Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by phlogistician, May 18, 2011.

  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I agree, I picked up an infraction for saying I never met an honest theist. I'd have liked to have had the opportunity to argue that one with however hit the report button. Mind you, if James hadn't had his prissy head on it perhaps wouldn't have got me an infraction in the first place.

    I let a lot slip, seems this site caters for thin skinned prissy types, and the rest of us pick up infractions.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Yeah, but come on James, you gave me an infraction for this:

    That was really weak mate.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    It was, but consider...

    Now THAT was really weak....

    To get a warning just for saying a statement a poster made was really funny?

    But then another time I was suspended for a day just because a moderator disagreed with my political leanings.

    As Chimkin said, try not to be a bigger dick than the moderators, but in this case, that was hardly possible.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Seems I miss some comedy gold having S.A.M. on ignore,...

    "The problem is moderator integrity" (thanks for quoting Cifo)

    Ha, but it's less of a problem since S.A.M. got shitcanned as a mod.
  9. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    James R
  10. phlogistician Banned Banned

    He must have been having some sort of personal crisis. Neither of our infractions were deserved. This is exactly why we need a court of appeal.
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    The moderators in this board are aligned to the topics for which they have their own decided opinion about.

    Being impartial in those circumstances is almost impossible for anyone to do.

    Moderators should do the moderation within a specific sub-forum as far as routine issues goes, but if they see a post (besides obvious commercial spam) they have a problem with, they should report it to an impartial moderator, that being one who agrees to NOT post in that sub-forum, for resolution.

    For instance, if I was a moderator I could be called upon to resolve a reported complaint in the Comparative Religion threads because I never post in that topic, but I wouldn't be the one to call about complaints in Politics because I'm an active poster there and it would be impossible to avoid taking sides.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Sorry, no time to read all the replies now, but I will quickly reply to two examples raised of my poor moderation, while I think of it.

    The first thing to say is that both infractions were Warnings, which accrued no infraction points. Neither poster was banned. Each was merely slapped on the wrist, so to speak.

    The second thing to say is that in both cases the relevant posts were reported by a member; I did not take unilateral action on either of them, but responded to specific complaints made using the "report" button.

    phlogistician's warning was for insulting other members. In particular, his claim was that no theist can possibly be honest. Any reasonable person would view this as an insult directed at all theists, and by inference at all members of sciforums who are theists. As a matter of context, this one was actually aimed at lightgigantic - a particular theist member.

    Call it "weak" to be warned against hurling insults if you like. Maybe you think this is a mild insult, phlog. But then again, you're not a theist, are you? What if lightgigantic had directed at you "Have you ever met an honest atheist?" Water off a duck's back to you, perhaps, but maybe you have a thicker skin than whoever complained about your post.

    Bottom line: if you were moderating this complaint, what would you do? Laugh it off. Tell the person who hit "report" to grow a pair? If you did that, you could expect inevitable accusations of being biased against theists: "You let atheists insult theists with impunity. You have double standards, blah blah blah." So.

    To adoucette's infraction. It was for "flaming" - namely characterising a post or series of posts by pjdude made seriously by him as "comedy gold". In this particular instance, another member was similarly infracted. What we had there was in essence a schoolyard-like "gang" of people bullying pjdude using ridicule. The posts ridiculing pjdude had no on-topic content. They were solely concerned with taking pjdude down a notch.

    Again, if you were the moderator who received the complaint, what would you do? Tell the complainant that pjdude deserved the insult/ridicule? What message does that send? That ridicule in general is acceptable? Looks like it would be impossible ever to issue such an infraction again - at least not in a way that would not attract instant accusations of inconsistency and bias. So.

    It's actually worth from time to time stepping out of the "Poor me, I'm wounded. Life is so unfair" mindset and considering the matter from the point of view of the moderator receiving the complaint.
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    No it was fucking not! It was a question, '...have you ever met an honest theist?'

    I HAVE NOT. That's my personal experience. When I have debated theists, it ALWAYS gets to the point where they say they don't know. THIS IS NOT HOLDING AN HONEST OPINION JAMES.

    Any reasonable person? Are you insulting me saying I am unreasonable now James? That's it's unreasonable to question the honesty of a group? Is this censorship? How could it have been aimed at Lightgigantic, when he was not named? Come on, that's weak, and you damned well know it.

    Are you saying James, that we _never_ get such here? That entire threads dissing atheists have never existed? You have you your blinkers on if so. How about this one, posing a question in a very similar way to mine, that's run for six pages:

    What do you have to say about that James? Come on, really, 'cos I have you strung up with a double standard.

    Yes thicker skin, because I have some notion of free speech, and see you upholding his complaint ON A SCIENCE BOARD, as weak, pandering to some anachronistic belief system. WE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO RESPECT RELIGION NOR PERSONAL BELIEFS. This is a fucking misnomer James. If people believe in the ridiculous, they may be ridiculed. I'm not going to be polite, nor bite my tongue, nor edit my personal life experience to suit the prissy sensibilities of a member who cannot construct an argument that holds water. GOT THAT?

    James, I do moderate other fora, elsewhere, and yes, I do exactly that.

    And why not? This is allegedly a science forum. There is no evidence for god(s), so the site should be leaning on the side of atheism. We've been over this tired old ground again and again James, God/No God is not a 50/50 proposition. There should, reasonably, be bias. If you can't see that it's time for you to resign.

    What, you the blasphemy Police now James?

    That was not a flame. If you think so, you need time off to recalibrate.
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Which is what I said in my post about this.
    And you say it means nothing, but it is still in my User info and so it is relevant to other moderation action.

    Totally irrelevant


    In EVERY aspect.

    I quoted the SPECIFIC line that I was referring to as Comedy Gold, the one that said you can't spend more than 100% of the money you have and then I LINKED to this:

    So first of all, my comment was unilateral, I was not acting as part of a gang.

    Secondly, the comment about a post being funny was to a specific post which I quoted in my reply.

    Finally, and most importantly, I included the link to the explanation of Deficit Spending to show why what he said was funny because it was so wrong and to add ON-TOPIC info to the debate.

  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You're splitting hairs. By posting the rhetorical question "Have you ever met an honest theist?" you're clearly not making an innocent enquiry. You're implying that no theists are honest. Whether that follows from your personal experience or your blind bigotry or whatever is beside the point. It is still an insult to all theists to claim that they are universally dishonest.

    It appears to me that your view that all theists are dishonest is eminently unreasonable. Maybe you might start to have a point if you qualified that statement in some way, such as by specifying what, exactly, you think they are dishonest about (if you don't think it's everything).

    In general, it is not unreasonable to question the honesty of a group. However, I think it would be a rare group indeed which would consist entirely of dishonest members. The chances of a group of billions of people (theists) all being universally dishonest about everything is vanishingly small. And in fact it is an easily-refuted accusation. Just talk to a few other people and don't rely on your own obviously very limited experience.

    How could your comment possibly be aimed at lightgigantic? Well, gee, phlogistician, I don't know. Why not look at the context of the thread in which the warning was given, and in particular at who you were discussing things with and responding to prior to the insult you delivered? Then, apply a modicum of intelligence, and what do you know? Two and two make four.

    I've handed out many warnings to theists for insulting atheists. I'm not sure about the one you linked to, but it's quite possible that no complaints were received by moderators regarding posts in that thread.

    But what's your argument here? That two wrongs make a right? "Theists insult atheists all the time, so it should be ok for atheists to insult theists, too."

    Or are you just playing the usual disgruntled moderated poster who yells "bias!" when he receives an infraction?

    Yeah. I've GOT THAT loud and clear. You're very strident about it all, and obviously quite angry. I get that you think that dishonest theists shouldn't, in an ideal world, be allowed to post on your precious science boards. And if they do post, they certainly shouldn't be accorded the same respect as good upstanding atheists. Ideally, moderation should be biased against theists, who are ridiculous. So, insulting them ought to be fair game. I get all that.

    And yes, I get it that you won't respect the personal beliefs of others. If those beliefs clash with your own, you'll mock them and insult them rather
    than trying to carry on a civil discussion of the issues. I get that.

    And yes, I get it that you're stating that you're going to take a defiant stand in all this and damn the consequences. Because you have a right to freedom of speech here, which means that you, as a special person, ought to be able to do what you damn well like. And if some moderator doesn't like that, you'll do it anyway, eventually get yourself banned and/or decide to leave the forum. You'll walk away with your head held high, knowing that the reason you left was evil biased moderator James R, and that it had nothing to do with your incapacity to interact with people with opposing views without insulting them.

    I guess there aren't many theists on the forums you moderate, then. Your policies would hardly create a conducive atmosphere for them. If you consistently apply clear bias in favour of your own atheist views, no doubt the theists mostly choose to go elsewhere.

    In other words, you're urging me to adopt your views and to moderate this forum in accordance with them, and to take steps to kill any semblance of a level playing field for ideas. In your opinion, sciforums should have a big banner at the top of the page saying "We don't believe in God here. So, if you believe in God, go away! You're not welcome. And we don't care what you have to say about anything because you're all dishonest!"

    No. I'm the guy that helps ensure that discussions take place in an environment of civility and mutual respect, or - at the very least - without childish name-calling (such as "Liar! Liar! You're all a bunch of liars!").
  16. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Oh please. The question was NOT an OP, it was NOT directed at a theist, it was in response to a different member, NOT the one that whined, and pushed the report button.

    Which implies that you say they are/can be. I maintain a faith based opinion is not honestly held, because ultimately, they have to admit they don't know.

    Oh, you accusing me of being a bigot by asking a question now James? Careful I don't report you!

    Which I didn't actually do. Learn to comprehend.

    OK, prove how belief in the unprovable is reasonable. Prove how the Spanish Inquisitions and Crusades, and modern day Sectarian violence are reasonable. You may want to start another topic for that.

    Does history elude you? How about about we start with all the atrocities committed in the name of religion,... are you claiming they were reasonable? Do you really think Christians are going to get raptured from the Earth? Is that a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable that religions get exemptions to law, where atheists must comply? Is that reasonable? That Churches get tax exempt status?

    But that thread that questions whether atheists are closed minded is just hunky dory? Can you just talk out of one side of your mouth at a time please?

    And now you are guilty of embellishing the story. Who mentioned everything? Just you, stuffing a straw man. Please, if you can't make your point without having to dramatise it, just admit defeat.

    Tell you what, I presume in saying that you have met someone you personally consider to be an honest theist. Let me ask them a few questions then, and see if they meet my criteria for honesty. Put up, or shut up mate.

    I'm not shy of calling people dishonest to their face here. I've done it plenty of times. It was a disposable addendum to my post, and you are stretching things beyond breaking point you really are. If Lightgigantic _could_ argue their point, make cohesive, compelling arguments, they would have done so. Hitting the report button under such circumstances however is pretty low.

    Either posts and threads break the rules, or they don't. Reporting shouldn't really make a difference, unless you are a lazy mod, and given that was a whole topic, clearly visible, it should have come under someone's nose, and not needed reporting. But like I say, this place should allow a modicum of free speech, and people should be thick skinned enough to get their beliefs questioned. If they can't stand the heat, get out.

    No, exactly NOT that! My point is that if you are going to do circuits of the place on your moderating hobby-horse, you need to apply the criteria evenly, and not just pander to the weak who cop out and push the report button. If you do not apply the rules equally, you look foolish and incompetent.

    Did I do that at the time I received the infraction, or did I just take it on the chin? Oh, the latter, but what I won't do is sit back and let you think you are doing a good job. This thread is about improvements. It;s clear to me you need to stop pandering to whiners, and start trying to be even handed.

    Spare me the armchair psychology. The only thing that makes me angry is weaklings such as yourself acquiescing to another's religious sensibilities, and expecting everybody else to follow.

    My 'precious science boards'? Resorting to drama again? Keep it straight, it's clear you are losing sight of the truth in this matter.

    Like I said, believe in the ridiculous, then prepare to be ridiculed. And don't bullshit me here, nobody, and I mean nobody, holds all claims made by everybody with equal credence or respect. When people come here talking about secret bases run by the MIB where reptilian creatures live, are their views respected? No. So why do you fall into this trap that a patina of age gives religion credibility, or makes it worthy of respect? Each claim needs to be assessed on it's own merit. Claims of a supernatural God, which cannot be proven, do seem rather ridiculous to me. Do you find that claim reasonable? Possible? 50/50? Because for you to NOT have some bias, you really do need to get that chance of there being a deity argued up to 50/50. Good luck.

    This is allegedly a science board. Claims need to be substantiated, or have you forgotten how science works? Hell, I'm in business now, and it works the same way, we don't spend money on faith alone.

    Sorry James, what are my beliefs? Where's the clash? I'm making no claims, remember?

    Yes, I do, and will continue to do so. I was not however, guilty of that in the post where you gave me the infraction. Get a grip.

    What's civil about a Christian calling an atheist a sinner, that we're going to hell etc etc. That's literally judgemental!

    'Special person'? Caught you in the throws of dramatising the script again there didn't I? Maybe if you could make your point without the digs and ad-homs I'd take you more seriously. Keep it straight.

    Wow, pure speculation, and rather placing yourself as he centre of my Universe, and again, getting a bit dramatic. The other option of course is that I try and get you shitcanned as a mod. Then I can put you on ignore, and you won't even be in my Universe.

    Like I said earlier, you are shitting me if you think you hold all claims made by all people with equal regard. Quite why you think religion should get special treatment eludes me at this point. Maybe you cannot be as detached as you need to be as a mod. I can be, and I am where I moderate. People who whine because they claim their doctrine has been smeared get a simple task, reconcile it with other theistic religions, because simply, theists do not agree, and I'm not going to referee a pissing contest between Christians and Jews over whether Jesus was the messiah, just as I am not going to referee the same pissing contest between a Christian and an atheist. You seem to think it's atheist vs theist, but that's narrow minded. You hold this illusion simply because there seems to be some sort of gentleman''s agreement amongst theists, to not report each other when their dogma disagrees, yet throw an atheist into the mix, and they get all huffy. There is bias, against atheists!

    Level playing field,... the odds of God existing are 50/50 are they? Oh no, they aren't ? Where does this misnomer things should be level come from then?

    Is it 'Sci' forums, or 'God' forums, please go read it and get back to me.

    Did you go to stage school, because you really have a flair for dramatising things. Keep it straight.

    Yet you tolerate threads that call atheists closed minded. If you think your job is to ensure civility and mutual respect, you aren't doing it very well.

    Oh , please quote me were I said that. Oh wait, sorry, no, it's just more drama! Keep it straight.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Yes. Obviously they can be. Obviously, a lot of theists are honest about many many things.

    That's the definition of "faith", isn't it? You don't know but you believe anyway. You're not saying anything earth-shattering there.

    Honesty is a quite different matter. Just because you have a faith-based belief doesn't mean it's not an honestly-held belief. Do you have trouble understanding that? Be aware also that many people (probably most people in some areas of their lives) don't have access to the foundations of their beliefs about everything. In other words, they don't necessarily spend a lot of time reflecting on questions such as "why do I believe X?" Not everybody is a critical thinker. But if they aren't, that doesn't mean they are dishonest.

    No. I'm accusing you of making the silly assumption that somebody who believes in God is automatically dishonest.

    All right. So maybe I misinterpreted you. Let's clear this up. Your claim is that theists are not universally dishonest. Correct? Therefore, you think they are dishonest only about certain things. Maybe it would help if you listed (some of) the things you believe they are dishonest about.

    Proofs with regard to beliefs can be tricky things.

    I don't think it's unreasonable for me to believe you if you say you had Wheaties for breakfast last Tuesday. But perhaps you think I should never beleive such a thing without thoroughly checking all the available evidence. In fact, I should never take anything you say at face value without doing extensive background checks to confirm independently, as far as possible, that you're telling the truth.

    I never argued that those things are reasonable. You're heading off on an irrelevant tangent. What was that point about straw men you raised later in your post? Or is it ok for you to erect straw men, but not for me?

    No. I made no claim about atrocities being reasonable. You're making that up.

    Do I think it will happen? Well, there you're asking for my personal opinion. That has no bearing on whether somebody who believes that is being dishonest or not.

    Is such a belief reasonable? Good question. Suppose I was brought up in a God-fearing community, going to church every Sunday, reading my bible, hearing pastors talking about the rapture, and my friends, and my parents, and my teachers. Suppose I developed, somehow, the belief that the rapture will happen as described by all these sources? Would I be dishonest in holding that belief? Where, exactly, did I start being dishonest? Where was my fault?

    What if I'd read one or two books with contrary views like yours, that say that the rapture is rubbish and will never happen. Would it be unreasonable for me to weigh up what I know of the arguments for and against and to conclude that your sources are wrong and what I was taught is right? I don't think so.

    The thing is: reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. What is reasonable for you, in your position, with your background and education etc. may well be totally unreasonable as far as I am concerned. Reasonableness is an ideal that you construct. Generally, you consider reasonable people to be people just like you. Nobody says "I think I'm unreasonable" or "I think my beliefs are unreasonable".

    Got a few examples?

    Are you asking my personal opinon, or are you asking what a "reasonable" person (defined as one who shares your personal views) would think about that, or something else?

    If it's an honest question, it's hunky dory. If it's a snide remark intended as an insult, things are different. Context.

    You didn't limit your statement. "Have you ever met an honest theist?" Implication: have you ever met one who is honest about anything? If you meant something else, you should have written it. Maybe you just need to work on expressing yourself more clearly.

    Yes, I have met many people who I consider honest theists. In fact, I was an honest theist myself. For all you know, I still am. So, fire away with your questions. I can speak from experience.

    I have absolutely no problem at all with that. People should be called out on blatant dishonesty.

    As a moderator yourself, I'm surprised to hear you say that. It's a very black-and-white view. Take trolling, for example. Is that always clear-cut? What about posting off-topic? You say that two moderators will always agree on whether a particular post is a troll or off-topic or whatever, do you?

    I'm not sure which forums you moderate, but when a forum gets as much traffic as sciforums I can assure you that no moderator is going to read every word posted. In fact, no group of moderators is going to read every word posted.

    I agree!

    Your complaints don't count as whines, of course. Because they are reasonable.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh dear. You were going so well, and then suddenly you felt the need to call me a name. It diminishes the force of your argument to do that.

    As far as "acquiescing" goes, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think that theists should be able to state their beliefs in the same way atheists should. Obviously you disagree. I guess you'd just rather I "acquiesced" to your religious sensibilities.

    Fine, but if your ridicule crosses the (fine) line into insult, prepare to be moderated. Don't like it? Then maybe this particular forum is not for you.

    Their views are respected by some and not by others. Obviously, those who share such views must hold some measure of respect for them. If all you are saying is that the majority here and now doesn't respect those views, then all you're really doing is cheering on the majority of which you are a part.

    There is, in general, no justification for treating minorities with poor manners or lack of civility just because you disagree with them, or even because you dislike them. You're American, aren't you? You ought to have absorbed that from your history.

    I'm not aware of falling into that trap. This isn't another one of those straw man thingies, is it?

    Again, it's not clear to me whether your asking for my personal opinion, or what I think the view of a "reasonable" person would be (defined as one who shares your views) or something else.

    If you're asking me whether I think there is scientific evidence for a supernatural God, my answer is "No". But I don't find the claim that there may, nevertheless, be a supernatural God to be ridiculous on its face. To jump to that conclusion would be to assume that science already has all the answers, and that would be... unscientific.

    As for bias, you're right. I, personally, don't believe that the chance that God exists is 50/50. In other words, I have a belief one way or the other. Or maybe not so much a belief as a guess. Hopefully, an educated guess, but then again others may be better educated about such things.

    Actually, it's probably worse than that. Thinking about it, I think I actually have a belief that based on what is essentially a best guess. Do you think, therefore, that I don't have an honest belief, or even a belief at all? Is anything I say about the existence of God automatically suspect on the grounds that I don't know?

    How about you? You seem to believe there is no God. Have you got absolute evidence that there's no God? I'm guessing you don't. So, is your belief dishonest because you have to admit, in the end, that you just don't know? According to your own argument, that would seem to be the case.

    If you seriously ask believers in God why they belief, they'll give you reasons. You may not like the reasons. You may think they aren't reasonable reasons. But that's because you place so much emphasis on science - rightly or wrongly.

    You claim there are no gods, do you not? That's a claim. It's a negative claim, but a negative claim is still a claim.

    Yes, it is. Presumably, though, according to a true Christian, everybody is a sinner - especially if you happen to be Catholic.

    By "special person", I really meant something like what I've been saying above. You believe you're in special, superior position to those ridiculous people who believe in God, because you're educated in science and according to your science God is ridiculous. So, you get to look down your nose at all the silly people who aren't bright enough to share your views. And to point at them and laugh and make fun of them.

    Sounds a bit threatening. By all means, if you feel strongly enough about our little disagreement, do your worst. Others before you have tried. Do you think that our little spat here will seriously be important enough to the site owners to demote me as an administrator? I mean, you have to consider this disagreement in light of its effects on the forum in general, which are quite negligible. In a sense, this kind of debate/disagreement is exactly what sciforums is about.

    I'm not sure what you mean by special treatment. We have two sub-forums specifically set aside for discussion of religious matters. Ergo, religion is a condoned, even encouraged, topic of discussion. The general rules regarding personal insults, flaming, etc. apply equally in the Religion forum as they do in the Biology forum. So where's the special treatment?

    Maybe not. Maybe I'm not reasonable like you.

    I'd love to see a debate between Jews and Christians over whether Jesus was the messiah or not. Not a pissing contest, but an honest debate. I'd volunteer to referee that. It seems exactly the sort of discussion that is needed when it comes to religion.

    I'm not convinced, as you seem to be, that the theist-atheist disagreement is more important than the Muslim-Christian one or the Christian-Jew, or Hindu-Buddhist. Obviously, the one thing that theists have in common is that they believe in one or more gods. On the basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, it makes a lot of sense for them to band up to confront the challenge presented by atheists. You can run to mummy and complain that the nasty men are ganging up against poor little you, but that won't achieve much. You ought to expect them to do that, and prepare for it.

    We can't calculate the odds until the various arguments for and against have been put. That's where the level playing field comes in. Both sides need to be able to put their best arguments without fear of ridicule. When they are on the table, then we can assess the overall case on one side or the other. Starting from a position where one side is not allowed to speak is just not fair. See?

    So you'd advocate abolishing the Religion subforums and kicking all non-atheists off sciforums, I presume. Fine. Your opinion is noted. I will tell you now: in the current administrative/policy/moderator climate of sciforums it's not going to happen. So, your options are to live with things as they are, move along and find a place that suits you better, or marshall your forces and campaign for the change you'd like to see.

    I'll take that as a compliment. I try to make my posts moderately entertaining or interesting to read, where possible. I don't do "straight" so well; it's kinda boring. Also, I think it's very important to maintain a sense of humour. Mine's a very dry one, so a lot of people miss it in my posts. That's their problem.


    I'm glad you've raised these issues, phlogistician. Thankyou for this thread.
  18. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Why would you have someone on ignore?
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    why is this shit in site feedback?
    this place is for technical issues
  20. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    James R moved it here. See the other moderation thread.
  21. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    In answer to the subject topic, Yes.
  22. phlogistician Banned Banned

    But you only have to be dishonest about ONE thing to be labelled dishonest, and you are being deliberately obtuse.
    Silly assumption? My personal experiences, and the opinion derived thereof, to whit, MY ENTIRE LIFE is silly? You are starting to piss me off mate.

    I never implied you did. There you go, reading more into questions than there is again! I asked you a straight question which you appear to have dodged.

    Again, you re-interpret an honest question and fail to answer it.

    Mine was an honest question aimed at gmilam. It had NOTHING to do with Lightgigantic. There was a full stop before the sentence, .... seems clear to me.

    Bullshit, and you are just digging yourself in deeper. You misinterpreted an honest question, and are now squirming. You don't have to murder the entire planet to be labelled a murderer, so similarly, you don't have to be dishonest in all aspect of life to earn the title dishonest. One example of each is enough to earn the label and you damned well know this.

    I think we need a new thread for this. I'll start one and ask you some questions. Be prepared.

    Edit: Thread opened here:

    I tend to think 'less is more' when it comes to moderation, and think people should be able to defend themselves from trolls, and if trolls get called names, well, that's what they want, and they can't complain, and members should be mindful not to feed the monkeys. If things get heated, bar serious threats I let it go, because I have the attitude that fora are run for members, not moderators, and if members want to have a heated debate, let them.

    I didn't complain. This exchange is merely to point out that you pander to whiners too much. Two cases, myself and Artur, did not warrant infractions because some thin skinned contributor whined.

    Just my honest opinion, that you crumbled and acquiesced all to easily, and that makes you weak. I will not fall into line and patronise an anachronistic belief system however.

    OOps, I think you need to go read the faq,... atheism if NOT a belief system,....

    OOopps, I think you need to go read the faq, atheism is not a religion!

    When it does of course you are free to moderate. In this instance it didn't.

    Or you could leave. The door swings both ways.

    No, English, but I don't see how that would have any bearing on the fact that we do not respect all beliefs equally, and no, despite your sidestep of this, I'm not going to let you dodge it. You know we do not, it's obvious, the only thing we disagree on is which counts as fringe lunacy.

    Ban List.
    lsufos James R 10-09-06 Never

    You banned lsufos because of his inane ramblings about UFOs. Yet you hand out infractions for the most innocuous questions when it comes to theism. you set the trap for yourself old son.

    And this being a science forum? If it were a philosophy forum, you'd have a point about equality. It isn't.

    Sounds like a cop out. There is no evidence for. Case closed.

    Oooops, go read the faq, atheism is not a faith base proposition, and being a scientist, you know one cannot prove a negative. Please try and bring your scientific rationalism to the forum, it is after all supposed to be science based.
    Last edited: May 21, 2011
  23. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Because I find SAM quite vile. Life is too short to deal her hatred.

Share This Page