Don't talk down to me. I'm not some morally inferior person who needs your backroom defense. If people have a problem with what I've posted, they can come to me and confront me on it. I know how to defend myself. I don't need your lawyeresque bs to save me from being banned. Hell, I've been banned so many times for bullshit reasons it doesn't even phase me anymore. So save your pathetic sob story for someone who cares.
And yet, when people point out the problem they have with what you post and how you post it, your response is to abuse and insult them.
Do you think the people who are against you on this site just sprang up out of nowhere? You were repeatedly told what the problem was and how to address it and rectify it. You have consistently refused to do so.
You aren't the only person being given warnings on this site. Most others learn and rectify how they are posting. You are not.
You don't want me to speak up for you in the backroom? That's fine. I won't. But don't come to me with your complaints and don't PM me about any of it any more and then abuse me for the help I give you. It's that simple.
You and your troll gang were never able to stop insulting me and falsely infracting me even after Yazata pointed it out to you. All you did was troll and lie and bitch about how I quoted articles to try to trap me into infractions in order to shut me up. It hasn't worked yet. Even now you dredge up issues resolved months ago as if these are crimes against humanity. You've lost all credibility with me Bells. You're a lying flamer who has lost all ability to be objective as a moderator. Suffice it that I end this ridiculously hostile and entirely over personalized tirade against me with Yazata's own much saner statements:
Right..
Like when you referred to people who post in the science forum as a "bunch of old science nerds" because they dared to question your beliefs in ghosts..? And then you went and trolled the science sub-section with an insulting thread?
One of the reasons you were being given infractions was because you were posting large quotes without linking or referencing any of it. Worse yet, you were doing it from quote mining sites and posting things out of context.
So I tried to explain to you how you should post to avoid those infractions and suggested you used the quotes to support your argument, not just post quotes with no further input from you, which you have a terrible habit of doing. The response was more personal insults.
Yazata: "What happens is that he commits the inexcusable crime of starting threads in the 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' forum about UFOs, ghosts and monsters. He's interested in those things. Then some of the dimmer people on the board seem to think that they can defeat the heresy by flaming it to oblivion. (Not unlike the inquisition except the flames here aren't literal.) So a torrent of insults are directed at MR, he fights back and everybody gets angry and extremely hostile. That's just stupid.
All that people need to do to respond to MR is say that they aren't convinced. That subtly puts the ball back on his side of the court, because if he wants to convince people then he needs to give them more. But it doesn't trigger all the anger, hostility and defensiveness.
Kittamaru: "What I am doing is not a red herring - rather, it is an example to show how ridiculous MRs strategy has been, and how defunct and improper, not to mention dishonest, it is. Turnabout is fair play and all that)"
Yazata: "Calling somebody 'dishonest' is an insult. Many of your posts contain similar emotional provocations. That's bad rhetoric. You need to try to avoid doing that.
I have to say that I have quite a bit of sympathy for MR. Part of that is because I've communicated with him almost daily for so many years. Since the 1990's, probably. I think of him as a friend, despite the fact that we disagree profoundly about many things. I don't care a whole lot whether people always agree with me, provided that they are humane, friendly and likeable.
Yep, and when we tried to do as Yazata suggested, you became even more abusive..
Hey, I was right there with you on the anti-vaccination thread - that was dangerous.
However, so long as this subforum even exists I fail to see how an enlightened being can expect any sort of science in it. I mean, really? If, as you say, we are going to give "this sub-forum a lot of leeway" than someone is going to push the boundaries of even those lax rules - MR just happens to be the somebody. I'm not privy to the back room discussions but I kind of have the impression that Kit would shut this show down if given his way. Which would be fine. But so long as it is going to stay live, perhaps it would make sense to write the rules to address the audience - no?
Look in the science threads as some examples of how that can be achieved.
On the subject of UFO's, we know that scientists are bending over backwards trying to find new signs of life elsewhere in the universe. That is an ultimate goal, is it not?
But look at how they are setting out to do so. Are they questioning people about strange lights they see in the sky? Are they discounting all contrary evidence that it is not a UFO?
Or are they looking at all the mundane things certain things could be before raising the question in the first place?
One of the biggest issues of this sub-section is that there are some who approach it as though it is a religion. They believe like they might believe in God. As a religious person may point to the Bible as proof of God's existence, some resort to 'they saw it with their eyes and I believe them' when someone describes seeing a bright light in the sky and then become convinced that the more mundane explanation that stems directly from life here on Earth is just a cover up or a conspiracy to silence the true believers.
IMHO, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with enforcing a policy that prohibits "Posting from hack sites, quote mining and posting articles out of context and at times outright lying". I can't see where anyone would object to that, even MR. Although you might have issues with defining "hack sites". Maybe defining the standards more clearly would lead to less abuse. Personally, I read these posts (particularly MR's) for the entertainment value, similar to reading the horoscope in a newspaper - I've mentioned this analogy before. Some members seem to get all worked up over this stuff though...
I absolutely agree with you.
I have tried, on multiple occasions.
And I do agree that some people are getting too worked up over these subject matters. And I think that religious aspect stems from both sides. Some are religiously inclined to believe and thus try to spread the word, just as there are some who are religiously opposed and feel that they must, at every opportunity, smack it down like a red headed step child to spread their truth.
I think what is missing from the arguments MR posts is that it is a possibility.. Maybe.. Perhaps..
So in the context of a UFO discussion, someone sees an unidentified flying object in the sky. For most people, it is a possibility, a maybe.. For MR, it is proof absolute that aliens exist.
There is no middle ground here. Those who believe it is a UFO as per its definition automatically say it isn't aliens because aliens do not exist, while at the same time, they are posting about SETI in the science forums, MR is arguing from the standpoint of little green men in flying saucers while refusing to accept the position of 'maybe' and refusing to acknowledge that it could be something else entirely Earthly or even a hoax, despite all evidence showing it is more mundane.
Why not? Who (besides MR) would lose in that outcome?
The magical question...
See what I did there?
