should save everyone's time. Have James R draw up a poll with about ten different political positions, with 'yes' or 'no' ballot options. Those who press the 'incorrect' answer on any one of them is instantly given a permanent ban.

James:


Another thread bemoaning the loss of a poster who called himself Dr Lou Natic.


Yeah, that's right. Quite a few people are stunned by the injustice. Surely that ought to tell you something?


(Really, the name ought to tell you something.)


As opposed to the name 'James R', a perfect example of mediocrity?


But once again, no reasons are given for why anybody ought to be upset.


Poor James. Clearly you need a lesson or two in reading comprehension. It's been stressed by numerous posters that Lou Natic should be preserved because of his unique posting style, controversial ideologies, and razor sharp wit.


This is just like teenage rebellion against authority for the sake of it.


If this is what you consider 'rebellion', I pity you. Real rebellion would involve members deleting their posts, walking out, DOS attacks, spamming the boards, etc.

All we're doing is expressing our dissatisifaction, in the Open Government subforum. Is that a problem? Merely disagreeing with shitty decisions made by the board authorities isn't a bannable/infraction worthy offense, is it?

mountainhare:

Yeah, that's right. Quite a few people are stunned by the injustice.

What injustice?

As opposed to the name 'James R', a perfect example of mediocrity?

Actually, the name "James R" is more to maintain consistency among my posts on the internet from the time I started posting - when you were about 9 years old. Also, "James" is one of the most popular names for boys in western civilisation. Check it out! Wow, dude, amazing.

Poor James. Clearly you need a lesson or two in reading comprehension. It's been stressed by numerous posters that Lou Natic should be preserved because of his unique posting style, controversial ideologies, and razor sharp wit.

His style was not unique. It wasn't that different from yours, come to think of it.

If this is what you consider 'rebellion', I pity you. Real rebellion would involve members deleting their posts, walking out, DOS attacks, spamming the boards, etc.

I said "teenage rebellion", like when a teenager complains about how his parents are the worst parents in the world, but doesn't actually leave home, start washing his own clothes, earning his own money, buying his own food. You know the kind of thing.

All we're doing is expressing our dissatisifaction, in the Open Government subforum. Is that a problem? Merely disagreeing with shitty decisions made by the board authorities isn't a bannable/infraction worthy offense, is it?

Not at all. Be my guest.

James:

What injustice?


That you would ban an intellectual from a forum which prizes itself on intellectualism. You might as well just knock out one of the load bearing columns in the Colosseum.


Actually, the name "James R" is bla bla bla


I'm not really interested in the origin of your mediocre username. I merely find it amusing that you descended to slamming Dr Lou for his username, when it is far more interesting and zany than your generic one.


His style was not unique. It wasn't that different from yours, come to think of it.


If only that were true. It would be magnificent if I could totally dominate my opponents as Dr Lou was able to. "To hold their brains down and listen to them squeal", as the good Doctor would say.

I think it's reasonable to assume that you're so shitty with Dr. Lou not because he was a 'racist/sexist/anti-semite/bla bla', but because he actually put forward excellent arguments that shook up your 'all-equal, all-same' ideology.


like when a teenager complains about how his parents are the worst parents in the world, but doesn't actually leave home, start washing his own clothes, earning his own money, buying his own food. You know the kind of thing.


Yeah, I know. The sulky teenager getting pissy when he's owned by someone he considered to be less articulate than him.

What injustice? You rigged a poll thread to ban me some 6 months ago , realising this poll would not be successful against me as I have a lot of support , you insultively incorporated a lower intellect kiwi123 into the poll as well with the object of increasing the vote against me so you could justify banning me , thats your style of moderating .

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1969/bushmiddlefingersv4.jpg


http://images.gametrailers.com/images/userimages/145704-Craig-middle-finger.gif


http://www.blog.ni9e.com/archives/middle_finger.jpg



thats all i have to say


peace.

mountainhare:

That you would ban an intellectual from a forum which prizes itself on intellectualism.

Do you imagine Dr Lou Natic was an intellectual because he put "Dr" in front of his name?

I think it's reasonable to assume that you're so shitty with Dr. Lou not because he was a 'racist/sexist/anti-semite/bla bla', but because he actually put forward excellent arguments that shook up your 'all-equal, all-same' ideology.

I'm not "shitty" with him. To be shitty with him I would have to care about what he thought.

I banned him for breaching sciforums posting rules. Simple. And before his permanent ban, I gave him multiple warnings and chances. He had several temporary bans for the same offences. In fact, given his long history on the forum, I went far easier on him than on most racists who pop up here from time to time.

If he had the kind of intelligence you imagine he had, he would have been smart enough to realise that racism is for idiots. And, failing that, he would have been smart enough to keep his racist views to himself, or for his conversations on KKKforums or wherever racists like him hang out.


Brian Foley:

You rigged a poll thread to ban me some 6 months ago , realising this poll would not be successful against me as I have a lot of support , you insultively incorporated a lower intellect kiwi123 into the poll as well with the object of increasing the vote against me so you could justify banning me , thats your style of moderating .

You're still here. Enough said.

James:

Do you imagine Dr Lou Natic was an intellectual because he put "Dr" in front of his name?


Don't be absurd. It amazes me that someone who can kick so much ass on the issue of animal rights (and is clearly one of the most deep thinking individuals on the forum), cannot acknowledge and appreciate intellectualism in others, even if it isn't their specific brand.

It isn't stupidity which prevents you from seeing the contributions that Lou made, I know that much. Which is why I'm suspecting its because his ideologies were in radical conflict with yours.


I banned him for breaching sciforums posting rules.


Pretty much everyone on this forum breaks the rules. Even you have been guilty of ad hominems. IMHO, the point of a moderator isn't to rigidly adhere to concrete rules, but to merely use them as a guideline.


If he had the kind of intelligence you imagine he had, he would have been smart enough to realise that racism is for idiots.


That's your opinion, James. And that's where the problem lies... you refuse to allow the free expression of opinions, even if you find them objectionable.

Added to which, your comment about racism being for idiots is pure crap. Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were all racists. Let me guess... they were the village idiots of those times?

Added to which, your comment about racism being for idiots is pure crap. Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were all racists. Let me guess... they were the village idiots of those times?

Quite so, racism was at one point on the forefront of biological sciences leading the way.

Hence there is clearly a difference between intellectual racism and for instance spreading racist propaganda from racist hatred sites.

mountainhare:

Don't be absurd. It amazes me that someone who can kick so much ass on the issue of animal rights (and is clearly one of the most deep thinking individuals on the forum), cannot acknowledge and appreciate intellectualism in others, even if it isn't their specific brand.

I just have trouble recalling anything sensible or informative coming from Dr Lou. I think he had the capacity for intelligent discussion, but he seldom, if ever, used it. He preferred to insult people, to make racist claims and so on.

It isn't stupidity which prevents you from seeing the contributions that Lou made, I know that much. Which is why I'm suspecting its because his ideologies were in radical conflict with yours.

Can you find and post what you consider to be one of his best contributions? Or, if you prefer, just provide a link. Maybe I missed something.

And yes, his "ideology", being one of racism and anti-semitism, was in radical conflict with my own. But more importantly, it's also in conflict with the site rules.

Pretty much everyone on this forum breaks the rules. Even you have been guilty of ad hominems. IMHO, the point of a moderator isn't to rigidly adhere to concrete rules, but to merely use them as a guideline.

I completely agree. Notice that even Count Sudoku, probably the worst overt racist on sciforums at present, hasn't been banned. Why? Mainly because of the way he makes his point. He is constantly balanced on the knife-edge of a permanent ban, but it's a judgment call and one that so far neither I nor any other moderator has felt necessary to implement so far.

But Dr Lou's recent posts were an order of magnitude more blatant and directly offensive than Sudoku's oblique racism. My conclusion is that Lou was actively trying to get banned. But perhaps you disagree?

That's your opinion, James. And that's where the problem lies... you refuse to allow the free expression of opinions, even if you find them objectionable.

True. Sciforums is not now, and has never been, the perfect bastion of free speech. (I'm not sure that such a thing exists, by the way.) As I have explained many times before, the administrators and moderators of sciforums have a set of standards to try to maintain a high quality of discourse on sciforums and, just as importantly, an atmosphere that avoids discussions descending into the depths of personal flame wars.

My personal opinion is that some types of discussion are unsuitable for the ethos of sciforums and its management. These include racism, pornographic postings, incitements to violence and hatred, promotion of pedophilia. I'm sure you can come up with similar topics. To disallow promotion of these points of view is a violation of perfect free speech, I admit. But I, for one, would not want to moderate a forum that assisted in the promulgation of material of that type. If sciforums ever becomes a site for outright racism, sexism, child abuse or such things, I will resign as moderator and leave. And I make no apologies for saying that as long as I am a supermoderator, I will not let this happen to sciforums.

Added to which, your comment about racism being for idiots is pure crap. Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were all racists. Let me guess... they were the village idiots of those times?

Darwin, Franklin and Jefferson did not have the benefit of modern thinking on the issue. They were men of their time. They were also sexist. None of them believed women should be allowed to vote (well, I don't know what Darwin thought about that).

The relevant question is: would any of these great men have been racists today, if they had the benefit of all the thinking on the question that happened between their lifetimes and ours?

By the way, I have the greatest admiration for Darwin and Jefferson (I don't know as much about Franklin) - they were men who in many ways were truly ahead of their times - true enlightenment thinkers. I can forgive them for not being able to see any further on the matter of race than any of their contemporaries. They more than made up for their deficits in that area by their assets in other areas.

But in the modern world, the relevant thinking has been done. It is not now, as it was in Jefferson's era, necessary to be an intellectual innovator to be aware of why racism is deplorable and stupid. So, the excuses that can be made for Jefferson are not applicable to modern, educated westerners.

I'm sorry to inform you but you are not really known as an intellectual heavy weight. Surely you should confuse your opinions on someones intellectual capibilities with the actual intellectual capibilities of this person.

And nothing in your response indicates anything else than that you banned Dr lou based on your bland mode of political correctness.

As you admit here:

But in the modern world, the relevant thinking has been done. It is not now, as it was in Jefferson's era, necessary to be an intellectual innovator to be aware of why racism is deplorable and stupid. So, the excuses that can be made for Jefferson are not applicable to modern, educated westerners.

There are much worse people allowed to run amok here, most of them were made mods. But that is the nature of the beast, that is sciforums. It is personal - get over it.

And so it goes, the forum maintains its character as a petite-reality, a microcosm of the ‘outside’ world, and Democracy reigns, where the average and bland are saved the inconvenience of actually thinking their positions through and the powers-that-be attain cult status by becoming the figureheads of community ‘goodness’ and morality.
They decide who and when someone has crossed the line.
And how do thy do that?
If they feel embarrassed or hurt then they assume someone else must feel likewise. And nobody must be hurt, by any thing real.
Reality should be made soft and digestible for those with weak stomachs and no teeth.
We must regurgitate reality; mash it down to a pulp so nobody has to work for his nutrition.


Perhaps, for some, the issues of racism or sexism or Nazism or any ‘ism’ have been dealt with by adhering to the most popular dogma or official sanctioning by the “correct” authorities, and they can then continue blathering out inanities as if they make sense. Safely keeping away from actually defining the words they use and defending the taken-for-granted assumption they vomit nonchalantly, as if they actually thought them out themselves, dotards are kept “respectable” all in the name of civility, money and group-harmony…let us pray.

Long live stupidity!!!!

Give them a break, Satyr—they probably can't believe their luck in life at finding themselves here all in one spot.

The ideal science discussion forum would not be the philosophical equivalent to a snuff video.

Darwin, Franklin and Jefferson did not have the benefit of modern thinking on the issue. They were men of their time. They were also sexist. None of them believed women should be allowed to vote (well, I don't know what Darwin thought about that).

...

By the way, I have the greatest admiration for Darwin and Jefferson (I don't know as much about Franklin) - they were men who in many ways were truly ahead of their times - true enlightenment thinkers. I can forgive them for not being able to see any further on the matter of race than any of their contemporaries. They more than made up for their deficits in that area by their assets in other areas.




Really? They couldn't see 'further' on the matter of race than any of their contemporaries in the 18th and 19th centuries? Jefferson's engaged correspondence with self-taught (Negro) Benjamin Banneker, his and Darwin's philosophical opposition to slavery (as opposed to religious opposition), Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemning the slave trade (the passage was stricken by others), Benjamin Franklin's accession, in 1785, to the presidency of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage and the freeing of his own two slaves...all signify nothing to you? Since they were white supremacists, they are morally inferior to you, and must be 'forgiven'? You, who have merely embraced the prevailing mainstream views on race? And who has repeatedly shown not the faintest inclination to empathise, as they did, with those of different views and conclusions?

Lord Hillyer:

You are confusing separate issues. One can advocate the abolition of slavery and still remain a racist. The two things are not logically intertwined.

Since they were white supremacists, they are morally inferior to you, and must be 'forgiven'?

Yes, in this particular respect. Remove the word "must", though. I only gave my personal opinion. Nobody forces me to choose who I do or do not forgive.

You, who have merely embraced the prevailing mainstream views on race? And who has repeatedly shown not the faintest inclination to empathise, as they did, with those of different views and conclusions?

What's to empathise with? Racists are barbarians.

Lord Hillyer:

You are confusing separate issues. One can advocate the abolition of slavery and still remain a racist. The two things are not logically intertwined.

Yes, in this particular respect. Remove the word "must", though. I only gave my personal opinion. Nobody forces me to choose who I do or do not forgive.

What's to empathise with? Racists are barbarians.


No issues are confused in my post. Indeed, your reply calcifies the assumptions made therein; namely: you seem not to recognise that morality and reputation are both inherently subjective and relative, nor that empathic consideration of other human beings - regardless of perceived 'barbarity' - is a prerequisite for ethical maturity.

you seem not to recognise that morality and reputation are both inherently subjective and relative...

Half right. I do not recognise that morality is inherently subjective and relative. Some morals are demonstrably superior to others. I disagree in almost every respect with moral relativism.

Reputation, of course, is subjective, since it relies on the views one person or group has of another.

...nor that empathic consideration of other human beings - regardless of perceived 'barbarity' - is a prerequisite for ethical maturity.

If you're advocating a "turn the other cheek" approach to racist bigots, then I'm sorry, but I won't be joining you.