MR complains about being moderated

[DaveC426913]

LOL Translation: "I stand by the claim."

Putting words in other people's mouths is one of the tools in a troller's kit.

Strange how repeating your simple question to Dave suddenly became MY reportable offense.

It's not strange. Here's how:

axocanth said:

You have learned how to defeat the quote attribution feature. I taught you how to use quotes in good faith.

I have axocanth in ignore, which means I can't see anything he posts, including where he is quoted by others. That's how the software is deigned to function.

But by removing the attribution from the quote (which you learned from me), the algorithm can't hide the quote from those who ignore him.

It is notable that you were careful to add back in manually that "Axocanth said". You are acting as Axo's mouthpiece because he can't reach me, and you want everyone to know who you are mouth-piecing for.

I was the one who stopped in the middle of an argument with you to help you in good faith to figure out the quote feature - and your response is to use that newfound knowledge to defeat the site's functionality and to troll me.

 

[axocanth]

I hereby authorize Magical Realist to act as my mouthpiece in places where I am persona non grata.

We'll get to the bottom of this "What does 2 + 2 equal?" mystery if it's the last thing we do.

 

[TheVat]

This being site feedback, a couple thoughts:

One, Axocanth has contributed many useful and edifying posts on philosophy of science, so I think sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "LALALALALALA I'M IGNORING YOU" because you had an argument with him and it got heated (and perhaps neither party was their best self?) is really not conducive to good group discussions going forward. There's something sort of middle schoolish about the whole idea of an "Ignore" function, and telling others that you are using it. Seems like scrolling past would achieve the same result if the mere presence of a member is so unpleasant for you.

Two, could someone please stop the FULL PAGE ADS which BLOCK THE PAGE one has navigated to? These are incredibly rude and off-putting to many people who might be exploring the site and thinking about joining. I understand the need for ads, but aren't banner ads and insert ads enough? How many times and ways do I really need to be pointed towards oil changes at MegaMondoLube (name changed so as not to trigger more targeted ads from the repeat offender)? Will this rude form of ad placement really improve any company's sales? - I would think quite the opposite.

 

[DaveC426913]

I missed this response yesterday, so thanks for sharing. There are no right or wrong answers in how someone would plan to manage this site, if they had the opportunity, but your method of ''promotion,'' is interesting because it pigeon-holes (probably not your intent) the category, causing any discussions to be shut down rather quickly. The UAP thread that has been pinned, has only gone on for as long as it has because of ad homs and insults - from both ''sides'' of the topic.

I'd dare say that all of the paranormal/UFO claims are basically based on mediocre video footage and/or eyewitness reports. So, we already know going in, that the scientific method is going to disprove the claims. Even common sense could disprove some of them. If nothing else, the best that will come of these discussions is ''we don't really know what it is.'' But, the trajectory of these types of threads doesn't have to lead to simply deciding if the claims are believable or not. I'm more curious as to why people believe in ghosts, or what would happen if we were to find out if space aliens actually exist?

Since these topics appear in the ''On the Fringe'' section, I'm going to venture a guess that it wasn't created to simply give scientists a place to flex. If that is the reason, an area of the forum where science can play 'wack-a-mole' as the latest paranormal claims pop up, then I fail to see why it exists. If it were one or two claims, here and there, I think it would be easier to dismiss. But, if we're being honest, paranormal activity or at least the interest in it, has become a global phenomenon. That might be worth pondering, right?

Anyway, it has required the most moderation of any other section of this forum, which is odd considering it's a ''fringey'' topic.

Though some may accuse me of trying to, I don't actually own any forum, including the UGM Fringe forum. I can't shut anyone down.
It is true that, when assertions are made, I tend to step in to point out errors and bad logic that leads to hasty conclusions. There is a mentality of "it is conclusively beyond normal" which is silly.

What I will do is step back a little from appearing to whack-a-mole. I may still analyze them and offer my insights but I will avoid arguing.
If you wanted to start threads, I will do what I can to keep my brand of analysis out of them (providing they don't get hijacked into dishonest paranormal propaganda).

A change in my posting presence will be notable in that I have now put that most egregious of trolling posters on ignore in an attempt to lower the site's DEFCON rating.

 

[Magical Realist]

There's something sort of middle schoolish about the whole idea of an "Ignore" function, and telling others that you are using it.

I agree. To me it is as immature and pissy as always reporting other member's posts because you don't like what they're saying. You're in a discussion forum, so man up and expect to hear some things you don't agree with. If you can't handle it, try using the "scroll past" button.

 

[DaveC426913]

This being site feedback, a couple thoughts:

One, Axocanth has contributed many useful and edifying posts on philosophy of science,

I don't doubt he has. In there somewhere.

so I think sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "LALALALALALA I'M IGNORING YOU" because you had an argument with him and it got heated (and perhaps neither party was their best self?) is really not conducive to good group discussions going forward.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It is not an accurate depiction of my encounter.


You don't really need to know the back story, but read if you wish, else skip to the upshot:
(Axo stared off smug, slippery and condescending from post one. He was far, far more interested in meta-arguing and pointing fingers than in actually discussing topics. I called him on this. Though I cannot prove it, I am almost certain he is a sock puppet of a banned member and he comes back with an axe to grind.

I let him go on for as long as seemed justified, pointing out when I thought he was really just trolling. It never got better. So now anything constructive he has to offer is lost. That is the cost of being vexatious.)


We get to put people on ignore. We are encouraged to, if needed. And your mockery of it is misguided. The ignore feature is not a punishment; it is a remedy - a protection, so the site doesn't get bogged down with personal petty meta-arguing. That is what it is for and that is why I did it.


And it wouldn't have even gone noticed if Magical Realist hadn't subverted that protective feature. Twice now. With Axocanth goading him from the rear.

So if it causes me to lose out on some good stuff Axo may have to offer, that's a pity. He's a smart guy, he's just got some sort of axe to grind that taints every post I've read. Ultimately, the cost to all of me engaging is too great. Maybe he will settle down and stop the smarminess. But it ls not looking good.

 

[wegs]

Though some may accuse me of trying to, I don't actually own any forum, including the UGM Fringe forum. I can't shut anyone down.
It is true that, when assertions are made, I tend to step in to point out errors and bad logic that leads to hasty conclusions. There is a mentality of "it is conclusively beyond normal" which is silly.

What I will do is step back a little from appearing to whack-a-mole. I may still analyze them and offer my insights but I will avoid arguing.
If you wanted to start threads, I will do what I can to keep my brand of analysis out of them (providing they don't get hijacked into dishonest paranormal propaganda).

A change in my posting presence will be notable in that I have now put that most egregious of trolling posters on ignore in an attempt to lower the site's DEFCON rating.

Just so you know, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your posting style or desire to correct erroneous thinking. My only issue (not with anyone specifically) is why that sub-forum exists if only to serve as a way to deter, not encourage, “fringe” topic discussions. There’s more tolerance shown on the “Religion” sub-forum. lol

Edit to add - It’s not unusual at all, that a forum’s sustainability is often due to the popularity of miscellaneous/fringe topics. So, I don’t think that this is an anomaly or that SF is having a difficult time attracting people interested in science. It has a lot to do with forum-life eroding, in general, as well. Once the internet became a place to monetize one’s opinions (Instagram, TikTok etc) - forums started losing the kind of traffic they enjoyed 10-15 years ago.

 

[DaveC426913]

Insightful and well said.

 

[axocanth]

Two, could someone please stop the FULL PAGE ADS which BLOCK THE PAGE one has navigated to? These are incredibly rude and off-putting to many people who might be exploring the site and thinking about joining. I understand the need for ads, but aren't banner ads and insert ads enough? How many times and ways do I really need to be pointed towards oil changes at MegaMondoLube (name changed so as not to trigger more targeted ads from the repeat offender)? Will this rude form of ad placement really improve any company's sales? - I would think quite the opposite.

But don't you find the ads for erectile dysfunction cures helpful?

 

[axocanth]

You don't really need to know the back story, but read if you wish, else skip to the upshot:
(Axo stared off smug, slippery and condescending from post one. He was far, far more interested in meta-arguing and pointing fingers than in actually discussing topics. I called him on this. Though I cannot prove it, I am almost certain he is a sock puppet of a banned member and he comes back with an axe to grind.

Use monosyllables and they call you a dumbass. Use polysyllables and they call you pretentious and smug. Challenge their "2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4" doctrine and you'd better duck and cover. They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool (name that song?). I gave up caring decades ago and fell in love with lemurs and cassowaries (by and large, they're a lot nicer than people ).

Oh, but the second defining characteristic -- after "An opponent is never just wrong, but dishonest" -- of Red Guard scientistic hysteria is this:

* Opponents of Red Guard orthodoxy invariably have a "hidden agenda". E.g. if the bastard is not an overt Creationist then he is a closet Creationist. It is just not possible that a rational thinking person could have legitimate and non-religiously motivated misgivings about evolutionary theory.


Some might regard it as conspiracy theory paranoia. If you want to be a hero, don't look at me.

 

[axocanth]

There's something sort of middle schoolish about the whole idea of an "Ignore" function, and telling others that you are using it. Seems like scrolling past would achieve the same result if the mere presence of a member is so unpleasant for you.

On other sites I've noticed a similar phenomenon. Certain people announce publicly in a thread that they are going to "unfollow" that thread, as if this is a matter of great significance to all assembled, perhaps even driving some -- in such a state of existential turmoil -- to sign up for the French Foreign Legion or something. Dare I say normal people just unfollow the thread without the fanfare.

No doubt there's a lesson in psychology somewhere in all this. Any psychologists in the house?

As for my last gf, don't believe what she says about her doing the dumping. I dumped her.

 

[axocanth]

I let him go on for as long as seemed justified, pointing out when I thought he was really just trolling. It never got better. So now anything constructive he has to offer is lost. That is the cost of being vexatious.)

We get to put people on ignore. We are encouraged to, if needed. And your mockery of it is misguided. The ignore feature is not a punishment; it is a remedy - a protection, so the site doesn't get bogged down with personal petty meta-arguing. That is what it is for and that is why I did it.

Readers are left to ponder the question of why Dave puts certain trolls (e.g. yours smarmily) on ignore, while other trolls (e.g. Magical Realist) evade this ignominious sanction and, unlike myself, do not suffer the cost of being forced to live a life of regret, forever deprived of Dave's attention for being overly vexatious.

Readers are invited to do the math.

Er, geddit?

 

[DaveC426913]

Now that the dust has settled a little, I'll address this once again, because it seems some members have a short memory and an aversion to verifying the content of posts on public display. It's a waste of readers' time if you can't back up your accusations.

"axocanth said: Perhaps another reader can ask Dave whether he stands by his assertion that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 (see posts 58 - 61)."

Do you still stand by this claim Dave?

Recall or verify (because some of you can), that the statement offered by Ricky Gervais was "There are no circumstances in which 2+2 does not equal 4." This was written , in text, in the video, and was not qualified. It is an unconditional statement; it asserts to be true under all circumstances, and if not; it is false.

I pointed out in that thread, that there are, indeed, circumstances.
My example was 2+2=11. That is a valid mathematical statement that stands on its own.
It directly contradicts Ricky's unconditional "no circumstances" claim. Full stop.

What followed was Axocanth claiming I am equivocating. There is zero equivocation in my statement; it stands on its own, above, and previously in > 61.

It is not my problem if Axo some conditions on Ricky's unconditional statement. Axo placed his own condition that only base 10 is allowed. But that is not what Riocky said.

So the irony here is that it was Axocanth (who has a hammer named 'equivocation' and every problem is a nail) who had to resort to equivocation in his attempts to refute it:
He speaks of "another language", which is a] a misunderstanding, and b] his own equivocation.
He speaks of "try saying it out loud" which is his own digression from the problem as-stated.
These are methods are trying to show my statement might not be true and valid - but only by resorting to equivocation and what-ifs.


Axo has hoisted himself on his own pitard, not once but twice.
And Magical Realist - who knows little about the math and is just parroting Axo - came along for the ride.

My counter-example is valid math, and it directly refutes the initial, unconditional claim that "there are no circumstances in which 2+2 does not equal 4."

 

[axocanth]

I suggest Dave's "Transformed Mathematics" be moved to be Cuckoo section of the site.

 

[axocanth]

It's embarrassing to have to go through this again, but . . .

First thing to note, a massive warning bell should ring when anyone claims that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 (i.e. there are "circumstances" under which 2 + 2 does not equal 4). First thoughts that come to mind are probably that this person is stark raving mad or very confused indeed. On the other hand, if it was Kurt Gödel or Willard Van Orman Quine making the claim, we might all do well to pay close attention. After all, if true, this would be a stunning discovery indeed -- headlines in the New York Times kind of thing ("Bigfoot captured alive! See page 2"). Readers are left to decide which.

Second thing to note is that uninterpreted marks on paper do not constitute a statement. Nothing has been stated or asserted until a meaning is assigned to these marks.

What, if anything, do the following marks mean then? : 2 + 2 = 4

The obvious interpretation is the standard Base Ten interpretation that Write4U intended, and that is the proposition: "Two plus two equals four"

Now, Dave's first proposed counterexample is "2 + 2 = 11".

How is this to be interpreted? Well, in Base Ten, for example, it is interpreted as the proposition "Two plus two equals eleven" - a false statement thus no counterexample at all to "two plus two equals four". This is not a "circumstance" where two plus two does not equal four; it's a false statement. Dave needs a true statement where two plus two equals something other than four.

But Dave is quite explicit. He's using Base Three, not Base Ten. Ok then, how do we interpret "2 + 2 = 11" now? The answer is "two plus two equals four". "11" (Base Three) = "4" (Base Ten). Still no counterexample has been adduced. Dave is asserting exactly the same proposition that Write4U is asserting. He's asserting the same proposition in a different form, that's all. And to assert the very same proposition (in a different form or language) does not refute that proposition. You've just repeated it.


But how do we know what Write4U meant when he/she asserted "2 + 2 = 4" ? Well, the easiest way would be to just ask him/her, but it doesn't matter.

Dave may assign any meaning he likes to the symbols "2" and "4". He can stipulate that "2" designates the number nineteen if he likes, or he can stipulate that "4" denotes Frank Sinatra. It's a free country!

I submit that whatever meaning he assigns the symbols, he will still not arrive at a counterexample to "2 + 2 = 4". Using the above interpretations, for example, we get the proposition "Nineteen plus nineteen equals Frank Sinatra".


So we now have to ask Dave how he interprets "2 + 2 = 4". State it in plain English for us. What does the symbol "2" mean and what does the symbol "4" mean?

If, for example, perhaps after watching 1984, he decides that the symbol "4" denotes the number five; the symbol "2" remains a designator for the number two. The statement "2 + 2 = 4", then, is now understood as "two plus two equals five" which, even if you're racked into saying it, is not true.

Dave, state the proposition "2 + 2 = 4" for us all in plain English first. Tell us what it means. Then give us your counterexample(s). State them in plain English too.

What proposition are you attempting to show is not necessarily true? And what proposition refutes it?



Oh, and where's the equivocation? Well, if Dave wants to argue that his "11" means the number eleven, there has been no equivocation (the meaning remains a constant Base Ten) and I retract the charges. He is now innocent of equivocation, but guilty of perpetrating crap mathematics. It is not true that "two plus two equals eleven" and it is no counterexample to "2 + 2 equals 4".


P.S. "petard" not "pitard". An awkward time to make a typo if ever there was one!

 

[DaveC426913]

Checking in. Everyone deserves a second chance, right?

This is why you are not to be taken seriously:

I suggest Dave's "Transformed Mathematics" be moved to be Cuckoo section of the site.

First thoughts that come to mind are probably that this person is stark raving mad or very confused indeed.

I stopped reading there. See, your intent has never been to have a good-faith - even if oppositional - discussion; it is always with the goal of jeering and trolling in an emotional arena.

You're ostensibly a smart guy - but you have no faith in your own intelligence - no belief that your logic can stand in its own merits. You always have to drag it to an arena of mockery, where you're much more confident. You're squandering an otherwise clever mind, and it benefits me in no way to engage with this worst trait of yours.

I give you my permission to troll me all you want.

 

[axocanth]

I stopped reading there.

That's one way to wriggle out of it, I suppose, then redirect attention to my putative flawed character.

I won't even bother dignifying the usual bs, malice and slander by responding to it. If it's to be a kangaroo court for people like myself, Yazata, and Magical Realist, sentence away. It could not be more obvious who the nasty elements are on this site, who the trolls are.

(Clue: they're the ones who habitually accuse other members of trolling, dishonesty (cf. bad faith), and a lot else besides.)

 

[James R]

When the cat's away...

Okay, so I'm a tad busy in "real life" right now and I don't have a lot of time to devote to this.

Just quickly: Try to focus, people!

The topic of this thread is, explicitly, Magical Realist's complaints about him being moderated. It is not an excuse for axocanth to try to hijack yet another thread into yet another discussion of his "anti-scientific method" mission. Nor is it the place to ask why we have a Fringe section (again) and whether we ought to have one. Nor is it the place to try to re-prosecute old gripes about whether a UFO had lit windows or whether 2+2=4. I don't have time now, but later I will be splitting the off-topic discussions to the existing threads where they belong. I suggest you all prosecute the old issues in the threads where they first came up, if you think you're going to make progress on those things.

On topic, then. I asked Magical Realist to give me his best pitch for why he should remain a member here. Given the constant lies and trolling from him - and sadly, we've seen more of that sort of thing from him in this very thread - there are good arguments for why now might be an appropriate time to draw a line under the whole sorry mess he's made of himself here.

I will make a decision on this shortly, but it won't be right now, because busy.

So, Magical Realist, if you've got it in you to do any better, now would be a good time to start demonstrating that. I'll be back to see how/whether you got on with that, later.

 

[axocanth]

So, Magical Realist, if you've got it in you to do any better, now would be the time to start demonstrating that. I'll be back to see how/whether you got on with that, later.

etc. . . . and all the other hypocritical bs above.


What an absolute joke! What a farce! Once again, the real troublemakers, accusers, and perpetrators of malevolence are overlooked (i.e. far and away: Dave and James R himself !!) while other totally harmless members who actually contribute anything of intelligence to the site are condemned in another paroxysm of self-righteous logorrhea.

I spent some time last night, for example, looking through Magical Realist's "Everyday Anomalies" thread. Other readers are invited to do the same. Right from the start it's the usual trolls and harassers -- including the site moderator himself -- who storm into his thread, offer nothing of any value, instead calling him a troll as well as all the usual slurs (dishonesty, etc.), and even threats:

"Stop trolling. You know what happens when you get caught out at that." - James R (post #20)


Absolutely unbelievable! Hypocrisy on a scale that simply beggars belief. WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID !!!???


Yazata's post #35, meanwhile, is magnificent, the most intelligent piece in the entire thread. No wonder he also is targeted by the malevolent elements on the site who have little to offer but vacuous slogans of the form "We have mountains of evidence. You have none".

 

[Magical Realist]

James said: So, Magical Realist, if you've got it in you to do any better, now would be a good time to start demonstrating that. I'll be back to see how/whether you got on with that, later.

If that's another veiled threat that you're going to ban me, then at least have the courtesy of telling us all why you are considering doing that. I posted one comment on your abusive behavior in light of your new resolve to be more polite and civil, and you make a whole new thread with it about me complaining about being moderated. Now you are threatening to ban me permanently for god knows what reason. What have I done recently to merit a permaban? You always make these claims supposedly based on past posts of me lying and being this horrible troll, most of which you have already banned me for. What have I added to this alleged history of treachery that suddenly warrants threatening me with permanently being banned? And when are you going to respond to the points I raised already with you in this thread? You have yet to prove me or Yazata have ever lied at all about anything. And you have no evidence I am posting just to get a rise out of members like a troll would do. Support your claims James. Set a good example for everybody. The world is watching.