Closing of "defining religion" thread unjustified

[scott3x]

Over in the Religion forum, Skinwalker closed down a thread I had created called defining religion, stating:

More 9/11 nonsense disguised as a religion thread. There are plenty 9/11 threads to post in at the Pseudoscience subforum. This one is closed/flushed if anyone has questions/concerns, PM me.

1- There is currently only one active 9/11 thread, and it's not in pseudoscience, but in Formal Debates; the active 9/11 threads that were active in pseudoscience have all been closed.

2- The thread was true to its name; it was about defining religion. I used 9/11 as an example of people blindly believing in something without adequate evidence, no more. Had the discussion actually begun to be about 9/11, I would have moved the material over to the 9/11 thread over in the Formal Debates thread.

3- Skinwalker has in no way proved that the views that I and many others have regarding 9/11 are invalid. To blithely assume that his views concerning what the thread in question was for and to also insult my views concerning what happened on 9/11 demonstrates that he has little patience for actually learning the truth and instead prefers to have a type of 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality on such issues.

[leopold]

actually scott this is your attempt to keep the 9/11 threads active, you know full well that fraggle is thinking about closing the only remaining thread on this subject

skinwalker,
too bad you couldn't flush scott along with his thread.

[Bells]

A better method would have been to PM Skinwalker directly with your complaint/concerns. And if you are unsastisfied with that, you could then PM one of the administrators of this site with your complaint/concerns.

Starting threads about every complaint straight off the bat is really not the best way to handle or deal with the situation.

[CheskiChips]

We don't take the stance 'Under the ground is probably mole people' and then attempt to disprove it. In general, unless it's consensus knowledge or easily provable...it's best not to use it as a point of proof. Be-it 9/11 inside job or not, it's a poor proof of evidence for another point of interest.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91835

[scott3x]

actually scott this is your attempt to keep the 9/11 threads active

No, it wasn't. The 9/11 thread is active in the Formal Debates forum; I was simply comparing people's beliefs concerning religion with many people's beliefs concerning the official story; it's not based on facts, but rather on faith, aided along by the mass media.

you know full well that fraggle is thinking about closing the only remaining thread on this subject

Yes, I know that. But I had no plans to simply open up shop over in the religion forum. The concept is intriguing, although it seems clear you wouldn't allow it. But it's yours, not mine.

skinwalker,
too bad you couldn't flush scott along with his thread.

Reported.

[scott3x]

A better method would have been to PM Skinwalker directly with your complaint/concerns.

You may not have noticed, but I have -never- gotten along with Skinwalker. I believe his very first post in response to one of mine was a short reportable grade insult. So thanks, but no thanks.

And if you are unsastisfied with that, you could then PM one of the administrators of this site with your complaint/concerns.

I've tried that in the past, it's also gotten no results, so far atleast. Furthermore, what is this forum for if not to express a dislike for administrative decisions?

Starting threads about every complaint straight off the bat is really not the best way to handle or deal with the situation.

Every complaint Bells? Please. I generally only make a complaint here if it concerns a moderator, and generally only if they delete posts or close down threads. Even then, I don't always do it, only if I feel the action was unjustified. Anyway, I had forgotten about the injunction against complaints against moderators. I believe Stryder's logic, that "it doesn't do anything constructive but just causes more problems in the long run", is fallacious. Why he believes this, I don't know but I'd like to. Surely -that- is a theme that is allowed for discussion? In any case, I didn't want to 'ask' anything of Skinwalker, I wanted to make comments; and -not- directly to Skinwalker, who I don't get along with.

[scott3x]

We don't take the stance 'Under the ground is probably mole people' and then attempt to disprove it.

Neither do I. That's not the argument and you know it.

In general, unless it's consensus knowledge or easily provable...it's best not to use it as a point of proof.

I have stated what I believe. Skinwalker is the one who is insulting my beliefs.

Be-it 9/11 inside job or not, it's a poor proof of evidence for another point of interest.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91835

I'm glad that Skinwalker restarted the thread, even if I disagree with his shutting down my original one.

[Bells]

You may not have noticed, but I have -never- gotten along with Skinwalker. I believe his very first post in response to one of mine was a short reportable grade insult. So thanks, but no thanks.




I've tried that in the past, it's also gotten no results, so far atleast. Furthermore, what is this forum for if not to express a dislike for administrative decisions?



Every complaint Bells? Please. I generally only make a complaint here if it concerns a moderator, and generally only if they delete posts or close down threads. Even then, I don't always do it, only if I feel the action was unjustified. Anyway, I had forgotten about the injunction against complaints against moderators. I believe Stryder's logic, that "it doesn't do anything constructive but just causes more problems in the long run", is fallacious. Why he believes this, I don't know but I'd like to. Surely -that- is a theme that is allowed for discussion? In any case, I didn't want to 'ask' anything of Skinwalker, I wanted to make comments; and -not- directly to Skinwalker, who I don't get along with.

If you feel you are being treated unfairly or targeted by a moderator of this forum, then you need to PM the administrators (all 3 of them) and provide links and ask them to review the posts/threads in question.

It can take a few days for them to get round to it, but they do. And you need to understand that they will not always get back to you with a response or advise you of what actions they may take.

If you want to complain about a moderator or his/her actions, this is really not the best way to go about it. Send a PM to all the administrators of this site, provide links and state your case.

[CheskiChips]

I mean...

2- The thread was true to its name; it was about defining religion. I used 9/11 as an example of people blindly believing in something without adequate evidence, no more. Had the discussion actually begun to be about 9/11, I would have moved the material over to the 9/11 thread over in the Formal Debates thread.

It's best to not use evidence that its self requires evidence of proof.

[Gustav]

.....this is really not the best way to go about it.

a multi pronged strategy is the best way to deal with errant mods
do sfog. pm all and sundry
start a blog about nazi mods
make effigies and icepick the shit out of it

a relentless full frontal assault

hoohah?

[leopold]

skinwalker,
too bad you couldn't flush scott along with his thread.

Reported.

can somebody get this kid a pacifier for christs sakes?

[scott3x]

I mean...

2- The thread was true to its name; it was about defining religion. I used 9/11 as an example of people blindly believing in something without adequate evidence, no more. Had the discussion actually begun to be about 9/11, I would have moved the material over to the 9/11 thread over in the Formal Debates thread.

It's best to not use evidence that its self requires evidence of proof.

Look, I was talking of those who believe in the official story, not those who don't. The official story concerning 9/11 has very little evidence. So little that the FBI never charged Osama Bin Laden with orchestrating 9/11 because there wasn't enough evidence to do so. There are -so- many holes in the official story, which is why I compared it to religious institutions, which I believe also have many holes in their theories. That was it. I wasn't intending on going on a debate concerning 9/11 there; if someone had wanted to, I would have simply taken it back over to the Formal Debates forum, where the 9/11 thread continues.