Concerning MR's ban

[Magical Realist]

Took only a few posts on this very thread:
"Don't you have a real life beyond this?"

Most other of your threads are similar.

That's not an insult. It's a real question. So iow, you got noth'n.

 

[Kittamaru]

Where is he demanding that you believe in bigfoot or aliens?

He believes in it. Has he told you that you have to believe in it?

He has claimed, several times, that they are "real" and that their existence are "facts".
Tell me - do you typically choose not to believe in facts?

And what is "it", Kitta?

What should be done about "it"?

Oh, come now - I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

And I fully stand by those statements. Nor am I trying to pretend I never said them, nor have I or am I saying that I was right. What is your point?

That it should continue?

That your "high and mighty" attitude is, quite frankly, pathetic.

What do you call someone who ignores another's post?

You are missing a keyword there... "intentionally". intent is what makes it a problem... but you knew that already.

Happens all the time on forums.

Are you now tracking every single one of his responses?

Hardly requires any kind of tracking. It's quite obvious when it occurs on a regular basis.

Are we now demanding that people respond to every single post aimed at them? Pretty sure this is not a new rule.

So you contend that ignoring evidence is not dishonest?

Should he respond to it? If he feels like it. It would be nice if he did. But I don't think we should be moderating people for failing to respond to people's posts. We are not the thought police and it is not our job to do so.

So you feel there is not obligation for people to be honest?

Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to infringe on the rules if we feel the person deserves to be insulted for not agreeing with us or accepting what we say is the truth?

I am stating (quite factually) that when a member is permitted, time and again, to ignore the rules at his whim, it is INEVITABLE that other members will take umbrage with that and start lashing out. Surely this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Do you think he deserves to be personally insulted Kitta? If not, I fail to understand why you are so upset and offended that I posted that people should leave the personal insults and abuse out of it?

I am offended (and disgusted) that you are refusing to acknowledge the entire situation, and are instead seeing just the parts you wish to see.

Not really.

Yes, really.

Because you continue to misrepresent (and at times completely fabricate things and apply them to me) what I say either because you are dishonest or because you cannot understand what I am saying and so, you put your own slant on it. I would rather that it was down to stupidity and lack of understanding. That would make sense and would make it better than to consider that it is deliberate. One is out of lack of understanding and innocent. The other would mean it is deliberate. One is clearly better than the other.

There is another option - that you are so biased in your view that you are blind to what the implications of your own words is...

What backpedaling?

I have never said any differently.

So at one time he deserved to be "punished even more harshly" for how he was acting... and now those same actions should not be punished? And that isn't backpedaling?

Where have I said that we should not employ the "scientific method"? Where have I said that it should not face scientific scrutiny? I stand by those words.

Then he MUST own up and answer to factual posts that contradict what he is posting.

The problem that has clearly arisen is that people are taking it personally and responding by being personally insulting about it and at times, even making offensive remarks and attributing it to him and even others.

Again, this is INEVITABLE given his behavior.

What, exactly, is your point?

Apparently lost on you...

Whatever you personally consider or believe is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of rules for personal belief in one forum and a completely different set of rules that would allow people to abuse and insult others for their personal beliefs in another? Is that what you prefer?

Or do you think that the personal beliefs of people should receive the exact same treatment?

Again, you are omitting important key-words here... when a belief is PRIVATELY HELD (and thus affects NOBODY ELSE), it needs no rules, as that belief is not being preached or soap-boxed. When one starts claiming it as factual, then it must be backed by facts.

I'll put it this way.. How would you feel if everyone who behaves this way in the Fringe, did the exact same thing in the religion sub-forum? Would you be so vocal in protecting them as you are in protecting their doing it in the Fringe?

If someone in the religion sub-forum (or any sub-forum) started preaching and proselytizing that their belief is "fact", the situation would not get to this point - they would be told (as has been done several times before) to quit violating the site rules.

So when you attributed words to me that I never said and made an announcement about it, what was that? See, I call that lying. You, on the other hand declared it was for your own amusement. When you go out of your way to misrepresent what I have said in the moderator's forum and then post said fabrication and misrepresentation in a public forum to somehow or other boost your argument, I call that lying.

And I call it making a point. Subtlety failed, direct confrontation failed... essentially, that was my variant of using a sledgehammer to drive a nail. I see that even THAT kind of bluntness was incapable of piercing whatever veil of confusion you shroud yourself with.

Remember, Kitta, you have dragged again this dispute into the public forum and you are doing it by again misrepresenting me and by applying arguments to me that I never said.

So, what, you claim those quotes are not yours then?

Do you consider that a good way to debate anything?

I have provided your quotes for all to see - I think their meaning is clear.

I beg your pardon?

You may beg it, but you shan't have my pardon.

What, exactly, are you trying to imply here?

I think the implication is clear - you have, without evident reason or explanation, reversed tack from saying he deserved far worse punishment, to saying he shouldn't be held accountable.

Firstly, why are you linking the moderator forum in this thread?

Uh, because it's relevant? I could always provide a screenshot, if you would prefer

And secondly, where did I say that insults should be allowed in any of those posts that you linked? Where do I say that he needs to be forced to respond to everything? I am trying to understand why you linked what you did, and what you are trying to say here, when my words in those threads that you linked have not deviated from my argument at all this whole time. Are you trying to imply that I said differently in the moderator's sub-forum?

Simply put - what you say and how you act is not lining up. What you have said in the past and what you are proposing now is not lining up.

You really want to be careful about such statements. Especially when you are basing such arguments on your fabrications and misrepresentations of what I have said.

You can claim fabrication all you like... the facts stand visible for all.

 

[Magical Realist]

Thing is, your pattern of behavior is to refuse to acknowledge or otherwise ignore FACTS you cannot counter... thus, dishonest.

More like your twisted interpretations of facts. Like how sea otters explain rock-throwing in the Oklahoma mountains. Or how bigfoot is impossible because of inbreeding. Etc and ect and etc.

 

[Kittamaru]

That's not an insult. It's a real question. So iow, you got noth'n.

You also apparently "got noth'n" when it comes to rpenner's post, which you CONTINUE to refuse to acknowledge or respond to.

More like your twisted interpretations of facts. Like how sea otters explain rock-throwing in the Oklahoma mountains. Or how bigfoot is impossible because of inbreeding. Etc and ect and etc.

So you wish to propose that genetic degradation from inbreeding isn't a fact?

 

[Magical Realist]

And here, you are being dishonest yet again.

You responded SEVERAL times to that thread since his post - you have, quite obviously, seen his post, and have CHOSEN not to respond to it.

And this is why I ignore you. The drone argument WAS addressed in my thread. So again you're lying. Not that not responding to Penner's post proves anything at all. If I choose not to respond to someone, that's my right. Your twisting it into some infractionable dishonesty is itself dishonest and an abuse of mod power. You should've been fired years ago.

 

[paddoboy]

Half your posts I don't even respond to. Haven't you noticed?

Sure I have noticed, but that won't stop me asking relevant and pertinent questions on what is being debated. You refusing to answer them though, actually indicates that to answer honestly would be to admit what you claim is hogwash and that you are certainly possibly gullible in the extreme.

 

[Kittamaru]

And this is why I ignore you. The drone argument WAS addressed in my thread. So again you're lying. Not that not responding to Penner's post proves anything at all. If I choose not to respond to someone, that's my right. Your twisting it into some infractionable dishonesty is itself dishonest and an abuse of mod power. You should've been fired years ago.

IOW - you cannot disprove what he is saying, so you will ignore it.
*yawn*
Same bullshit over and over MR... your tactics are tired and the only person who seems to be buying your sob story is Bells...

 

[paddoboy]

I will probably ignore you. Doesn't mean I'm dishonest. Doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything. This is a freedom all posters enjoy here. I am no exception.

Actually, probably means all of them, considering the wishy washy, unlikely, unevidenced nature of near everything you claim.
It also probably means you are out to flame and troll, considering this is first and foremost a science forum, and considering you have posted threads in the past suggesting that astronomy/cosmology and even science in general are not beneficial to mankind.

 

[Magical Realist]

Explain your sudden reversal in position... what is MR giving you or doing for you that you suddenly feel compelled to protect that which you previously admitted was in the wrong?

Right. I'm paying Bells off to defend me. Only you could come up with a paranoid fantasy like that.

IOW - you cannot disprove what he is saying, so you will ignore it.
*yawn*
Same bullshit over and over MR... your tactics are tired and the only person who seems to be buying your sob story is Bells...

Then leave me alone. You and your loyal band of 5 trolls are the only ones making a big deal out of mere threads in the Fringe section, not us.

 

[Kittamaru]

Right. I'm paying Bells off to defend me. Only you could come up with paranoid fantasy like that.

I would rather believe she has been somehow bought off rather than contemplate the alternative (that she has lost her mind, gone senile, or doing this out of spite)

Then leave me alone. You and your loyal band of 5 trolls are the only one making a big deal out mere posts in the Fringe section, not us.

The Fringe forum is not your personal soap-box. If you post here, you will be critiqued; the alternative would be to sequester you to a single thread (which was the option used for Victor) in order to contain the unsupported, unscientific bollocks to one location.

 

[billvon]

That's not an insult. It's a real question. So iow, you got noth'n.

So if someone asked you "are you normally this stupid" you would not consider that an insult?

That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons you give Sciforums a bad name - and why most of your threads degenerate into you attacking other people with "real questions" and "but he really is a troll so it's not an attack" attacks.

There is one common factor in all those threads, but you will never see what it is.

 

[Magical Realist]

That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons you give Sciforums a bad name - and why most of your threads degenerate into you attacking other people with "real questions" and "but he really is a troll so it's not an attack" attacks.

You failed miserably to support your lie that I insult or attack anyone. So you might as well quit while you're ahead.

 

[paddoboy]

Right. I'm paying Bells off to defend me. Only you could come up with a paranoid fantasy like that.

Then leave me alone. You and your loyal band of 5 trolls are the only ones making a big deal out of mere threads in the Fringe section, not us.

Is this just me, or is it ironic that MR claiming paranoia in the first statement, than comes up with the little "insulting" humdinger in his second statement.

An ironic insult.

 

[Randwolf]

If someone in the religion sub-forum (or any sub-forum) started preaching and proselytizing that their belief is "fact", the situation would not get to this point - they would be told (as has been done several times before) to quit violating the site rules.

You mean like this?
God is Love. God is Great. God is Real. The King is Risen.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/god-is-love-god-is-great-god-is-real-the-king-is-risen.152550/

Going on right now in the religion subforum?

Go get 'em Kit...

 

[Magical Realist]

I would rather believe she has been somehow bought off rather than contemplate the alternative (that she has lost her mind, gone senile, or doing this out of spite)


The Fringe forum is not your personal soap-box. If you post here, you will be critiqued; the alternative would be to sequester you to a single thread (which was the option used for Victor) in order to contain the unsupported, unscientific bollocks to one location.

Then be prepared to have all your bogus explanations and ad hoc arguments blown to shreds without whining or crying about it. Which I pretty much do on a daily basis.

 

[Kittamaru]

Is this just me, or is it ironic that MR claiming paranoia in the first statement, than comes up with the little "insulting" humdinger in his second statement.

An ironic insult.

It would be almost entertaining... if it weren't being so doggedly defended

Anyway, it's getting late and I have another 15 hour workday ahead of me tomorrow... so I must bid adieu.

 

[paddoboy]

Then be prepared to have all your bogus explanations and ad hoc arguments blown to shreds without whining or crying about it. Which I pretty much do on a daily basis.

Except that it is only you who believes those delusions. The world in general proceeds via science without your nonsensical claims, and the forum in general are probably having a giggle at your expense..

 

[Kittamaru]

You mean like this?
God is Love. God is Great. God is Real. The King is Risen.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/god-is-love-god-is-great-god-is-real-the-king-is-risen.152550/

Going on right now in the religion subforum?

Go get 'em Kit...

It has actually been reported, and was assigned to Bells (who has been very vocal that I should not be a moderator at all) - she has chosen not to act upon it *shrug*
My thoughts on how the thread went down?

Spellbound post simply that he "loves the Lord" - not much of a conversation piece to be honest, but hardly different from someone saying they love Mac n Cheese or the like.

The problem is, in post 4, he claimed him to be a real entity, yet provided no evidence to back that claim.

 

[Kittamaru]

Then be prepared to have all your bogus explanations and ad hoc arguments blown to shreds without whining or crying about it. Which I pretty much do on a daily basis.

I would dearly, DEARLY love to see you post anything backed by good evidence and real science... and I'm not being sarcastic here. If you could go and catch a Bigfoot, you would be an instant celebrity. If you could make first contact with an alien species... well, you would either herald a new era of technological and socio-economic advancement, or bring about the extinction of mankind (depends on if/how benevolent they are, and their intentions).

However, I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty you will never do either of those things...

 

[Magical Realist]

If someone in the religion sub-forum (or any sub-forum) started preaching and proselytizing that their belief is "fact", the situation would not get to this point - they would be told (as has been done several times before) to quit violating the site rules.

Right...because who ever heard of a religious person preaching and proselytizing? It's basically part of the package deal. You recruit Isis members. You get 72 virgins. You convert sinners to Jesus. You get a mansion on a street of gold.