RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Civility, What is it and when to use it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,18:44   

Dear All,

Since this issue comes up again and again perhaps a thread to discuss it might amuse.

We have two current playmates, AFDave and Ghost of Paley who often claim that some of the anticreationist members of this make the anticreationism look bad because we can be so rude. I'll right away hold my hands up very high on the charge of being abusive. I won't at all hold my hands up to being abusive to people without any just cause.

Here's an example of the sort of dissonance and dishonesty we are dealing with:

Stevestory's announcement that the AFDave experience was going to die:

Quote
And looking back at the 10,000 posts of AFDave threads, the science establishment looks fine.

For several thousand posts, AFDave threw out crazy claims and scientifically-literate people disposed of them in a mostly respectable way. For thousands of posts, AFDave cut and pasted arguments, or just made up his own impossible ones. The AFDave modus operandi never changed. Just imagine whatever he wants, believe his daydreams to be powerful science, don't bother to support it, misunderstand everything he cut and pastes and everything people tell him in response, and don't bother to stop and learn even the basics. There's only so long reasonable people can be respectful towards that kind of behavior.

Before I moved to Chapel Hill and added a new job and several extracurricular activities, I had lots of time to police the insults and interfere with people describing the situation in accurate but rude ways. People here know what they're doing, they know that AFDave refuses to learn, they are just arguing with him for the benefit of the lurkers. Well, I submit the lurkers can extract all they need to know from the existing corpus of the thread. It's no longer about them, and the thread is pointless. It's now just AFDave continuing his clueless behavior, and people calling him clueless in response. So my only decision, it being pointless to continue policing the thread, is do I let it continue or call it a day? Well, AFDave still wants to blabber, and several people want to insult him for it, so why should I get in the way? I spend my time checking out the other threads, ones which have some value, and mostly ignore this one. It'll go on til people get tired of it. That doesn't mean I'm totally hands off, it means that I'm mostly ignoring it excepting the occasions when people email me and say, "somebody's committing libel on the AFDave thread, and you might want to put a stop to it" and similar things. If, 10,000 posts along in the thread, it's nothing more than Dave saying stupid things and people commenting on how stupid those things are, so be it.

It's really not contributing anything to the board, however, so it would be nice if AFDave would shift this mess to his own blog.


And the GoP version of events:

Quote
If that weren't enough (and of course it is), there's also the fact that Stevestory rewards your (and other people's) behaviour by banning/restricting the objects of your abuse. Don't want Dave around? No problem! Just hurl brickbats and rotten tomatoes and then whine about the level of incivility, and presto! Dave's World is closed.


And:

Quote
It's certainly true that Dave had thousands of posts to make his point, an opportunity he proceeded to squander in an occasionally jaw-dropping fashion. It's also true that there were a lot of side issues involved. But Stevestory clearly stated that one of the reasons for removing Dave was he was tired of dealing with the sniping and possible defamation by PT contributors, and that he thought it made the anticreationist side look bad. He didn't punish the offenders, he PUNISHED DAVE. Now what kind of message does that send to the jackals?


Sorry but I just don't see the same emphasis there at all. In fact I can barely see that GoP's comments even apply to the same situation being outlined by Steve.

So are we dealing with the standard differences of opinion and anger that rises from time to time? Or are we dealing with genuine imbalance, one side good, other side bad?

I'm happy to be wrong, but I'm going to state my case right out front:

I think that it IS possible to have a polite honest conversation (on or offline) about sensitive topics like religion or politics with someone who you profoundly disagree with. It's something I've done a million times (no exaggeration, I like a chat! ) and do very regularly. What I CANNOT and WILL NOT tolerate is dishonesty and silly oneupmanship. I have to be honest this is what really annoys me about GoP and AFDave. They seem to think they can act as dishonestly as they like and cry "foul" when called on it, even politely. Declarations of "victory" when the evidence is against them, like a debate or discussion is some playground game. Quote mines, misrepresenting people's arguments, outright lies, deliberately trolling, etc etc etc. The list is endless.

What is it about this sort of conduct that they think is acceptable? We are on a limited forum, a type and image only internet message board. Most people here work very hard, and those that don't undoubtedly have other interests and activities they could better be spending their time on.  My point is that we all come here for discussion, debate, a little camaraderie perhaps, whatever. Hey perhaps we just come to laugh at the tards at UD. My point is this, in the format limited and time limited arena we have for our discussions a degree of honesty is essential for any discussion to be productive. If we can't rely that our words won't be twisted dishonestly, if we are going to have to repetitively deal with the SAME demonstrably false claims rom the same people, and so on, then any discussion is rendered useless. The entire purpose of these fora is rendered useless.

In the olden days, in the before time, Talk.Origins was created to take the kooks and creationists (such redundancy! )  away from the science discussion boards because the REAL scientists trying to have REAL discussions were being distracted by demonstrably erroneous and demonstrably dishonest bullshit from a wide variety of trolls, kooks, concern trolls etc. Basically people pissing in the water.

In my opinion AFDave and GoP and others have been treated immesely leniently considering their demonstrable conduct. I openly state that were I in charge I wouldn't have been so tolerant. At the first (ok maybe third) sign of intractable dishonesty I'd have removed them. Not out of some UDlike desire for censorship but out of a simple desire to have a productive conversation with someone.

Go to T.O. or Alt.Atheism nowadays and you can rarely have a conversation with an neophyte creationist or anti-atheist without having a hoard of disenchanted regulars immediately leaping down their throats. I'm overjoyed to note that this isn't the case at ATBC. I'm also honest enough to point out that I am at least as disenchanted as those regulars, I used to be one.

There is a happy medium here, one I am not wise enough to fully delineate myself. Surely it's possible to have the "lurker useful" chat with the AFDaves of this world and still be able to draw things to an adequate close when it becomes obvious that the AFDave-esque individual is incapable of learning anything.

Again I'll be blunt. I consider dishonesty infinitely more rude, more counter productive to discussion than calling someone eleven types of cunt for being dishonest. I consider the abuse heaped on Dave and GoP totally and 100% earnt by those individuals. Lest anyone forget, GoP has ADMITTED to deliberately trolling this board for a year. Let that sink in if it hasn't. He is STILL here, he is STILL posting, and he is STILL doing the same things he has always done. Dave has driven round and around in the same circles spouting the same well refuted lies.

That's not tolerance, that's weakness. A weakness to stand up for decent honest people and decent honest conversation. A weakness we liberals are so often accused of, and dammit rightly on some occasions. We want to let everyone have their go, and so we should. We truly want to believe that all people are equally wonderful and equally truthful and that if they were shown the evidence they'd slap their foreheads and say "oops", and so we should. But i we continue to do this without end, we are wrong. I think we need to continue to treat people openly and with some degree of hope, but that we also need to remove those individuals who demonstrate that they cannot play nicely at all.

If we were all women and we all had a massive argument with our partners, and our partners slapped us, not really hard, but nasty enough, we might think "Hey, heat of the moment, give the guy another chance, we've got a lot invested in the relationship". That would be tolerance. Perhaps foolish, perhaps not. How many times do we have to be slapped across the face before we realise that some guys aren't going to change. Perhaps an awful analogy, give me a better one. My point is how many times do we have to let Dave make the same well refuted claim? How many times do we have to let GoP try his revisionist history shit? I think it's a small number, a much smaller number than has been allowed. But hey, it's not my river, I'm just pissing here.

Can we really justify letting these things continue ad nauseum simply for the sake of the lurkers? Lurkers dumb enough not to learn from one or two iterations of the same old game are not going to learn from three, as Steve implies.

Discuss.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,20:44   

Well, can someone remind me why GoP wasn't banned for trolling this board (actually him and a second person) for over a year? I don't recall any mitigating circumstances being mentioned at the time. It certainly can't be his sparkling personality.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,22:22   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 13 2007,20:44)
Well, can someone remind me why GoP wasn't banned for trolling this board (actually him and a second person) for over a year? I don't recall any mitigating circumstances being mentioned at the time. It certainly can't be his sparkling personality.

Martyr Syndrome.

He'll be after his crown of thorns next.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,22:43   

Screw 'em.  (shrug)  

ID/creationism is a political fight.  Politics is a business full of knives.  This isn't a badminton match -- it's a boxing match.  Punches will be thrown, teeth will be knocked out, and blood will spatter the walls.  One side will win and walk away, one side won't.

If the nutters can't take it, they should go cloister themselves somewhere safe and never venture out into the real world.  Heat, kitchen, and all that.

I see no need whatever to make nice-nice with them.  My aim, frankly and openly, is to destroy them as an effective political movement.  Completely, totally, and irreversibly.  And I make no promise whatsoever to be "polite" about it.

I treat fundies the same way I treat Nazis, Leninists and Klansmen.  And for much the same reasons.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2007,23:05   

Hey Louis,

I'd like to echo your sentiments 100% - in fact, it's eerie how close your views mirror my own.  I too love stimulating conversation from someone with a different view than I have.  In my mind, hearing about two sides of an issue is the intellectual equivalent of having binocular vision - much more depth than a flat one-D look.  But the one thing that I absolutely, positively, cannot stand is dishonesty.  Maybe I'm old school, but my folks raised me to believe honesty and integrity meant everything to a man.  

When AFDave started posting, I thought he and I could have some interesting talks, especially since we had a common EE background and aerospace experience.  However, it soon became apparent that lying and dishonesty came as easy as breathing to Dave.  The more I tried to engage him, the more dishonest and evasive he became.  That, coupled with his titanic ego, pushed me over the edge.  I admit I was quite verbally abusive, but it came from pure frustration in dealing with such a dishonest sh*t.  If ever the phrase 'Liar for Jesus' applies, it's to Dave Hawkins.

I'm not very religious, but I've always lived my life by the golden rule.  If someone is honest and fair with me, they get my respect and attention even if our views differ.  But lie to me, act like a cowardly blowhard, and the gloves come off.  I have no problems with banning someone like Dave, not for their views but after they've shown no capacity for honest discussion.

I haven't had any dealings with GOP, although I believe he admitted he was just trolling for fun.  Certainly worth a warning or time out, if not an outright ban.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,00:19   

Quote (Louis @ ,)
Stevestory's announcement that the AFDave experience was going to die:

Not to comment on moderation ;), but:

If I was going to give Paley the benefit of the doubt, I'd mention that your quote of Steve was not the post that terminated afdave's thread (within the following 250 posts). Here is the relevant post, which does prominently feature the "making anticreationists look bad" angle:  
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,12:52)
Announcement:

[pic]

I've been thinking on it overnight, and reading email, and I've come to a conclusion. A few people want to insult Davy and Davy wants to blabber nonsense and pretend he's winning and such. That's true. Some people want to Stay the Course. But the thread is worthless w/r/t the board, and figuring out new ways to call him ShitForBrains Liar Moron Embezzeler Dave is not doing anybody any good, and is degrading to the board. So this thread is going to end. we're not going to Cut and Run, we're going to do a Phased Withdrawal. The previous AFDave thread got 6,047 responses. This one's currently on 4725. So make the next 275 posts count, because at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end. After that, I'm sure AFDave will be welcome at Alan Fox's blog or he can continue this on his own blog, or wherever else.


However, in my opinion, the quote that Louis did post, which came a short time earlier, is actually the one that is the most important, and clearly describes the situation more accurately.


[eagles lost, I'm drunk, there's probly more spelling errors that I missed...]

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,02:28   

Ved,

Fair point well made. My only excuse is that it was late and I forgot to include it. Not a good excuse. Therefore:

Ved's comment should stand as an addendum to my post, possibly giving GoP more benefit of the doubt that I originally have.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,06:06   

The folks here at AtBC have NEVER treated me with anything but respect, and I have felt welcomed, not discriminated against.

I have noticed that those who are treated poorly are those who tend to treat others poorly.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,09:18   

As a further addendum, allow me to also point out that even after all that, Dave is still permitted to eructate his same old bull all over the time-honored tradition of The Bathroom Wall.

He's plastering Jeebusdunnit stickers over perfectly good graffiti.  It's has already become "AFDave's Updated Creator God Hypothesis III" and I find that continually offensive and demeaning to the classic artwork found there.

Further, the girls are quite pissed off that he's being allowed to smear his feces all over their cradle.

Just so y'know.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,11:24   

AH Yes indeed! Lou you bring up an excellent point.

The lone cry of "THAT OFFENDS ME!". Davedoodles and GimPy might be offended by how they are treated, and whine like cut cats about it, but you'll note they aren't so considerate when other people's finer feelings might be involved.

Not that anything they say is personally offensive per se. Annoying, yes. Offensive, no.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,11:36   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,11:24)
AH Yes indeed! Lou you bring up an excellent point.

The lone cry of "THAT OFFENDS ME!". Davedoodles and GimPy might be offended by how they are treated, and whine like cut cats about it, but you'll note they aren't so considerate when other people's finer feelings might be involved.

Not that anything they say is personally offensive per se. Annoying, yes. Offensive, no.

Louis

I find an awfull lot of Dave Springer Scot's posts offensive. Very offensive.

The wanker bans people on UD and then tries to charachter assasinate them. That is about as low as you can go on cyberspace.

Here on the other hand. You Louis often use offensive language. However the target deserves it and so I do not blame you 1 bit.

Generally I find peoples behaviour here (by which I mean the regular posters) to be very good.

From the perspective of a poster who has been on both sides.....this side is superior by far in both behaviour and content.

My 2 cents.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,12:20   

Quote
You Louis often use offensive language


Do I bollocks. Fuck off.

Louis

P.S. I am of course, joking. I can't remember who said it but it ran something like this ""Do please go away" is not a polite or adequate substitute for "Fuck directly off"".

P.P.S. On a serious note I DO swear too much. Less than your average touring rugby team I grant you, but more than say, Bob Geldof. However, this is not in any way because I lack a) the vocabulary to find alternatives, or b) the sensitivity to people's feelings a gentleman should exhibit. It is because I truly think that they are the most appropriate terms for the situation. I am excruciatingly unsympathetic to dishonest people. Daveydoodles and GimPy the wonder troll are so fundamentally dishonest that I can feel myself growing a small moustache, wearing a swastika, invading Poland and instigating a genocidal pogrom against liars and creationists. Luckily though I have my razor, my swastika removal kit, my guide book to Gdansk and my "Dictator-Off Genocidal Pogrom removal kit".

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,12:32   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,12:20)
Quote
You Louis often use offensive language


Do I bollocks. Fuck off.

Louis

LMFAO.

Being serious, you don't really swear too much. The people it is aimed at, deserve it. You wanker!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,12:41   

Quote
You wanker!


Only if there's nobody watching.

Louis

P.S. On the issue of finding D'Tard's posts offensive. Nope. I find his continued existence offensive, but then I'm the shy, sensitive type. ;-)

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,13:13   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,12:41)
Quote
You wanker!


Only if there's nobody watching.

Louis

Chickenshit.

Free your body, free your mind.  Head for Leicester Square and do it there.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,14:37   

Lou,

I did that once. How do you think I met my wife?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,19:50   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,14:37)
Lou,

I did that once. How do you think I met my wife?

Louis

How do you think I met your mother? Homo. -dt

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,21:32   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,14:37)
Lou,

I did that once. How do you think I met my wife?

Louis

Adds a new meaning to the phrase "trolling for chicks", doesn't it?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2007,22:35   

I -- being the extremely sensitive and civilized sort -- cannot abide the fearful extremities of language I have encountered here; blasphemy, cursing, insults and vulgarities of the lowest, basest sort.

I cringe each time my delicate sensibilites are assaulted by the filthy vileness interwoven amidst the fragile petals of logic and reason in these threads.

Shame on you all!  *shakes his finger roundly*

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:31   

Arden,

Quote
How do you think I met your mother? Homo. -dt


My mother's dead.

Louis

P.S. Naaaaaah not really. The old dear is alive and well. It's just the best answer to any mother joke. The room goes silent, the mother joker looks guilty. The tension is best broken I find with a long pause, a serious demenour, followed by ".....I wish!"

P.P.S. Child of D'Tard! YIKES! What a burden that would be. One would have to dedicate one's life to universal servitude to work off that genetic burden of bad karma.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:35   

Lou,

Quote
Adds a new meaning to the phrase "trolling for chicks", doesn't it?


And has the pleasant advantage of making the police very reluctant to handle you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:54   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:35)
Lou,

Quote
Adds a new meaning to the phrase "trolling for chicks", doesn't it?


And has the pleasant advantage of making the police very reluctant to handle you.

Louis

Please please please. Let's not go into this pathetic level of detail. You are disturbing my mental equilibrium.

The title of this thread is?
hehehe
The irony.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,04:57   

Stephen,

Yeah I know. Ironic isn't it?

Ok enough stories about me flogging the dolphin in public places. Such things will only cause the Troll to blow his wad and start telling us that I'm a coward for not battering a wanking tramp.

Anyone have any comments on my OP other than to agree or continue the wanking theme?

Anyone? Anyone at all? Please! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,05:48   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,04:57)
Stephen,

Yeah I know. Ironic isn't it?

Ok enough stories about me flogging the dolphin in public places. Such things will only cause the Troll to blow his wad and start telling us that I'm a coward for not battering a wanking tramp.

Anyone have any comments on my OP other than to agree or continue the wanking theme?

Anyone? Anyone at all? Please! ;-)

Louis

Nah!
Do as you please, when doing what pleases you.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,06:13   

This from S Fry Esq deals with a lot of the nonsense we deal with here and abroad:

Quote
From his radio broadcast, "Trefusis Blasphemes":
"I am a lover of truth, a worshipper of freedom, a celebrant at the altar of language and purity and tolerance. That is my religion, and every day I am sorely, grossly, heinously and deeply offended, wounded, mortified and injured by a thousand different blasphemies against it. When the fundamental canons of truth, honesty, compassion and decency are hourly assaulted by fatuous bishops, pompous, illiberal and ignorant priests, politicians and prelates, sanctimonious censors, self-appointed moralists and busy-bodies, what recourse of ancient laws have I? None whatever. Nor would I ask for any. For unlike these blistering imbeciles my belief in my religion is strong and I know that lies will always fail and indecency and intolerance will always perish."


Sure he's waxing metaphorical, but that's not great crime.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,07:47   

Personally, I think some level of civility is necessary to ensure that a debate gets off to a good start.  Once the Creationist has shown themselves to be a confused weirdo without good intent, then you can start being uncivil.  Occaisionally they do actually have reasonably good intent, but have wondered in waaayyyy over their depth.  But on these occaisions it is usually quite clear, so I keep on being civil.  
Whereas if they prevaricate and continually miss the point, i will get a bit sarcastic and ironic.  Blatant insults are no fun for me.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,07:58   

Guthrie,

Granted. I'd agree with all of that.

And if your creationist deliberately lies, distorts, claims unwarranted "victory", libels, refuses to deal with the evidence in front of them, refuses to answer honest polite questions, projects their petty insecurities, claims it's all part of some conspiracy...etc what do you do then?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,08:37   

I suppose it depends on the venue.  I've been arguing with some creationists, (including one who claims not to be but does parrot their stuff) on a BBC blog.  Hence the debate has been lacking in f and c and h words, due to it being in a highly public place, and if we all started swearing at each other I'm sure the radio presenter whose blog it is might bring it up on the radio, which would be embarrasing.
On the other hand, places like Guardian univeral talk and some other venues have very high tolerance of swearing and nastiness.

Or you can just ban them.  
It is however helpful to be able to refer back to when the creationist is being stupid, so that newcomers who ask "Why are you being so nasty?" can have a reply thus:  "See posts 3, 18, 24, 25, 26, 39 etc"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,09:29   

Guthrie,

Re: BBC boards, yes absolutely, some fora are very unhappy about f and c words. I have to wonder about h words though. What are they? (Imagination seems to have failed me this afternoon)

I have no problem with a creationist being stupid. Stupidity isn't a crime. I have no problem with a creationist being ignorant. Ignorance isn't a crime. I have no problem with a creationist being misled. Gullibility isn't a crime. I have no problem with a creationist being apathetic. Apathy isn't a crime. You'll never find me upset with someone just because of those traits.

If a creationist is deliberately dishonest in order to decieve others or to "score points", THEN you find me being extremely short with them. I consider deliberate, willful dishonesty and deliberate stupidity (as opposed to simply being a bit thick) in order to prevent oneself from conceding a lost argument or to decieve others or to play some silly point scoring game to be VASTLY more uncivil and impolite (by the very definition of those words) than calling someone fifty seven types of "bastard", three type of "twat" and a brace of "cunts". With a healthy dose of "fuckings" liberally sprinkled into the mix.

Civil discourse, shit, the entirity of civilisation does not rest in any way shape or form on the use or lack of use of certain Anglo Saxon and Middle English words. The very values of the Enlightenment, the foundations of our civilisation, our system of government, our morals, thics and interpersonal relationships DO rest on the pillars of honesty and integrity in a very very real sense. Just because I use a naughty word to describe a deliberately dishonest creationist does not even remotely put me into the same league as them, i.e. someone who would delieberately distort and lie in order to decieve.

I don't understand anyone who would chastise a person for using the word "cunt" (for example) before they would chastise a proven liar.

Granted the use of the word "cunt" might be a distraction, a tactical error, an excuse for the lying swine it is used to describe to obfuscate in such a manner as to disguise their own wrongdoing, but that STILL doesn't absolve people's responsibility not to tolerate dishonesty in themselves or others.

Dawkins dreams of a day when the phrase "A catholic child" grates on the ears in the same way the word "nigger" or the phrase "it's a man's world" do now, and for much the same reason. It's a dream I share. I also dream of a day when some freshly spavined drip of badger sputumn posing in a cassock is openly, unyieldingly, and without remorse questioned on his/her assumptive dishonesty. Why let liars get away with it? Just because they don't use the word "cunt"? I dream of a day when the standard of public and private discourse is raised to a truly civil level, one in which we respect the subjects we discuss and who we discuss them with sufficiently that we refer to the objective standard of evidence as much as we possibly can. One in which we are scrupulously honest.

I would rather have Tony Blair come onto my TV and tell me that he wasn't going to listen to the "asinine opinions of a bunch of unelected cunts" than slide and slither around acheiving exactly the same result, saying exactly the same thing and have people think "oh isn't he a nice man, we think he's lying but he didn't call us "cunts" so it's ok".

I'm extremely fed up (is it obvious?) with the crass double standard of openly tolerating liars because they work on their PR, and berating someone for the vastly milder offence of saying "Wait a minute, he's lying. The dishonest cunt".

Louis

P.S. This post contains 9 10 cunts, 2 fucks (or variants), 2 twats, 2 bastards, and 2 shits. That's including this postscript. That's a lot of cunts.

P.P.S. Perhaps I should mention that an argument is formally invalidated by being based on false premises or by being dishonestly or fallaciously structured. It is not invalidated by the use of the word "cunt" at any point within it.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,09:50   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,09:29)
Guthrie,

Re: BBC boards, ...

Hey Louis, guess what?
I do not dissagree with anything you said in that post.
(again)
Dishonesty anoys me more than just about anything else. One of the reasons De-Tard and the ID movement (or at least the leadership of it) bug me.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:05   

h word?  Come on, did you not sleep last night?  What h word is censored here?

Actually, how come the swear words are getting through?

As for lying creationists, with regards to TiS, I like to inquire about how come the essay on horse evolution on their website is functionally equivalent to a creationist essay available on the web, only its had references to the flood etc removed.  If that isnt dishonest, I dont know what is.  So far the person I've asked this of has not replied.

Finally, given what we use them for, and often seem obsessed with using them, why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:09   

Quote
h word?  Come on, did you not sleep last night?  What h word is censored here?


Oops. Erm, as it happens no I didn't sleep very well, but it was inexcusable of me to forget the h word. Thanks for the reminder.

Quote
...why are the generative organs so often used as insulting names?


Not a clue. I've never understood why sex is "naughty" either. If you based your ideas on TV/film you'd think it was perfectly ok to give someone a baseball bat to the back of the head but an orgasm is a total no no. Go figure. Probably something to do with the French.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:14   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,10:09)
Probably something to do with the French.

Louis

H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.
*waves 2 fingers and goes to practice archery*







Only kidding.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,10:42   

I thought it was our "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity" kind of protestantism that did it.  
Then the USA'ians took it over and mutated it into its modern forms.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,12:16   

Stephen,

Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this

Quote
H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.


isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified.

The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,12:40   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,12:16)
Stephen,

Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this

   
Quote
H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.


isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified.

The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel.

Louis

Pfffft! In the words of the good duke Wellington "death to the French!" Confound them, #### your eyes!


and any other "Johnny Foriegner" too. Including the #### uppity colonials on this board.

/Lord Errington-Smythe (1st chief biggot)

See how Civility I can be? Not a single F word.

EDIT: Except for French of course.....curses!
EDIT2: and Foriegner....curses squared.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,13:17   

Re "sex is sinful and your body should be flagellated at every opportunity"

Does that have something to do with flagella being "designed"? ;)

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,15:06   

It was AFDave's continued practice of quote-mining to prove his points that turned his arguments into nothing more than grade school oneupsmanship.  A silly tactic that put me off replying to the rubbish he presented.

I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything (i.e. AFDave was not a "master of the quote-mined word" or "master of the creationist word definition").  In my eyes AFDave regressed as time went on.  His debating tactics were limited to begin with.  He presented hard data less and less as time went on.  When the board consistently beat his presented arguments to a pink mist time and time again then AFDave was left with nothing more than semantics and word games.  He dared not put forward any hard data to support his views because he knew the treatment that was in store for him.

I support steve in closing the thread, it wasn't adding anything to any discussion this forum is created for (it's impact to the forum was complete before UCGH I was finished).  And AFDave was duly warned to "improve" his game or face restrictions and/or limitations.  Unfortunately for AFDave, he couldn't improve or change his discourse so the threatened action was carried out to the letter.  I for one was hoping that AFDave could change his stripes, but he kept up his inane semantics and c&p crusade that didn't add any worthwhile discussion to the thread or to the board.

As for posting on the Bathroom Wall, at present I see the responders (troll feeders) as guilty as AFDave for the continued "discussion".  Treat AFDave on the Bathroom Wall like hereoisreal was treated on his own thread, ignore the itch and the itch should go away.  This tactic is unenforcable to everyone, but as more people stop responding then AFDave becomes more of a voice in the wilderness.

Does a creationist argument sound stupid if there is no one there to hear it?  Let's find out.

Mike PSS

  
ke.



Posts: 9
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:04   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,12:40)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2007,12:16)
Stephen,

Even though I know what you meant, and you were joking, this

     
Quote
H Yes! Blame the surrender monkeys.


isn't what I meant. My bad I should have clarified.

The wonderful rivalry that the UK and France have had over the years has meant that anything the British have considered naughty has been attributed to the French. French kissing, French letters, Frenchification (getting syphilis) and so on and so forth. It was this I meant when I said it's "probably something to do with the French". Not blaming them, but mocking the British tendency to attribute matters prurient to our cousins across the Channel.

Louis

Pfffft! In the words of the good duke Wellington "death to the French!" Confound them, #### your eyes!


and any other "Johnny Foriegner" too. Including the #### uppity colonials on this board.

/Lord Errington-Smythe (1st chief biggot)

See how Civility I can be? Not a single F word.

EDIT: Except for French of course.....curses!
EDIT2: and Foriegner....curses squared.

Well as GWB said "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur" so consequently we can blame them for screwing up the English language, making GWB a gauche petit Garçon, as well as making the English prudes       :O

And uppity colonials ? ......Ashes 5-0 maybe you're Lordship  shouldn't have sent your best ..er 'entrepreneurs' to The Provence of Georgia and then Botany Bay (snicker)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:21   

K.E.

Don't make me explain again what Test matches are a test of. ;-)

BTW well done. We were shocking. Ach how the mighty are fallen. But we will rise again, oh yes, we will.

Not for a while probably!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,03:29   

Quote (ke. @ Jan. 16 2007,03:04)
And uppity colonials ? ......Ashes 5-0 maybe you're Lordship  shouldn't have sent your best ..er 'entrepreneurs' to The Provence of Georgia and then Botany Bay (snicker)

Don't think I don't know what you are up to here. You are trying to prove superior sporting prowess for the side you support and are stooping to using facts.

You dastardly swine. All sorts could be proven if you use facts. Sneaky underhanded tactic.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:05   

As a soon-to-be resident of Aotearoa, Bay of Plenty region (what you pakeha bastards call New Zealand)...I have only one thing to say: Go All Blacks!.

This has nothing to do with the fact that my honey's brothers -- all six of them-- are huge Mo-Fo's that back the side, and they're not the biggest guys in the entire extended family. 157-167 cm, 113-122 kg seems the average. If you hear me screaming, send lawyers, guns and money.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:17   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,00:05)
... Go All Blacks!...

Yeh, all blacks. Go. In fact, bugger off. As far away as possible.


Ok Ok Ok I quotemined, distorted etc.
"C'Mon Wigan!" (but the 1980's cool Wigan, rather than the wasted remnant we have now).

EDIT: F'Kin antipodeans think they are goood just coz they win most competitions. Bloody Johnny upstarts the lot'a'ya!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,09:01   

Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien.

Louis

* Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,10:02   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,08:05)
As a soon-to-be resident of Aotearoa, Bay of Plenty region (what you pakeha bastards call New Zealand)...I have only one thing to say: Go All Blacks!.

This has nothing to do with the fact that my honey's brothers -- all six of them-- are huge Mo-Fo's that back the side, and they're not the biggest guys in the entire extended family. 157-167 cm, 113-122 kg seems the average. If you hear me screaming, send lawyers, guns and money.

Now, now supporting the All Blacks in NZ is PURELY voluntary. Doing it in Australia - a calling, for expat Kiwis, especially since it get up the noses of our colonial cousins. <snigger>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:34   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:01)
Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien.

Louis

* Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty.

Let's be fair to demaillen.  He/she is probably unaware of the history of Avo, and probably only wants to ensure civil discourse so that we remain above the fundies and their level (i.e. don't sink to their level.)  It's an important thing to remember, as I know that sometimes I step over the line and need reminding from time to time.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:43   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05)
... lawyers, guns and money.

I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2007,18:43)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05)
... lawyers, guns and money.

I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

Autodidact, IQ 150+ DaveTard?

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,17:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2007,17:43)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 17 2007,01:05)
... lawyers, guns and money.

I've heard this phrase in several different places. It's the name of a blog, it's the name of a song, etc. Anybody know what the origin of the phrase is?

Warren Zevon, the immortal Warren's immortal song "Lawyers, Guns and Money". You're either very very young (anyone at all younger than I am), or, or, oh, heck, this is a thread about civility. . . go download the song and learn it. It comes in handy.

Ra-Ul

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,18:58   

Raul = correct, that was my reference. And a #### great song, exemplary of Zevon's genius.

edit: steve--I'm trying to locate if it has anything to do with Hunter S. Thompson, but it seems to keep coming back to Zevon more or less originating it as a catchphrase.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2007,19:00   

Quote
I won't attribute his tactics to mastery in anything


mastery of bation, perhaps?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,02:52   

OK, Ported from the Avo "thread":

Demallien 1

Cedric 1

Louis 1

Demallien 2

Deadman 1

Cedric 2

Louis 2

Demallien 3

Darth 1

Demallien 4

Louis 3

Demallien 5

Louis 4

GCT 1

GCT 2

SteveStory 1

Lenny 1

Demallien 6

Demallien 7

Demallien 8

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,03:05   

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 31 2007,17:34)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2007,10:01)
Bumped for the edification and amusement of our new* friend Demallien.

Louis

* Hmmmmmm. I'll reserve judgement on this supposed novelty.

Let's be fair to demaillen.  He/she is probably unaware of the history of Avo, and probably only wants to ensure civil discourse so that we remain above the fundies and their level (i.e. don't sink to their level.)  It's an important thing to remember, as I know that sometimes I step over the line and need reminding from time to time.

It's 'she'.  And I've been around on PT long enough to be well aware of Avocationist's history.  The thing is, in the recent thread, she has been polite, and as far as I can tell, honest.  Previous efforts should not be held against a person, when it's clear that they have ceased infringing.  Otherwise I would be obliged to treat Louis as a bullying git for the rest of his days...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,03:51   

Demallien,

Quote
OK, Louis, let's look at the "argument" then.  In gross terms, I called Lenny on abusive behaviour, and you butted in, and attacked me (well, originally just my critique of Lenny, but it's got steadily more personal the longer things have gone on) instead.  That, overall, Louis, is the "argument".  Everthing else is to be read in that context.

You're right about the quote I gave defending Lenny's annoyance.  You can infact interpret it very narrowly, as you propose.  Indeed, at first, that's how I interpreted it too.  But later on, with your own admission that you are downright abusive, and that you aren't going to apologise with that, plus the famous frying pan comment have caused me to re-evaluate the first quote more widely, with 'annoyance' becoming an euphimism for 'abuse'.


I think this first bit sums up your problem. You consider people's tone "abusive" if the word "fuck" (or whatever) is used, I don't. When I said I was occasionally abusive I wasn't defending outright abuse in the sense of your pub analogy, or even saying I do it (I don't) what I was talking about was that, as a fallible human being I am far from above calling a lying wanker a lying wanker should the mood take me (and additionally I could [and have] mount a relatively robust defense of said terminology). This directly implies that there must be some prior history of lying wankerism before the utterance is made. So no Demallien, I have NOT admitted to being abusive in the sense YOU mean it, I have admitted to being abusive in the sense I mean it, and have taken great pains to define what that is. Nice strawman, no dice.

Here's the full comment:

Quote
I agree with you that simply abusing Avo (or anyone like her) is not the way forward, and sorry but I personally have not SIMPLY abused anyone ever. Note key word. I might get extremely pissed off with people mincing about and being dishonest before you would do so, and I'll cheerfully hold my hands up to being an intolerant bastard on that front. And yes I am very likely to use colourful expressions, allusions, metaphors and indeed outright abusive statements when so annoyed. I don't apologise for that, sorry if that hurts.


We can tell the part you quote isn't the full thing because, in the interests of naughty grammar, I started the section you quote with a conjunction, "and". The full quote rather molifies your use of it doesn't it? Not only that but it refers to my eplanation of what abuse is and isn't, something you continually miss.

Also you seem to be under the incredibly erroneous impression that you have been attacked personally. Need I point out the irony of this from someone who has called me a bully, insinuated that I am a coward (with no basis in fact might I add), said I'm condescending, aggressive (hold my hand high up on this one! ), judgemental and snide. I could take offense if I were a sensitive flower! Luckily I'm not. This again is I think your reading of "tone" as you wish to see it, not (perhaps) as it is. Granted I am far from above sarcasm, but when, after going around this I think three times and you STILL are pulling a Humpty Dumpty (words mean whatever I say they mean) my patience, such as it is, is being tried. I have made it abundantly clear precisely what I mean by the word abuse (amongst other things), precisely what I consider abusive and precisely when and where I would or do use abuse. You are free to differ, but at least do so by answering the points and questions I've made rather than insisting your interpretation is the correct one and my own clearly stated one is not. The simple fact that you repeatedly infer that what YOU mean abuse to be (your, let's be honest, ridiculous and inaccurate pub analogy) is what I mean it to be when I have clearly stated that it isn't and defined what it IS doesn't fill me with any confidence that this is a productive discussion. Sorry if you don't like that.

The rest of your post is paranoid blither. Sorry, but it's just amusing. You seem to have taken massive umbrage at the question "are you an old friend Demallien?". Dare I say thanks for proving my point for me. You are so keen to see abuse and so keen to see hostility that you'll twist anything to be so. I freely admit to a degree of paranoia in even asking that question, but I'm also sad to say that I've often be proven right when I ask it. If have have unduly wronged you Demallien, then I apologise unreservedly. As a corrollary to that apology I will mention that your desire to see hostility where none exists and the manner in which you argue thus far does put me in mind of another poster. If my fallible human mind has made a connection and pattern which is false, then I can only say that I was wrong to make that connection and apologise.

As for ad hominem and my thinking you're a creationist, sorry but where have I done that (outside your interpretation of course)? I couldn't give a hoot if you are a creationist or not, I'm pretty sure that your evangelical atheist status and support of evolutionary biology is irrelevant to this discussion as indeed is mine. I'm chuffed we're on the same "team" but so what? Not only do I not think in "team" on this or indeed many other issues (I prefer to deal with people as individuals as far as is practicable). Would you like me to read a number of possible inferences into this particular comment of yours? Just to reiterate, ad hominem, where? Where have I made any argument of the form "Demallien (or anyone) is a nasty X/does nasty X/has nasty X and therefore his/her argument about unrelated topic Y is false"? Simple answer is I haven't. I don't expect an apology of course, just like I didn't expect one when you deliberately quote mined (yes that is taken out of context and inserted your own meaning)what I said about Lenny's justifiable annoyance (not abuse, there is STILL a difference). You even admit you were wrong to do so right before flipping back to justifying your "interpretation". Sorry chum, no dice yet again.

Frying pans. Now Demallien, like I said before you are a very uncharitable reader of what I wrote, it is just possible isn't it that I said what I meant (that the frying pan analogy was a cartoon, a humourous mental image like a Roadrunner cartoon)? If we really want to get all lit crit about the use of people's imagery might I draw your attention to your own comments re: dental rearrangement? I'm just curious to note that the first instance of what you in your own words consider abusive imagery was done by you. Personally, I don't consider that use of image abusive, but you do by the force of your own words. Dare I offer an OOPS on your behalf?

Oh and my writing lacks clarity? Perhaps you aren't sufficiently intelligent or well educated to comprehend the plainly written English word. This is, I will hasten to add, a possibility I don't even want to begin to consider, but if we are being honest it is at least at first glance a likely a possibility as my writing being obscure. I could make the comment that, since you seem keen to insist that what I mean by a term that I have clearly defined is what YOU mean by a term, less clearly defined if at all, that I have a degree of evidence to support this most unfortunate possibility. But then I'm more charitable than you, so I won't.

Perhaps Demallien, you might find I am eminently more reasonable if you assume I mean precisely what I say, rather than what you THINK I mean. That will also apply to your doubtless forthcoming character assassination based on my invidious and evil posts past.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:07   

OH and P.S. You have ignored repeated requests from me to answer a simple question:

Quote
That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?


Quote
Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying?


I also asked this same question with reference to the productivity of discussion.

This is not irrelevant and cuts to the very heart of why I would defend Lenny's annoyance (and perhaps even how he has expressed it, this is a separate issue as I remind you frequently) and decry someone else's dishonesty. Here's another analogy: in a war torn city my army had just conquered I would shoot those soliders who raped and merely punish those soldiers who looted. This is becaue I am explicitly making the value judgement that rape is a more severe crime than looting. Perhaps this is an imperfect analogy. On a message board such as this I consider dishonesty, willful ignorance (not mere default ignorance) and obfuscation as VASTLY more a hinderance to civil, rational, informative, productive discourse than any amount of what you might consider "abuse" (excepting the one straw scenario you make of the second a creationist enters a room someone yells "ARGH BLOODYFUCKCREATIONISTCUNTBUBBLESCUMBAGCUMSKIPBLEARGHH" which we both agree is not very useful and bloody horrible).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:20   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,03:51)

Louis, I'm not going to waste people's time trying to argue the difference between what you have written, and what you have meant.  Suffice to say, considering your objections to my interpretations, that there is apparently a great difference between the two.

This whole discussion has come about because I told Lenny to cool it on the abuse, and you jumped in to defend him.  Let's cut to the chase Louis.  Answer me these following, simple, questions:

1) Do you think that what Lenny has written on the Avocationist thread is abusive or not?

2) If the answer to the first question is yes, do you think that such abuse is acceptable on this forum.

This is my only point in this entire farce.  I've had a gutful of you launching strawmen (don't challenge me on this one Louis, I can give you at least three from your last post alone), making insinuations against my honesty, and your suggestions that I don't know how to read.  Come on Louis, instead of dancing around with ridiculous hypotheticals, how about you tell us exactly where you stand on Lenny's actions ion the Avocationist thread.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,04:07)
OH and P.S. You have ignored repeated requests from me to answer a simple question:

 
Quote
That makes me think of a question: which is the most rude/offensive/abusive/impolite of the two acts: The lie of the proven liar or the comment of the person that points this out to him/her? I would argue the former, are you arguing the latter?


 
Quote
Again the question becomes which is worse/ruder/more impolite etc using the word "fuck" or lying?


I also asked this same question with reference to the productivity of discussion.

This is not irrelevant and cuts to the very heart of why I would defend Lenny's annoyance (and perhaps even how he has expressed it, this is a separate issue as I remind you frequently) and decry someone else's dishonesty. Here's another analogy: in a war torn city my army had just conquered I would shoot those soliders who raped and merely punish those soldiers who looted. This is becaue I am explicitly making the value judgement that rape is a more severe crime than looting. Perhaps this is an imperfect analogy. On a message board such as this I consider dishonesty, willful ignorance (not mere default ignorance) and obfuscation as VASTLY more a hinderance to civil, rational, informative, productive discourse than any amount of what you might consider "abuse" (excepting the one straw scenario you make of the second a creationist enters a room someone yells "ARGH BLOODYFUCKCREATIONISTCUNTBUBBLESCUMBAGCUMSKIPBLEARGHH" which we both agree is not very useful and bloody horrible).

Louis

I didn't answer the questions because they are strawmen Louis.  You are offering a false choice between accepting lies, or accepting abuse.  I have never claimed that I thought lying was acceptable, and I choose to accept neither.  

But here's the thing: lies are not so easy to be sure of.  Unless someone blatantly contradicts themself with provable intent to deceive, or mistates a known factwith provable intent to deceive, you can't know someone is lying.  Abuse on the other hand is there before our eyes.  It can, and in my opinion should, be policed.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:41   

No Demallien, they are not choices or strawmen. As I've repeatedly said this, for me, isn't just about what Lenny said to Avo, it's about a bigger consideration. How can they be strawmen if they are my opnely stated intent from the word go? Wow! Way to go. It is a simple question (actually two) which do you consider ruder, dishonesty or abuse, and which do you consider less conducive to productive discussion, dishonesty or abuse. It's not an either/or or black/white question it's a question about where YOU personally place the two naughtinesses relative to one another. So even your "interpretation" of  very simple questions is paranoidly seeing hostility where none exists.

Yet again I note that you are insisting that what YOU think I mean is what I mean when I've said it really isn't.

I'll tell you what Demallien, I'll answer your questions when a) you answer mine, and b) you deal with my argument as it is, not as you think it is. I am not responsible for your strawmen, sorry.

Louis

P.S. Let's just remind you what you are objecting to (added in edit)

Quote
He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo.

Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous.

Eh, but what do I know.

Louis


--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,04:49   

Actually, scratch all the above, I've got a better idea.

In the interests of a productive and civil discussion where no one is called a bully or has their ability to read for comprehension questioned (or what have you), how about we try this:

Demallien: you define what you mean by abuse, with examples. I'll do the same. Sound fair?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:54   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,04:41)
I'll tell you what Demallien, I'll answer your questions when a) you answer mine, and b) you deal with my argument as it is, not as you think it is. I am not responsible for your strawmen, sorry.

Louis

P.S. Let's just remind you what you are objecting to (added in edit)

Quote
He11 I'll fly over and perform an intimate and pleasant act on you if you get a coherent expression of the "science" behind ID from Avo.

Whilst I'm not in the category of "annoyed" that Lenny apparently is in (not that I think said category is in any way indefensible, it's well justified IMO) but I'd agree with Cedric and Lenny, making grandiose claims and flannelling about them when you admittedly and obviously have not the first inklings of a clue about the relevant topics is staggeringly rude. Simply staggeringly so. People get bent out of shape about the use of the word "fuck" and the occasional knob joke, but seriously saying that all scientists are part of some global anti-god/anti-ID conspiracy and deliberately remaining blisteringly ignorant of the actual facts because of one's personal agenda is so amazingly rude that it borders on the miraculous.

Eh, but what do I know.

Louis

Yes, they are strawmen Louis.  The discussion has always been about Lenny's behaviour.  You chose to reply to a post that talked explicitly and uniquely about Lenny's abuse of Avocationist.

And, in case you missed the obvious, I've already answered your questions.  If I haven't been clear enough, I'll answer them again, so that the slow of wit can keep up:
Neither lying, nor abuse is acceptable.  As neither is acceptable, the question of which is "worse" is completely redundant.


Now, how about you answer mine.  Or are you going to try and bluff your way out again?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:56   

Since this sort of exchange has happened to me before ( in the AFDave thread) I'll throw my two cents in. This is what I wrote at that time, about some "mystery complainant" who had e-mailed a moderator:
 
Quote
1) I've made a point of actually keeping accounts on the language that I've used since I VOLUNTEERED to tone down my use of "profanity" ---and the WORST thing that I've said since then was "calling Dave "fecal slime" for deliberately skewing my statements on chess-playing computers and saying that I somehow claimed natural selection was "intelligent." Last that I looked, "feces" wasn't "obscene"

2) I don't view my deliberate use of insults as "madness" nor does the use of any profanity neccessarily indicate "anger." I take issue with anyone small-minded enough to claim this.

3) The mystery e-mailer uses " you can bet your ass" while bemoaning the use of profanities?

4) The e-mailer expresses concern simultaneously that lurkers may misinterpret Occam and myself...then states that lurkers have " by and large decloaked" so (apparently) the thread should be closed due to lack of ...what, readership? And the e-mailer is "concerned" about non-existent readers?  If there's so few readers, then why be concerned about how a few may interpret my use of insults? And why should I care if Dave will carry my insults about as indictments of how mean scientists are?

IF a person is so stupid as to accept Dave's word for things, WITHOUT looking at the data, then that person isn't going to be amenable to any kind of rational persuasion -- I give you Dave as an example of that.

5) IF any of my colleagues or friends DELIBERATELY went about lying, weaseling, using the tactics Dave has here, you can bet **your** ass I would use harsh language to express my displeasure.

6 ) I agree that words have meaning and there are many types of verbal aggression, ranging from slight disparagement, slurs, to outright "vile" language...but WHAT terms are considered "vile" vary from context to context both geographically and temporally.
Shakespeare is replete with outright vulgarities ("bescumber, "pizzle," coynt" ) The Bible contains terms and images ( "Song of Solomon" anyone?) considered obscene and blasphemous at many time periods ( including DIRECTIONS to eating shit) .
There is a huge degree of arbitrariness about what IS vulgar and what is not--If we were consistent, yelling 'Angels!', 'Mucous!', and 'Birthing!' would be just as bad as saying "Christ!", shit! or Damm!". During the Victorian period, a LEG was "vulgar" and a gentleperson spoke of a piano "limb" -- I'm sure you would be thrown out of a party if you even said "groin," yet today this is seen as quaint....which itself ( the word "quaint") meant "cunt" in Shakespeare's day (Chaucer used it as well).

So, today, what IS profanity and blasphemy? "Damm","Crap" "bitch" and other terms are found in all mass media. But people are interested in POWER, so they try to control language, as Orwell pointed out. What are the effects of this? Well, there are over 400 instances of book censorship reported each year to the American Library Association...because of "vulgar" ideas and words.

Look at the example of censorship in Panama City, Florida, where "not too long ago, the grim children's book , "I Am the Cheese" by Robert Cormier, and also "About David" by Susan Beth Pfeffer... were targeted by censors for being "depressing, vulgar, and immoral." They were banned from the curriculum. But this was just the beginning. One year later, 65 further books were removed from the curriculum and from classroom libraries for being "vulgar," "obscene," or "sexually related." Among the affected works were three works of the American canon: "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee, Stephen Crane's "The Red Badge of Courage," and John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" -along with "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Bronte and four of Shakespeare's plays... They were only protecting, they felt, impressionable young Floridians from Shakespeare's "lack of moral tenor." Three other Shakespeare plays were on their hit list as well: King Lear, The Merchant of Venice, and Twelfth Night." ( Quoted from http://www.macondo.nu/Hemliga/hemliga_extra_Garret.htm)

7)  I realize that people have their own ideas of propriety. I realize that they want to put on the best possible face to informal forums like this, but THIS IS NOT A FORMAL DEBATE. Neither I nor anyone ELSE here represents " all scientists" or "science" in general, and anyone stupid enough to think so is simply too stupid to care about.

I also realize that people who view my RECENT use of language as somehow unbearably or degradingly obscene ...are not going to be mollified by any of the points I make here...they can argue that ANY vulgarity denigrates science and would cause the fundamentalists to cry out( yet Cheney and Bush use "a$$hole" and "fuck" in other arenas without any great outcry from the religious right). That leads me to my last point...hypocrisy

I don't believe that terms for sex or bodily functions are "obscene" People try to control the language of others to control PEOPLE, and I'm not real fond of that.

The most common objections to "vulgarities" or "Profanity" is that  ( as the emailer above claimed) it's "uncivilized" yet it's present in all civilizations, bar none. I would argue that a CIVILIZED person would prefer to use vulgarities to actual violence or even INDIRECT actions leading to harm, such as firing a worker or banning them from a Mormon church,for example,  and I sure as he11 would have preferred Bush to cuss out Saddam rather than attack him, but I suppose the emailer is looking for a perfect world, in which no "offensive" language is ever used as insult...yet even the Victorians couldn't eliminate it, or the hypocrisy that follows it. The Victorians initially saw no vulgarity in child labor and tenements, and were quite fond of jabbering on about "wogs"  but G_D forbid anyone should mention a bull ("male beast" was preferred) So where does it end?

It doesn't so far as history as shown. Ever.

People will argue profanity  "looks bad" ...but then the question becomes WHEN? WHERE? If I use"fecal slime" and not "shit stain" that's okay?  If i say it in French? Tagalog? If I say "FECES" that's GOOD...FOR NOW, but eventually, should that be tossed out, too?

I ALWAYS have given substantive arguments ALWAYS, and I have also "cussed" and I'm not real impressed with ANYONE that cannot separate out the two and only seeks to control language " for appearance's sake"

Others would argue that it's "for the children's sake" that we need to censor the use of language deemed inappropriate... and I'd argue that's nonsense too. We lie to kids every day in this and all other human societies. To claim that children would be harmed by ordinary vulgarities is simply a means of keeping control over children and not allowing them to face the world in which Bush and Cheney DO use such terms, and it's found on the radio and television and newspapers and books. The age for this to be explored is up to each parent, but I have no problem in discussing these topics with ANY kids.

There is a happy medium here and I DO have to seek balance--which is PRECISELY why I "toned down" my language for well over 90 "pages" of this thread, even though I wasn't directly asked to. I'll be happy to be left out of the e-mailer's complaints, too.

Finally, I'd like to leave on this note:

Banish the use of those four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure.
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds
Were vulgar, obscene and impure.
But CHERISH the use of the weak-kneed phrase
That never says quite what YOU mean --
Far better to stick to a hypocrite's ways,
Than be vulgar, or coarse or obscene.
***********************************

I don't have a lot of patience with the kind of blithering, sanctimonious, hypocritical Grundyism that the emailer laid out. If this were a FORMAL forum, I might have never even used "fecal slime" but I wasn't aware that at least one person here found that so offensive that they were ready to get the vapours.


I realize that you're interested in HOW Avocationist ticks, Demallien, but it seems to me that we already have moderators that can be appealed to rather than try to demand that others follow our personal dictates.

It also strikes me as control-freakish to insist that people follow one's own notions of propriety, which can vary wildly. It also seems apparent to me that this can be an unending game of finding "offense" in any least unintended insult or use of "offensive" language and reporting it.

I also note that while I was unfailingly polite to Avocationist, she was impolite to me by using crass generalizations and insulting me and my dear, dear umm.."friend" (okay, she's VERY near and dear to me)   Serendipity here:  

Quote
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48209  (note that is page two of this thread)


Now, if I were a control freak, I could have started screaming then for a moderator to chastise Avocationist... but being tolerant, I decided not to bother...particularly since I can certainly do better at insult and invective than she can.

Here (again, second page of this thread) Avocationist claims that somehow I was tossed from UD twice because I was in error:
Quote
Deadman,

People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions.


And it goes on and on. She avoided every major point and wants to fade into ambiguity and b-s while it's obvious that she knows nothing about the science topics she's dealing with.

She insults and uses "cussing" as well (she used the word "shit" on page 4, I believe)... she eschewed  directly answering direct polite questions, and **I** was unfailingly polite. I did that as an experiment, by the way.

And I don't find anything wrong with calling her a lying little ___ (fill in the blank) at all now, but you do, Demallien. So complain to a moderator.

Again, that's just my two cent's worth and I'm not trying to personally offend you, Demallien...I'm just suggesting that your course of action may not have been all that effective, either.

And I don't excuse Louis at all, he's almost as abrasive as I am. Okay, he might be worse, but that's neither here nor there. He smells funny.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:57   

####, I've got to start remembering to edit the quotes before hitting "add reply"....

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,05:59   

Demallien,

I don't need to bluff, since post #1 I've been totally upfront about that which I consider to be important. Like I said I'll answer your questions when you a) answer mine and b) deal with my argument as it is. Until then there is no point answering your questions because you won't understand the answers just as you don't understand my arguments now. I can't help that, that's YOUR issue, not mine.

Waving the relative importance of the two issues aside with a cheeky handwave is not the same as dealing with them. The question is precisely about the relative importance! I already know you don't like dishonesty etc, you've said as much I'm asking a different question you seem reluctant to answer. I wonder why. DO you see a trap that isn't there?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:03   

Quote
Okay, he might be worse, but that's neither here nor there. He smells funny.


I am worse dammit! What were we talking about?

Oh and that smell: soap. Familiarise yourself with it, forthwith, if not fifthwith. Or at least a powerful eau de cologne, although why anyone would want to smell like a German city I have no idea.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:12   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,05:56)

I'm not the kind of person that goes running to the teacher when I have a problem with someone, deadman.  If I have a problem, I will attempt to resolve it with that person first, as an adult.  It is only after an attempt to talk through the problem fails that I would go to the moderator.  Ask our moderator, I'm sure he prefers my idea to yours - he doesn't want to be continually having to sit in judgement of people on this list.

But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word).

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:18   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,05:59)
Demallien,

I don't need to bluff, since post #1 I've been totally upfront about that which I consider to be important. Like I said I'll answer your questions when you a) answer mine and b) deal with my argument as it is. Until then there is no point answering your questions because you won't understand the answers just as you don't understand my arguments now. I can't help that, that's YOUR issue, not mine.

Waving the relative importance of the two issues aside with a cheeky handwave is not the same as dealing with them. The question is precisely about the relative importance! I already know you don't like dishonesty etc, you've said as much I'm asking a different question you seem reluctant to answer. I wonder why. DO you see a trap that isn't there?

Louis

Louis, I've answered your questions.  I can't respond to your "argument", because it's never clearly stated anywhere, and even if it where, it probably doesn't interest me greatly.  But sure, put in a clear concise statement of what this "argument" and I'll have a bash.  In the meantime, I repeat: 1) Was Lenny abusive in the Avocationist thread, and 2) If so, do you believe such behaviour is acceptable or not.

Come on Louis, what are you hiding?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:24   

Quote
But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word).

Actually, I didn't say that. The crux of my argument was that one should go to the moderator and not try to get compliance with their personal notions of propriety first, particularly when such notions vary wildly.

And I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk.

Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:24   

Quote
Louis, I've answered your questions.  I can't respond to your "argument", because it's never clearly stated anywhere, and even if it where, it probably doesn't interest me greatly.  But sure, put in a clear concise statement of what this "argument" and I'll have a bash.  In the meantime, I repeat: 1) Was Lenny abusive in the Avocationist thread, and 2) If so, do you believe such behaviour is acceptable or not.

Come on Louis, what are you hiding?


The argument isn't clearly stated anywhere? Wow! So many people seem to be able to understand it and yet you don't. Try reading this whole thread, it's only 3 pages I'm sure you'll manage. If you do so without the red mist before your eyes I'm at least relatively confident you'll understand where I (and indeed many others) are coming from.

As for hiding something? Nope, sorry. Just unwilling to be dictated to by someone who manifestly cannot read for a modicum of comprehension, or who is manifestly unwilling to try. I don't know which it is, but it's one of them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:30   

Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not.  Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear.

And you still haven't answered my questions...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:34   

Deadman,

This is my area of confusion also. Demallien seems either incapable of reading, or being unwilling to read, a relatively simple (and in no way hidden or cryptic) argument. He/She/It seems very easily offended and insulted, reading interpretations into people's comments that simply and statedly are not there, whilst at the same time making wild and at least potentially offensive (certainly derogatory) statements about those people. It seems there is a poor degree of ability for self analysis there.

You've noticed a similarity with Avocationist, I've noted one with GoP. Like I said before I'm happy to be wrong (note how easily this comment will be missed), dammit I HOPE I'm wrong, about sock puppetry, but let's be honest, it wouldn't be the first or the last time I was right about it. That's the problem with net discussions: too anonymous, too distant, no consequences.

I think the number of olive branches I've extended already would give any reasonable individual pause, apparently not. I wonder why.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:36   

Out of curiosity (and from the other thread which I interact under Fractatious and Serendipity), but that Dem your first post actually had nothing to do with the topic of ID (I could be wrong and will happily look back over that thread) and now its led to this thread (which was nice of Louis to do). However, the other thread started with "ID and support of it". From my point of view this is merely emotive diversion - if there is a real issue with posts and individuals - that would be something better taken up with the moderators.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:36   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:24)
 
Quote
But I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured (in the Jane Austen sense of the word).

Actually, I didn't say that. The crux of my argument was that one should go to the moderator and not try to get compliance with their personal notions of propriety first, particularly when such notions vary wildly.

And I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk.

Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?"

And you haven't answered mine, "demallien" Your orthography/grammar and "tone" are all amusingly similar to Avocationist. Why do you think that would be?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:41   

No Louis, I'm not GoP, I'm me.  You asked a while back if I'm British.  No, I'm Australian, living in Paris...

But if you think I'm GoP, please, why oh why oh why have I been posting all of those pro science/evolution posts?  Have a squiz on the PT blogs for example, or even just have a look at my earlier posts on the Avocationist thread.

Anyway, why don't you just ask the moderators to confirm my IP address is not shared by GoP.  I'm sure they'll be happy to confirm...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:46   

Quote
Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not.


Erm sorry, just where have I said this? Thus far I have, quite deliberately, made no comment about whether or not I consider Lenny's "abusive behaviour" "acceptable" or otherwise.

Quote
Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear.

And you still haven't answered my questions...


And I say again:

READ.THE.THREAD.

I know it's more than two sentences, and I know it's a fag to do it, but since I consider you to be an intelligent adult capable of reasoned argument I'll cheerfully accept an "Ok, it'll take me a while, can I get back to you?" with an equally cheerful "Of course Demallien, you take all the time you need. Look forward to discussing it with you".

As for your questions, like I said, I'll cheerfully answer them when you a) answer mine, and b) deal with my argument as it is. The reason I ask this is because, at the moment, based on your current erroneous assessment of my comments I have no hope that you will understand the answers I give. Why waste both our time going over old ground for a fourth (??) time. You demonstrate you understand what I'm talking about by going away and reading it, I'll answer your questions. Deal?

Oh by the way, your real name wouldn't be Alison would it? Just curious, nothing implied, just asking.

Louis

Added in edit: P.S. I am EXTREMELY happy to take your word that you are not GoP. I am equally EXTREMELY happy to note that you are not GoP! I should stress this happiness is entirely altruistic, I am happy FOR YOU! LOL. BTW I said I noted a similarity, not that you WERE absolutely GoP. Please learn to tell the difference between an absolutist statement of belief or fact and a proposition. I am very pleased to be wrong about my suspicions. I apologise for any and all offense caused by even asking the question.

--------------
Bye.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:47   

Hi Louis,

I mentioned to Deadman some stuff I picked up. Like the point that Dem joined under a week ago. Also that the structural pattern is similar. I have a habit of making comparisons because thats what I'm paid to do - I am paid to detect patterns in human behaviour, and notice nuances.

That aside (and easily equated to personas again) its successfully brought the other thread to a stand-still - for now. So perhaps Dem's complaints can be taken up by the moderators.

Just a thought.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:48   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:36)
And you haven't answered mine, "demallien" Your orthography/grammar and "tone" are all amusingly similar to Avocationist. Why do you think that would be?

Oh, I didn't answer the question because I thought the question was rhetorical.  Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot".  Note, I use English spelling of words, Avocationist uses American spelling.  I post during European daytime, Avocationist posts during the american daytime.  Do the sums...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:49   

"squiz" is the first aussie slang I've seen you use, demallien...and it's interesting that you used it right at the same time that you say you're australian living in paris...as if to "confirm" that.

What threads did you post in at PT, demallien? I'd like to take a look at those.

Avocationist used American orthography? and you chose to insult me again? tsk

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:58   

Fractatious,

I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument.

If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,06:59   

Whether or not I think you're a puppet is irrelevant to the immediate discussion, demallien...what is relevant is that you insult in the same manner you decry, even insulting avocationist...as in this bit:
Quote
You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4215;p=48355

Just as you insulted me for my civil queries statements/here.

Then you go running around trying to dictate how others should comport themselves? Pfft.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:01   

Quote
because you're a blithering idiot


AIIIIIIIIIIIII ABUSE!!!!! ABUSE!!!!! ABUSE!!!!

Hmm pottle ket black? Something like that. ;)

Louis

P.S. I should perhaps make it clear that I don't really think this qualifies as abuse. Deadman clearly is a blithering idiot and smells a lot worse than I do. And I've had his mum, and she was rubbish. And all my friends have had his mrs and she was rubbish too. BLAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAEURGH! Ok no more drinking at lunchtime for me! See under H for humour.

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:03   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:49)
"squiz" is the first aussie slang I've seen you use, demallien...and it's interesting that you used it right at the same time that you say you're australian living in paris...as if to "confirm" that.

What threads did you post in at PT, demallien? I'd like to take a look at those.

Avocationist used American orthography? and you chose to insult me again? tsk

You see deadman, as I've explained previously, I don't take kindly to accusations of dishonesty.  Expects insults in return.

Yes, Avocationist uses American spelling, at least, when I stepped back to have a quick look, I found that she wrote "honorable" not "honourable".  I'm sure there are other examples, but I honestly can't be bothered looking...

As for my posts on PT, feel free to Google "demallien pandas thumb".  You'll get plenty of hits.  Actually, I just checked - you'll only get a few hits: lazy google!  Anyway, they should be enough to add a bit of credence to my identity...

I don't have to prove who I am deadman, and anyway, I don't see any way of actually convincing you whilst our conversation remains in the virtual.  I've asked the moderator to confirm that my IP address is not the same as those of Avocationist and GoP.  With a bit of luck, he'll give us an answer.  If not, you can always try asking him to do the verification yourself...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:05   

Quote
Added in edit: P.S. I am EXTREMELY happy to take your word that you are not GoP. I am equally EXTREMELY happy to note that you are not GoP! I should stress this happiness is entirely altruistic, I am happy FOR YOU! LOL. BTW I said I noted a similarity, not that you WERE absolutely GoP. Please learn to tell the difference between an absolutist statement of belief or fact and a proposition. I am very pleased to be wrong about my suspicions. I apologise for any and all offense caused by even asking the question.


Note this I added in edit Demallien.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:07   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,23:58)
Fractatious,

I didn't mean to disrupt the other thread and apologies for doing so. This thread has been open for a while (check first post) because it's actually an issue I'm interested in and one that raises it's head from time to time. Demallien seems an interesting person to take up the discussion with because he/she/it disagrees (apparently, although I am not yet sure, it's kind of hard to pick through the misunderstandings he/she/it has made) with my argument.

If Demallien wishes to bother the mods with complaints about Lenny's comments, then Demallien should of course go right ahead. I hope you'll permit me this thread to discuss the wider issue though, because as I said it s one that has long been on my mind.

Louis

Louis,

I'm not complaining about the disruption - considering the lack of substantiation on the other thread by Avocationist dispite the numerous requests - something had to give. But thank you for considerately pulling the "dispute" onto this thread, therefore laying the foundations for me to reintroduce the original topic back onto the thread.

I moderate an AvC email group. Because of the nature of the group complaints sprout their heads. Merely a warning towards the diversity of content, and also that people are not forced to read and/or post assists in the area of "complaints". Also being an email discussion group, I encourage people to use their spam filters. I am not sure if these boards have any such facilities - if they do, they should be stressed.

However I am now curious as to what is termed as "abuse".

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:09   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,06:59)
Whether or not I think you're a puppet is irrelevant to the immediate discussion, demallien...what is relevant is that you insult in the same manner you decry, even insulting avocationist...as in this bit:  
Quote
You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4215;p=48355

<sigh>Explain to me how the quote is an insult deadman.  If I had said for example "You are a goose" now that's an insult.  If I say "You make yourself look like a goose", that is an observation.

On the other hand, calling you a blithering idiot in response to falsely saying that I'm lying seems like a) an insult, and b) a completely reasonable response.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:10   

There is a "report this post to the moderator" under people's messages. If one is not happy - regardless of what they define abuse to be - they should use it.

Just a thought.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:10   

Quote
You see deadman, as I've explained previously, I don't take kindly to accusations of dishonesty.

I hadn't insulted you before you insulted me, ----------

and I didn't accuse you of being similar to avocationist until after you had insulted me by presuming to know what I thought :  
Quote
You too feel that it's your right to abuse people


Try again for an excuse.

More importantly, demallien, this goes to the core of what I said earlier. You view direct cussing as demeaning and insulting, but you view snide asides and veiled insults as acceptable. You find it unacceptable that others insult, but you see fit to do so even when you have not been directly insulted yourself. The best you can say is that I "questioned your honesty" and you respond in a manner much like Lenny. tsk, tsk, demallien

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:11   

Fractatious,

I doubt we'll ever know what abuse is! ;)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:17   

Well this is hardly a formal debate with a mediator to assure opponents are kept on track. If it were, I'd be laying complaints about every ID'er I encounter based on "lack of education" and "wasting time" because they end up getting a FREE education (unless there is a way to charge them for condensing 6 years of biology into single threads).

"How DARE you abuse my TIME"

I also consider Benny Hinn's hair to be abusive.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:17   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:30)
Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.

I have not been "abusive".  I have been TRUTHFUL.  Avo ***IS*** a pig-ignorant uninformed dolt who should get her uneducated ass to a library and learn what she is talking about BEFORE she talks about it.

Sorry if Avo doesn't like it.

Sorry if YOU don't like it either.

(shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:18   

By the way, I should note that I view Lenny as merely honest in his use of language. I view you as a sanctimonious hypocrite, though, demallien--beyond merely being a blithering idiot...and that's just an observation, not an insult :)

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:20   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48)
Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot".

You forgot "pig-ignorant".


:)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:25   

Quote
 
Quote
Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.  You now claim that it's not.


Erm sorry, just where have I said this? Thus far I have, quite deliberately, made no comment about whether or not I consider Lenny's "abusive behaviour" "acceptable" or otherwise.


I meant that you claim that the whole discussion wasn't about whether Lenny's comments were acceptable or not, not that you considered Lenny's comments as unacceptable.  Sheesh!

Quote
 
Quote
Fine, I've already said, I'll respond to your "argument", whatever it is, but in the interest of reducing the possibility of misunderstanding, I've asked you to give it to me in a few concise sentences.  That way everyone is clear.

And you still haven't answered my questions...


And I say again:

READ.THE.THREAD.


Louis, I've read the thread.  I'm not trying to pull a swifty on you.  I honestly do not know what argument you are trying to make.  Please, for the love of sanity, give it to me clearly and concisely, so that this discussion can actually go forwards!

In the interim, I'm going to hasard my best guess.  Feel free to correct me if this wasn't what your argument was all about:

Louis' Argument:  That being obtuse, or lying is very rude, and worse than abusing people!!!

There, how did I go?

In answer to that:
Alli's Response (yes, I see you've discovered my real name 2 'l's though! Maybe this silliness about me being Avocationist in disguise can be put to bed now....)

Being obtuse is not rude, lying is rude, but difficult to prove, and abusing people is bad too, but much easier to demonstrate.  In all cases, specific circumstances should be taken into account.

Now, how about an answer to my questions: a) were Lenny's comments abusive? and b) Are abusive comments acceptable on this forum?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:26   

Quote
Well this is hardly a formal debate with a mediator to assure opponents are kept on track. If it were, I'd be laying complaints about every ID'er I encounter based on "lack of education" and "wasting time" because they end up getting a FREE education (unless there is a way to charge them for condensing 6 years of biology into single threads).

"How DARE you abuse my TIME"

I also consider Benny Hinn's hair to be abusive.


DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!

The one and only correct answer! ;)

I don't mind educating the IDCists. I don't mind providing them with a wealth of info and data. I don;t mind that they ignore it. I DO mind when they lie about it or expect their ignorance to be authoritative and I do mind when they make grandiose unsupported claims based on their stated agenda. I may have made mention of this sort of thing up thread.

Benny Hinn's hair? Doesn't even hold a candle to the offensiveness of the continued existence of Dembski. In a decently ordered universe he'd have to suffer the consequences of his anti-reason. (I'm thinking comedy here people, not violence. I have a mental image of a capricious deity suddenly taking great offense at ID and poofing IDCists out of existence, then recanting, poofing them back in, poofing them a flagellum etc. Basically messing about with poofery! )

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:28   

"control freak" seems appropriate, along with "sanctimonious hypocrite " and blithering idiot.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:33   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 01 2007,07:20)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48)
Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot".

You forgot "pig-ignorant".


:)

Lol :-)

Lenny, I would never presume to dream of being able to reach your level of abuse.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:35   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 02 2007,00:17)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:30)
Louis, for me, this whole discussion has been about Lenny's abusive behaviour, and whether or not it's acceptable.

I have not been "abusive".  I have been TRUTHFUL.  Avo ***IS*** a pig-ignorant uninformed dolt who should get her uneducated ass to a library and learn what she is talking about BEFORE she talks about it.

Sorry if Avo doesn't like it.

Sorry if YOU don't like it either.

(shrug)

I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK!

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:37   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,07:35)
I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK!

Actually, truth be known, if I had found Lenny's insults original, and hence amusing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the original post to start with.  It was because of the constant boring repetition that he finally annoyed me enough to complain...

You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:45   

Quote
You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:46   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,00:33)
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,06:48)
Lenny, I would never presume to dream of being able to reach your level of abuse.

Demallien,

Pig-ignorant is apt. Ever chase pigs around a paddock? Ever wonder why they eventually end up running in circles making lots of noises? This is the most amusing part of my job when I go visit clients and end up being Farmer Joe having to chase bloody chooks because the male is strapped up to police monitor that will trigger security if he goes into the paddock and his elderly mother who looks like she'll drop dead just trying to climb the fence, THEN having to chase silly little pigs with a dog after you - oh yes, PIG IGNORANT is a good term. They cause a catastrophe in their wake because they run around with no clear direction! *scowls*

Louis,

Benny Hinn's hair is VERY abusive. Dembski merely reminds me of a contender for the special olympics - javlin up the ass competitor. (Oh god lords, I may be considered as abusive now - bite me). ID'ers and Creationists formulate their lives on purposely sifting through data to get to presuppositional bullshit, then engage in debates and DEMAND scientific substantiation. Lying then becomes a norm in order to overlook being corrected.

On the "For the Love of.. " thread, I addressed Avo's points on LoT and zilch. Even with her admittance of not knowing maths, she still made a claim towards LoT, I responded and zilch. Phhttt. This is the internet, I'm sure if ID'ers can log onto a board, they can websearch for information on biology, thus saving time. Instead of wasting it.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,07:47   

Quote
I meant that you claim that the whole discussion wasn't about whether Lenny's comments were acceptable or not, not that you considered Lenny's comments as unacceptable.  Sheesh!


Gosh so you DO realise that it's possible for one person to write something and for another person to read it, put an interpretation on it that was not intended and run with it. Consider that an object lesson, "Houston, we have progress"! I was wondering just how hard I was going to have to beat you over the head with this little example! ARGH NO WAIT, METAPHOR! METAPHOR!!!! NOT ABUSE!!! HELP!!! ;) See humour, not hostility. Different, really!

Please may I call you Allison? I can't bloody spell Demallien! Louis is my real name btw. I have to say I prefer real names, they make things.....nicer somehow I suppose. I thought I'd do a rapid google to see if you really were GoP or not. I was extremely gratified (see above) to find you weren't.

Quote
Louis' Argument:  That being obtuse, or lying is very rude, and worse than abusing people!!!

There, how did I go?


Not too terribly.  I would quibble with "obtuse" and "abusing" because I'd like to know what you mean by them, otherwise roughly ok, but you missed out all the good bits about dishonesty being anathema to rational discourse especially in a limited forum such as this etc. I liked those bits!

Quote
Being obtuse is not rude, lying is rude, but difficult to prove, and abusing people is bad too, but much easier to demonstrate.  In all cases, specific circumstances should be taken into account.


I'd go along with that to a large extent, again depending on what is meant by obtuse and abuse. Define what you mean if you don't mind.

Quote
Now, how about an answer to my questions: a) were Lenny's comments abusive? and b) Are abusive comments acceptable on this forum?


Ah ah aaaaaahh! Not yet, we're getting warmer. The nuance of the argument is important too and you really need to answer the questions I asked, not the versions of them you like.

Tell you what, I'll do 50%. b) Are abusive comments acceptable on this forum? No idea, I'm not the management. Are abusive comments acceptable to me? Depends on your definition of abuse and the context in which they are made. Telling a proven liar they are a liar is not abuse. Calling someone a "cunt" for simply being a creationist is abuse. I have no problem with the former (even if the word fucking is included) and a massive problem with the latter. I do make a distinction between "abuse" and "not very nice" or "blunt" or "harsh". I don't think harshness, unsympathetic assessment or bluntness is "abuse". Thus I don't think you calling Deadman "a blithering idiot" is abusive. I think it's staggeringly inaccurate and massively hypocritical (dare I say fucking hypocritical?), but very far from abusive (except in the sense, dictionary defined, that it is erroneous).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:02   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,07:47)

Quote

Please may I call you Allison?


I'd prefer not.  I generally try to keep the two separate, mostly because I don't like the idea of future employers being able to Google me and read up on personal details.  As it is, that dumb ruby list that you found decided to put profile information in the post header - I've been getting spam on my mail account ever since!  Anyway, I'm now going to have to wait for that forum, and now THIS forum to disappear off Google's memory banks before I have a nicely separated online persona again...

Anyways, demallien is easy.  Dem Allie N, where N is my surname, and Dem was from the fact that I was a member of the Australian Democrats whilst living in Oz...

Anyway Louis, I've played your game, don't go shifting the goal posts.  I've answered your questions, and your argument, now answer mine (the full version of question b was about your opinion of whether abuse on this forum is acceptable or not, not what were the current rules).

Calling anyone that can confuse me with Avocationist a blithering idiot is merely a statement of fact, not innaccurate, or hypocritical.  Repeated use of the term may however be abusive... Again, circumstances...

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:03   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,00:37)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,07:35)
I agree, what Dr. Lenny just said isn't "abusive". Brusque, CHECK! Honest, CHECK! Made me laugh, CHECK!

Actually, truth be known, if I had found Lenny's insults original, and hence amusing, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the original post to start with.  It was because of the constant boring repetition that he finally annoyed me enough to complain...

You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

Inanity amuses me. Emotive verbiage amuses me. Sarcasm amuses me. I consult Diogenes of Sinope for my amusement.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:05   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,00:45)
Quote
You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah.

Well yes there was that, and your teaching me how to flex my buttocks.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:10   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,07:45)
Quote
You must be easy to make laugh Fractatious...

Well, in PM, we were certainly laughing over your histrionic double-speak hypocrisy, yeah.

deadman, if you have nothing to offer other than negative blithering, feel free to go away.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:13   

Quote
deadman, if you have nothing to offer other than negative blithering, feel free to go away.

BWAHAHA...after I accurately point out that while I didn't insult you, you saw fit to insult me first, while you were crying and moaning and having palpitations over other people's use of language?

And now you want to try to direct the conversation away from that? You've merely further reinforced my opinion of you as an ersatz control-freak hypocrite and fool.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:14   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,00:47)
 
Quote
I have to say I prefer real names, they make things.....nicer somehow I suppose.

Hi Louis, I'm Jo (short for Josephine). My boss already knows how bad I can be both online and off so I have no problem saying I work for a Health and Social Services Provider. Google will just bring up THIS - its a considerabl waste of my time to hide my identity online, and especially on this forum where Deadman is on. Even if he was not here, it wouldn't worry me.

I vehemently agree on your discussion on liars and hypocrites. Also on what you term as abuse.

I'd like to reiterate again, people are not forced to read or even post. If this board does not have an ignore function, I'm sure people have the ability to just scroll past the people that they consider abusive and who they do not want to read.

Jo

[editted]

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:17   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,08:13)
Quote
deadman, if you have nothing to offer other than negative blithering, feel free to go away.

BWAHAHA...after I accurately point out that while I didn't insult you, you saw fit to insult me first, while you were crying and moaning and having palpitations over other people's use of language?

And now you want to try to direct the conversation away from that? You've merely further reinforced my opinion of you as a  ersatz control-freak hypocrite and fool.

Everyone else has moved on deadman.  We've actually started to get to the heart of the matter.  But feel free to blither on in your corner...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:18   

Quote
Thus I don't think you calling Deadman "a blithering idiot" is abusive.

I do. I'm wounded to the quick, and my quick doesn't need any more abuse. I'm crying softly to myself even as I type.

I may have to call up the thread police and issue a whiny complaint, or should I instead try to get everyone to agree with my ideas of civility instead? Being a control freak, I'll do the latter. So:

Louis, you ignorant French slut, please realize that MY standards are the standards that the entire universe should conform to if they wish to be known as civil. Do try and rise to my arbitrary level of decency, there's a good chap, K? thnx.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 14 2007,22:35)
I -- being the extremely sensitive and civilized sort -- cannot abide the fearful extremities of language I have encountered here; blasphemy, cursing, insults and vulgarities of the lowest, basest sort.

I cringe each time my delicate sensibilites are assaulted by the filthy vileness interwoven amidst the fragile petals of logic and reason in these threads.

Shame on you all!  *shakes his finger roundly*


HAHAHA edit:
Quote
Everyone else has moved on deadman.

wow, you speak for EVERYONE NOW?!?! ####, you're more of a control freak than I thought. And stupid, to boot.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:21   

Demallien,

I was joking about it being difficult to spell. {Sigh} One tries to lighten the mood, engage in bluff cameraderie, and gets slapped in the face. Oh well.

No goalposts are being moved, nuances Demallien. The Devil is in the detail. Dammit I WILL have a sensible reading of my argument out of you before christmas! ;)

Like I said, whether or not you have described my argument accurately depends on your ability to define what you consider "abuse" and "obtuse". I've defined what I mean by them, as of course you'd know having read my argument so thoroughly and all. You have my full and complete answer to question b), which isn't simply what the board rules are as you would know if you had read it. Kindly do as you have been asked and you'll get a full and complete answer to question a).

I'm afraid that thus far I'd have to agree with Deadman's and Fractatious's assessments of hypocrisy, hysteria, emotive verbiage and inanity. BUT please prove this assessment wrong. I want to be wrong. I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this. I beg you show us that we are wrong, please. You might doubt my sincerity here and see sarcasm where none is intended, but play a game, pretend I am not the evil, hostile, judgemental, aggressive, bully you think I am.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:28   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,01:21)
I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this.

Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;)

1. The other board had a good discussion going on.

2. It was brought to a screeching halt with claims of abuse.

3. Louis was considerate enough to shift that thread to a more appropriate thread.

4. Hopefully the previous thread will restart where it left off BEFORE the claims of "abuse".

5. It's almost unanimous, that most posting here will not tolerate lying or hypocrisy.

6. Censorship does not have a strong filter on this board (good).

So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:30   

Question: Demallien -- when you say "everyone has moved on now" are you presuming to speak for all other posters, or are you referring to your two faces? Perhaps your other personalities? Maybe you have a mouse or rat in your...er...pocket? Or are you using a royal collective?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:32   

Deadman,

Here's the full quote:

Quote
Thus I don't think you calling Deadman "a blithering idiot" is abusive. I think it's staggeringly inaccurate and massively hypocritical (dare I say fucking hypocritical?), but very far from abusive (except in the sense, dictionary defined, that it is erroneous).


So how about next time IN CONTEXT you syphillitic bastard offspring of a three century dead man-whore. After all in your leap for umbrage you seem to have missed the point that as the Arbiter of All that is Good and Tasteful (and in no way an hysterical sanctimonious hypocrite) it is actually MY set of totally arbitrary standards that rule the Universe for ever and ever and ever, so there. With knobs on.

Anyway, D'Tard said I was a homo, which makes me special. And he's called me a homo more times than he's called you a homo. So there, again, with cherries on top. How do you like that selection box of assorted sweetmeats and candies?

Louis

P.S. Oh FUCK! I'm unconsciously channeling the Tard, JAD and several other loons!

{washes brain out with bleach}

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:36   

Yeah, but you're still FRENCH, Louis . I win!!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:43   

Quote
Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;)


Jo (thanks btw),

Tchoh! Typical woman! ;)

ARGH NO!!!! STOP!!! WHY ARE YOU HITTING ME??!!?!?!

Oh I get it!

Quote
So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all?


Setting fire to sanctimonious hypocrites who complain about the use of the word "fuck"? I'M KIDDING!!!! WHY ARE YOU ALL HITTING ME AGAIN???!?!?! Oh a spanking! Excellent!

No idea. I will attempt to modify my language so that I don't fucking swear so fucking much. As I'm only fucking human, I may fuck up once in a while though, so don't fuck me over about it too fucking often. Lenny should continue as is, and we should all learn to love one another for our differences, not in spite of them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:44   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,08:30)
Question: Demallien -- when you say "everyone has moved on now" are you presuming to speak for all other posters, or are you referring to your two faces? Perhaps your other personalities? Maybe you have a mouse or rat in your...er...pocket? Or are you using a royal collective?

No deadman, I was referring to the fact that Jo, Louis, and I, the three other active participants in this thread, had moved on to discuss other things.  Get a clue, get a life...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:50   

Quote
No deadman, I was referring to the fact that Jo, Louis, and I, the three other active participants in this thread, had moved on to discuss other things.  Get a clue, get a life...

And yet both mentioned your hypocrisy and allude still to your weird behavior, just as I did in noting that you did exactly what you whined about in others. And they continued to do so after you had claimed to speak for them.

As for "having a life"...again, you might want to look in the mirror.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:50   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,08:21)
Demallien,

I was joking about it being difficult to spell. {Sigh} One tries to lighten the mood, engage in bluff cameraderie, and gets slapped in the face. Oh well.

No goalposts are being moved, nuances Demallien. The Devil is in the detail. Dammit I WILL have a sensible reading of my argument out of you before christmas! ;)

Like I said, whether or not you have described my argument accurately depends on your ability to define what you consider "abuse" and "obtuse". I've defined what I mean by them, as of course you'd know having read my argument so thoroughly and all. You have my full and complete answer to question b), which isn't simply what the board rules are as you would know if you had read it. Kindly do as you have been asked and you'll get a full and complete answer to question a).

I'm afraid that thus far I'd have to agree with Deadman's and Fractatious's assessments of hypocrisy, hysteria, emotive verbiage and inanity. BUT please prove this assessment wrong. I want to be wrong. I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this. I beg you show us that we are wrong, please. You might doubt my sincerity here and see sarcasm where none is intended, but play a game, pretend I am not the evil, hostile, judgemental, aggressive, bully you think I am.

Louis

Louis

a)  You're not very funny.  If you want others to understand that you're joking, may I recommend that you put a smiley face on the remark concerned, so that it's clear.

b) I didn't think giving you the key to the mnemonic for my pseudo was a slap in the face.  I was just trying to help...

c)my definitions of 'obtuse' and 'abuse' are those of the dictionary.  To help you out a little further, I consider Lenny's comments to be abuse.  You can look at the earlier post that contained the full list.  that said, context is important.  Example:  calling a friend "you absolute bastard" because they just won a car in a lottery is not abuse, but calling someone with whom you are having a disagreement an absolute bastard most certainy is abuse.  In the case of Lenny, I found that the incessant repeating of the insults, with no other attempt to join in the conversation to be abusive, and hence offensive.  But I really can't discuss this sensibly with hypotheticals.  Each case must be judged on its merits.

You haven't answered either of my questions Louis.  question a) Do you think Lenny's comments on the Avocationist thread are abuse?  Question b) Do you think that abuse is OK on this forum.

You specifically did NOT answer question b.  Instead you chose to answer question c, which was "Is abuse acceptable to Louis?"  This was not the question asked.

But look, I'll let question b) go for now.  Just give me a nice quick yes or no to question a.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:52   

Quote
Yeah, but you're still FRENCH, Louis . I win!!!


It maybe be true that on my paternal grandmother's side I have some French ancestry, but did I mention that the three century dead man-whore from whence you were spawned was a BELGIAN?

MWAH HA HA HAAAA!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:55   

Hi Louis

Quote
Tchoh! Typical woman! ;)


I suppose that's better than being called atypical :D

Quote
ARGH NO!!!! STOP!!! WHY ARE YOU HITTING ME??!!?!?!


Because the chipmunks are taking a 15 minute break.

Quote
Setting fire to sanctimonious hypocrites who complain about the use of the word "fuck"? I'M KIDDING!!!! WHY ARE YOU ALL HITTING ME AGAIN???!?!?! Oh a spanking! Excellent!


I'm a huge campaigner for immolation. I mean, its FREE. Takes very little resources. G'#### chipmunks are still on break!

Quote
No idea. I will attempt to modify my language so that I don't fucking swear so fucking much. As I'm only fucking human, I may fuck up once in a while though, so don't fuck me over about it too fucking often. Lenny should continue as is, and we should all learn to love one another for our differences, not in spite of them.


Lenny is all about the FREEDOM OF SPEECH *screeches off a random national anthem* But I'm curious as to why Deadman is underfire.. I mean he's the most placcid flaccid, hippy tree planting, fungus finding kind of guys! There is NO issue!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,08:58   

Quote
I have some French ancestry, but did I mention that the three century dead man-whore from whence you were spawned was a BELGIAN?

The sad part is that half of my heritage is Alsatian (Alsace-Lorraine) which is a region that has been stomped on even more than demallien's whiny screeds. However, I still have the upper hand when I note that you have ITALIAN heritage as well. This being a nation that barely could handle Ethiopians wielding muskets and slingshots.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:04   

Mein Gott, she called ME "flaccid?" After all those hours I spent sweating and ...I AM INSULTED...I call the thread polizia NOW!! Luigi, da me il telefono!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:15   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,02:04)
Mein Gott, she called ME "flaccid?" After all those hours I spent sweating and ...I AM INSULTED...I call the thread polizia NOW!! Luigi, da me il telefono!!

It was said con l' amore! Picollo fiore *commences with bodily fluid exchanges* Sweating like the asino? *blinks innocently* I think it was drowned out with snoring.

L' adoro! *I'm such the Senorita Juano!"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:17   

Demallien,

Not funny? Not funny?



(Couldn't find a better image of Otter)

I'm fucking hilarious lady! ;)

Lordy but you are hard work. Perhaps I'm not funny to someone who has erroneously assumed (emphasis on the ass) that I am an aggressive, cowardly, condescending, bully amongst other things. But hey, since we already know that lack of ability to a) read an argument for comprehension, b) understand nuance, c) spot when someone is hostile or not, d) perform even rudimentary honest self analysis, e) be anything other than a sanctimonious hypocrite, are the boundaries of your abilities then woo hoo we're good to go!

Let's play a game, you go back read my answer to b) carefully. What should happen is a "ping" noise and a little lighbulb should appear over your head. M'kay? If this doesn't happen, I'll use smaller words. I am on this forum, I don't like unwarranted abuse. If there is unwarranted abuse on this forum, I will not like it. Is it too much to expect logic 101? For someone who makes hog wild totally unsupportable inferences left and right you seem curiously incapable of making inferences that should leap off the page at you. (This is sarcasm btw, we've moved to level 2 now)

The second part to the game is where you look back at the OED definition of "abuse" I posted and note than in all but a very very limited sense what Lenny has done is not "abuse". You may also note that this has been explained already. M'kay?

I haven't answered a) yet because you haven't fulfilled the very simple criteria I asked for, that were prerequisite to my answering a). I know this concept confuses you, but do try harder.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:18   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,08:28)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,01:21)
I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this.

Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;)

1. The other board had a good discussion going on.

2. It was brought to a screeching halt with claims of abuse.

3. Louis was considerate enough to shift that thread to a more appropriate thread.

4. Hopefully the previous thread will restart where it left off BEFORE the claims of "abuse".

5. It's almost unanimous, that most posting here will not tolerate lying or hypocrisy.

6. Censorship does not have a strong filter on this board (good).

So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all?

Jo,

What do you think my motivation was for complaining about the abuse against Avocationist on the original thread?  I think we have clarified that I'm not Avocationist, and it's clear from the earlier posts that I was arguing against her position.  

I'll give you a hint.  As you note, the thread came to a screeching halt at about the time that I called Lenny on abuse.  But the actual reason that the thread screeched to a halt, was because the person it was created for, Avocationist, left.  Now, what do you think is more likely - that Avocationist left because she was sick of being abused and insulted, or because someone had called for the abuse of her to stop?  (There are of course other possibilities - suchj as she ran away because she had no good answers to the questions being asked, but what interests me is which of the first two would rank higher on the probability list).

Personally, I reckon that she'd be more likely to leave because people were insulting her than because someone was suggesting that we should perhaps, you know, STOP abusing her.  Which of course was my motivation for calling for Lenny to cool it.

What are we here for if it's not to explain to people why evolution is correct, and that ID/Creationism is snake oil?  

What do you think the reaction of a lurker coming in on that discussion would be Jo?  A lurker that was unsure about evolution and ID.  On one side, Avocationist arguing her case relatively politely, or the non-stop sneers and insults coming from our side.  Again, in my opinion, the undecided onlooker is going to feel much more sympathy for Avocationist than for us, and hence, much more likely to accept her point of view.  No, it's not a logical response, but that's how people are Jo.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:21   

Jo,

mmmm chipmunks.

Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:26   

Deadman,

Alsatian? Here boy!

Italian, no. Greek, yes.

Two parts of my very mixed heritage (Greek and British) have had the two greatest global empires humanity has ever known. Both have also had a mild penchant for spanking and buggery. I'm at least relatively sure there's no connection.

Louis

P.S. Il telefono, Capitaino. Que cazzo voy dio cane? (I hope I spelt that right)

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:30   

Louis,

a)  Who's Otter?

b) I've already said that I'm willing to go with the dictionary definitions of obtuse and abuse.  I've further clarified by offering Lenny's comments as being a good example.  What more do you want?  For the present context I find that Lenny's behaviour fits very nicely under #7 of the OED definition, don't you???

c)  Why is answering yes or no to my question a) dependant on me jumping through a series of hoops.  I've demonstrated ample goodwill in trying to reply to your questions.  How about you do the same?

d)  You, and others on this list keep accusing me of hypocrisy.  You wouldn't like, you know, have a quote or two to back that up would you?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:31   

Quote
Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence?

I've been psychologically scarred for life.
Greek? OMFG. Don't ever try to insult my ancestors again (sorry, Faid!).

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:37   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,02:21)
Jo,

mmmm chipmunks.

Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence?

Louis



I recant, he is a mighty tree!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:46   

Demallien,

a) See National Lampoon's Animal House for details.

b)
Quote
So, unless it is intended to cause injury, unless it is as a curse, or unless it is wrong, (for example) calling a proven liar a liar does not constitute abuse. The only possible hope for it being abusive is in its limited sense of being injurious in the sense of it being hurtful. I agree a proven liar may well be hurt by having this trait pointed out, but I think I could argue (and in part actually have done so above) that by far the greater abuse is that of the liar. Merely pointing this out is by far and away the lesser of the two "abuses". And this is only the case if we grant that it is abusive at all, for it can only be so in a very limited sense.


Already answered here. See I told you if you read what I actually wrote you'd get the answers. The intent and accuracy matter as you yourself note when you call Deadman a "blithering idiot".

c) Because I don't think you have demonstrated ANY good will, let alone AMPLE good will. You are overly touchy, accuse people of condescension, bullying, cowardice etc etc etc without base, refuse to read for comprehension (because nothing I have yet said is controversial. I haven't got to the controversial yet), complain about unwarranted abuse (which btw IS warranted) all the while commiting what YOU yourself call abuse, I could go on.

d) Yes. Find 'em yourself. I'm getting bored of playing silly buggers with someone who is either a) too dishonest to examine their own actions honestly, or b) too stupid to examine their own actions honestly, and c) a sanctimonious hypocrite (look words up).

Oh and BTW I like how you now speak for all lurkers. Arrogance on top of sanctimony and hypocrisy! They all would come to the same conclusions you would? Doesn't the simple fact that not everyone here HAS come to the same conclusions give you pause in your blanket claim? Guess what, some people are turned off by fostering hypocrisy and not dealing with people honestly.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:47   

Quote
You, and others on this list keep accusing me of hypocrisy.  You wouldn't like, you know, have a quote or two to back that up would you?

Sure. First, I made a post generally recounting my experiences with similar criticism on the AFDave thread. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....1;st=60 . In that post, I specifically mentioned that I wasn't trying to insult YOU at all, demallien, yet you chose to take this tack:  
Quote
I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured

I replied that this was simply not so, and that I considered that an unwarranted and insulting leap:  
Quote
I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk.

Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" "  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4141;p=49268

Your response was to say :  
Quote
Oh, I didn't answer the question because I thought the question was rhetorical. Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot". http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=49277


Now, you can't say that you used "blithering idiot" merely because you spotted one use of "honorable" and not "honourable"...
or any amount of spelling differences...because anyone can alter such details in trolling. and it would be stupid to assume that such things are not done. In fact, it's been done here many times ( see the JAD examples, or DaveScot's multiple personae, or Larry Falafelman). Besides which, I didn't mention JUST spelling, but also grammar and tone.

This makes you, demallien, guilty of unwarranted insult, just as you were whining about. Period.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:48   

Quote
What do you think my motivation was for complaining about the abuse against Avocationist on the original thread?


I was not actually looking for a recap - that has been recapped, and mostly to be recapped again. Unless such an analysis will contribute towards solutions.

 
Quote
What are we here for if it's not to explain to people why evolution is correct, and that ID/Creationism is snake oil?


This is exactly where intellectual honesty is required.

 
Quote
Again, in my opinion, the undecided onlooker is going to feel much more sympathy for Avocationist than for us, and hence, much more likely to accept her point of view.


On that thread under Serendipity - I *was* an onlooker, a very polite onlooker, who took up her discussion on entropy. There were others on that particular thread who were polite. That she chose to select her "aggressors" to communicate with - well, if you leap into a pit of vipers... she could just of easily been very selective on who she conversed with.

That being said, there are a variety of solutions:

1. Moderators become strict and peruse each post (time consuming).

2. Moderator lays down the board laws and upholds them (which requires 1.)

3. People take responsibility for themselves on these boards and decide what they will respond to and what they wont (easiest solution).

4. Everyone becomes Mr. and Ms. Polite and communication becomes easier (asking for a miracle here).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:55   

Jo,

Quote
4. Everyone becomes Mr. and Ms. Polite and communication becomes easier (asking for a miracle here).


Not so. I am unfailingly honest, reasonable and polite to people who are unfailingly honest, reasonable and polite. I'm even unfailingly honest to people who are not unfailingly honest, reasonable and polite. Reasonable and polite might be a different matter!

I'd also say that I was very far from atypical on this board in that regard.

Now, should we humble few be faced with hypocrisy, dishonesty, deceit, bigotry, intellectual dishonesty, weaselling, obfuscation etc I would imagine that we might be vastly less than polite or reasonable. But, as Demallien says, it's entirely situational.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:01   

Ahem. By the way, mon petite chou, THIS will be more accurate in the future -- Yee-Haw!:

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:05   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,09:46)
c) Because I don't think you have demonstrated ANY good will, let alone AMPLE good will. You are overly touchy, accuse people of condescension, bullying, cowardice etc etc etc without base, refuse to read for comprehension (because nothing I have yet said is controversial. I haven't got to the controversial yet), complain about unwarranted abuse (which btw IS warranted) all the while commiting what YOU yourself call abuse, I could go on.

d) Yes. Find 'em yourself. I'm getting bored of playing silly buggers with someone who is either a) too dishonest to examine their own actions honestly, or b) too stupid to examine their own actions honestly, and c) a sanctimonious hypocrite (look words up).

Oh and BTW I like how you now speak for all lurkers. Arrogance on top of sanctimony and hypocrisy! They all would come to the same conclusions you would? Doesn't the simple fact that not everyone here HAS come to the same conclusions give you pause in your blanket claim? Guess what, some people are turned off by fostering hypocrisy and not dealing with people honestly.

Louis,

You gave me a set of questions to answer, including trying to derive an "argument" from the long pages of drivel that you have written.  I dutifully went back through all of the garbage, and tried my best to extract the "argument".  I then explained what I had extracted, and you more or less agreed to it.  I then gave you a response to your "argument".

You then moved the goalposts, insisting I had to go into further detail on the terms 'abuse' and 'obtuse'.  I told you that I accepted the dictionary definitions, and as further clarification specified that for me, Lenny's responses consituted abuse.  

You insist it still wasn't enough.  I don't know what more to say to you. You have my definitions for the two words.  If you are too lazy to look up the OED definition of 'obtuse' here it is:
obtuse

 • adjective
1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
2 (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.
3 not sharp-pointed or sharp-edged; blunt.

Definition 1 is applicable here...

Frankly, your refusal to answer a simple, yes/no question resembles a lot the obfuscatoray techniques of creationists when you get on to touchy questions that they don't want to answer.

So how about it Louis.  Are you going to answer my question a) now?  Or are you going to move the goalposts yet again?

As I thought, you aren't actually able to come up with some quotes demonstrating my hypocrisy.  If you are unable to back up the accusation, how about a retraction, or even an apology?

I don't speak for all lurkers Louis.  Nor do I try to speak for all lurjers.  I was very careful to highlight that these were my OPINIONS on what lurkers might be thinking.  You are of course free to refute the opinion if you so like.  

So, my question a) is still waiting for an answer Louis.  How abot it?  In your opinion, were Lenny's posts abusive or not?

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:12   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,02:55)
Now, should we humble few be faced with hypocrisy, dishonesty, deceit, bigotry, intellectual dishonesty, weaselling, obfuscation etc I would imagine that we might be vastly less than polite or reasonable. But, as Demallien says, it's entirely situational.

Louis,

Well thats where immolation is free.

However, the issue isn't "should behaviour be modified to account for other posters"? The issue is, that it is obvious that people have a tolerance level before kelvin intervenes.

I suppose now would be a good time to air my position as opposed to critiquing responses:

Avocationist mentioned that she has taken the time to read material, learn and picked her position (here's the recap, I know - bite me). However the position was biased. It was specifically biased against evidential science/data. Of course, for those kind folks who have expended time and neuron power to learn this - encountering a person who claims or at leasts hints towards knowing the arguments, who obviously does NOT *know* the counter arguments - this becomes tedious. It becomes tedious even more so when said person keeps arguing even while admitting they may not be learned in the specific areas they are arguing with (such as Thermodynamics).

I take into account that the majority of english typing people I will meet online are American, and being aware of the battle of trying to erase evolution from schools and basically attempting to create a theocratic state - that such groups will have say, a lower tolerance level than I (note: I'm good at cloaking my rage).

I take into account the amount of people who have learnt biology and can speak proficiently on the topic and debate it, to encounter a person that has only perused the religious refutations against science and very little else.

I take into account a need for accountability and honesty.

Thus I have understanding and also share my lack of tolerance towards those who proselytize a paradigm that is one dimensional.

One last thing: when attempting to berate people on behaviour and conduct (that is, abuse and insult) it does not help by calling them "blithering idiots". Not for the sheer fact that Deadman is one of the most widely learned individuals I have ever had the pleasure to meet - but that, that "don't be rude and abusive" falls over when tagged with "don't be rude and abusive, you blithering idiot".

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:14   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,09:47)
This makes you, demallien, guilty of unwarranted insult, just as you were whining about. Period.

You firstly construe my comment on what I believe your beliefs to be as an insult.  OK, stretching the definition a looooong way there matey.  You'll have to show me where the dictionary says that that's an insult.

You then, fairly openly accuse me of being a sock-puppet for Avocationist - a direct attack on my integrity.  At which time, I responded that you are a blithering idiot.  This was not un unwarranted insult, but a direct response to you claiming that I was lying about my identity.  

So BZZZT! No prize for you! That quote does not in any way, shape, or form demonstrate hypocrisy on my part.  But thanks for playing, LOSER!

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:18   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,03:01)
Ahem. By the way, mon petit chou, THIS will be more accurate in the future -- Yee-Haw!:

*laughs* mon chene puissant, I'm going to have nightmares of cactus-looking-enemas! Now I have that song "Rocketman" locked in my head *weeps*

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:20   

Quote
You then, fairly openly accuse me of being a sock-puppet for Avocationist - a direct attack on my integrity.  At which time, I responded that you are a blithering idiot.  This was not un unwarranted insult, but a direct response to you claiming that I was lying about my identity.  

So BZZZT! No prize for you! That quote does not in any way, shape, or form demonstrate hypocrisy on my part.  But thanks for playing, LOSER!


You may not recognize this, being somewhat inept and hypocritical, demallien...but there is a vast difference between accusing and asking. To accuse you of being x and ask if you are x are two different things.

For example: "you are Belgian, you toad!" and "are you Belgian?"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:23   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,10:12)
One last thing: when attempting to berate people on behaviour and conduct (that is, abuse and insult) it does not help by calling them "blithering idiots". Not for the sheer fact that Deadman is one of the most widely learned individuals I have ever had the pleasure to meet - but that, that "don't be rude and abusive" falls over when tagged with "don't be rude and abusive, you blithering idiot".

Jo,

As has been noted many, many, many times in this discussion, and as has apparently been accepted by all parties, before labelling something as abuse we need to look at the situation.  There are situations where abuse could be construed as acceptable.

Take my own position for example.  I let numerous insults and abuse from Lenny slide before calling him on it.  Why?  Because one or two relatively light-on insults, such as Lenny's were, I find to be acceptable.  Perhaps not desirable, but hey, we don't live in a perfect world.

But, repeated and frequent insults is one factor that will tip the scales for me.  Multiple people joining in to group bash someone is another.  Swearing is another.  Said insults being without foundation is another.  The point being that before deeming something to be abusive, the entire context needs to be taken into account.

deadman is a blithering idiot if only for being dumb enough to accuse someone of being a sock puppet without any proof whatsoever.  Note, there is nothing stopping someone from being a learned blithering idiot.  The two are, sadly, not exclusive.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:29   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,10:20)
You may not recognize this, being somewhat inept and hypocritical, demallien...but there is a vast difference between accusing and asking. To accuse you of being x and ask if you are x are two different things.

For example: "you are Belgian, you toad!" and "are you Belgian?"

You may not be able to recogise this, being a blithering idiot , but stating a question, twice, in two seperate posts that you consider it possible someone is lying about their identity  is a pretty strong indicator that you think that that person is lying about their identity.  This, stated in a public forum is a pretty strong insult, and can expect to be responded to by insults.

Deadman, do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?  You know, like an original idea or something?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:29   

Quote
deadman is a blithering idiot if only for being dumb enough to accuse someone of being a sock puppet without any proof whatsoever.

Again, stupid, asking and accusing are different things. I merely asked why your writing style was similar. You chose to take that as some personal affront, when in fact, there is no real way of telling you are NOT avocationist WITHOUT asking ...there are proxies that can disguise any IP. This is also a common tactic. So I asked, quite honestly and justifiably...because trolls can change both spelling and IP's. Got it?

Now your next move is to say that merely asking is "blithering idiocy" because you say so.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:30   

Demallien,

Moved goalposts? Not so dear lady, not so. You "summarised" what you thought was my argument, I said that it was fair as far as it went given that I would like you to clarify what you mean by "obtuse" and "abuse". That's not moving goalposts, that's asking for clairifcation on what you mean. Given your wanton misunderstandings and pissing about with meanings of words that's not unfair to ask.

Given your use of the OED definition of "obtuse" I would say NO you have not understood or summarised my argument accurately. Slowness or insensitivity is not a problem. A fact I believe I made clear ooooh quite some time ago now (like I said, READ THREAD, you're not really showing much evidence of having done this you know).

As I alluded to earlier if what Lenny has done is abuse, then you calling Deadman a "blithering idiot" is abuse, just as is you calling me a "bully" etc. Needless to say I consider none of them abusive. The "blithering idiot" and "bully" comments have even more abusive character than the comments of Lenny because they have no basis in fact (outside of your doubtless charming head). As has already been explained to you at length, that something could be hurtful to a person does not make it abuse. Intent is important, as you yourself have noted. You consider your assessment of Deadman to be accurate and thus not abusive. Lenny considers his assessment of Avocationist accurate and thus not abusive. You cannot have one without the other.

I'm not evading the question at all, I've explained several times on what grounds I will answer it. Those grounds are simply based on the clear futility of discussing this issue with you becasue you have repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood my position to the point of bewildering inanity. If you cannot comprehend the argument and comments I have been making, you cannot comprehend the answer to a) I will give. Demonstrate you CAN comprehend them and your answer will be yours. Since I couldn't care one way or the other about what you might think of the answer, what possible reason could I have for evading the question other than attempting to have the issue gain some form of clarity. That is clarity as opposed to your shrill imprecations and gross lack of comprehension. How old are you? 13?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,11:10   

On a final note:
Quote
but stating a question, twice, in two seperate posts that you consider it possible someone is lying about their identity  is a pretty strong indicator that you think that that person is lying about their identity.  This, stated in a public forum is a pretty strong insult, and can expect to be responded to by insults.

Glad to see that you acknowledge your response was insulting, as I stated.

Also glad to see that you've discovered that I could contribute at least one original idea ( to you) : that it's not really possible to determine if a person is adeptly trolling a forum without asking.

You can consider this an insult as well, if you wish, demallien: Your use of "we" in claiming to speak for other posters, as well as your claim to speak for unknown lurkers -- along with your desire to get others to conform to your tastes in language use -- is indicative of some real control issues. You might want to talk with someone about that. *wink*

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,11:42   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,11:10)
You can consider this an insult as well, if you wish, demallien: Your use of "we" in claiming to speak for other posters, as well as your claim to speak for unknown lurkers -- along with your desire to get others to conform to your tastes in language use -- is indicative of some real control issues. You might want to talk with someone about that. *wink*

deadbeat,

I've said it before, I'll say it again:
get a clue, get a life.  

Having done so, report bback, and I may take you seriously

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,12:13   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,04:42)
deadbeat,

I've said it before, I'll say it again:
get a clue, get a life.  

Having done so, report bback, and I may take you seriously

Bold inserted by me: that was just a childish usage of a name. Considering there was no humour in that (such as the humourous dialogue by myself, Louis and Deadman earlier) none can be picked up from this dialogue. Having said that, this would make this moot to discuss.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,12:39   

Hmm.

Houses. People. Glass. Stones. Throw. Not. Should. In.

Rearrange into common aphorism or sentance.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,13:55   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,10:30)
As I alluded to earlier if what Lenny has done is abuse, then you calling Deadman a "blithering idiot" is abuse, just as is you calling me a "bully" etc. Needless to say I consider none of them abusive.

Ahhh, finally a more or less clear response.  So, you don't consider Lenny's comments to be abusive.  Why you have been incapable of giving me a nice simple "no" to question a), hence avoiding the need to answer b, is completely beyond me.

Now, to more important things:  A good while back you said "Let's deal with your strawman. Read back, where am I in anyway advocating, supporting or indeed performing outright abuse in the manner suggested in your pub analogy? Nowhere."

I gave you back a couple of quotes showing your evident support of the use of abuse as a tactic, to which you replied "I am not advocating or defending abuse (in the case of Lenny I was saying his annoyance was justified, not his abuse. Seriously, reading for comprehension, look it up"

But now we find that you do infact defend Lenny's behaviour, including his abusive comments.  You don't think those comments were abusive at all!  This is of course why I have been pushing so hard for you to answer question a).

Because, finally, it would appear that I had well understood your position.  That's right,I was a hundred percent ocrrect in asserting that you support Lenny's actions.  So, I have a question or two for you Louis:

1) When you accused my of having misunderstood you, suggesting that I needed reading comprehension lessons, you already knew that you supported Lenny.  So why lie, by saying that I had misunderstood your position?

2) How many other of the cases where you have pleaded innocence of my interpretations were also lies Louis?  

You are not only a bully, you are also a liar.  I now fully uunderstand that you will kick and scream at any attempt to restrict what you consider to be a right to abuse people when and as you see fit.  That's fine.  I won't bother discussing this further with you.  I'll just refer it to the moderator.

I can't believe that I wasted my day arguing with a dishonest bully.  Shows me how foolish it is to give people the benefit of the doubt when my instincts are crying out the opposite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,14:22   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,13:55)
I can't believe that I wasted my day arguing with a dishonest bully.  Shows me how foolish it is to give people the benefit of the doubt when my instincts are crying out the opposite.

I would dispute that claim. You are being unfair.

Bully? In what way?
Dishonest? Back that up!

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,14:33   

Oh right.  You're all so upset.  At least you don't have people making fun of you all the time.  Walk a mile in my cave before you complain...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,15:10   

When I first started moderating the board, I had lots of free time. Now I do not. My new vocation, avocation, and location have stolen all my free time. These days I login to see threads of insults and fights. The board is out of control.



Well, my absent moderation broke it, so I bought it. I owe it to the American people to try to provide security in the region. So I hereby announce a moderation surge. Additional resources and changes to the Rules of Engagement will allow us to bring the sectarian warfare under control, and eventually win hearts and minds.

Beginning now, everyone here treats everone else here with respect or they get Bathroom Walled or just deleted. A little snark will be allowed. We're a snarky lot, so things like "check out this new blog by Casey Luskin, what a dork" will be permitted, but that's about it. If you have to be mean or rude, put it on the Bathroom Wall. The Bathroom Wall is the place to scrawl all your obscenities and dirty limericks, and it won't be moderated like the rest of the board.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,15:15   

This thread is everything that's gone wrong lately. Accordingly, I'm making it a doctor's appointment.


   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,07:55   

Thread reopened for as long as people can avoid attacking each other.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,08:20   

Thanks very much Steve.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,08:32   

If people are uncertain about what's civil and what isn't, imagine that you're in a PoliSci class about creationism at your alma mater.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,10:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2007,08:32)
If people are uncertain about what's civil and what isn't, imagine that you're in a PoliSci class about creationism at your alma mater.

Or that you have two siblings who embrace creationism, who you nevertheless love and with whom you want to maintain good relationships.

That is my experience, and it has somewhat shaped what I bring to this discussion, and provides some perspective regarding what is important in this discussion and why.

(Which is not to say that all of our mislead guests deserve THAT level of courtesy...)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,10:50   

Steve,  I'm not sure that people have really grasped where the incivility was in the last couple of discussions.  Let me explain from my point of view, at first as a bystander, and then secondly as the target.

Avocationist came on to the list to discuss her ideas about evolution.  Ostensibly, that's what this board is for.  The snide insults started nearly immediately, certainly long before anyone could have a good idea as to whether she was debating in good faith.

She exposed a bit of her idea on how the universe works, and was met with a barrage of questions, and posts explaining how she was wrong.  Now that's pretty daunting stuff, and it's very difficult for the person targetted, even when everyone is being polite and civil.  Avocationist was undoubtably stressed by just that.

I'm not suggesting that that should stop.  If someone comes to debate here, they are going to have to deal with that level of heat.  But on top of that there where the snide remarks attacking her intelligence (look at her writing, she's evidently a moderately intelligent person, and hence undeserving of being ridiculed for her intelligence).

And then the ad-hominems come in.  She's a liar, she's dishonest, she's seeking to deceive.  She's a sock puppet dissimulating her identity.  None of that was justified.  One could easily make a case for her being simply misunderstood, not that she was lying.  I personally think that in the case where there is no absolute proof of lying, it's better to assume that there has been a misunderstanding there.

About this point in the conversation, Avocationist is getting stressed.  She indicates to several people that she's had enough of their crap,  she talks about the 'pack' attacking her, and she talks about being shocked by the abuse being hurled at her.  And yes, she was by this time being showered with gratuitous insults coming from people that were insulting without even making any points.

Even more daunting, people were tossing questions at her trying to make her justify the dumb crap that the entire ID community has spilled out over the years.  This is hardly fair.  She isn't the entire ID community, and can't be expected to take responsibility for everything.  Yet, when she put back her own questions, the responses was "nah nah nah, answer our (fifty million) questions first".  None of this is fair debating.

At the same time she was still trying to respond to the people that were responding camly.  Then a long string of abuse hit, from various players, but most noticeably Lenny.

At this point in the conversation, I really noticed that the abuse:information ration was tending towards inifinity.  Lenny's posts in particular had actually gone vertical. So I posted my now infamous post suggesting that Lenny cool it.  Not shut up, not go away, but simply to cool it.

In a hardly surprising coincidence, Avocationist ceased posting at this point.  After having complained about the level of abuse, I'm guessing that she had quite simply had enough.  Note, I say of the abuse, not of the questioning of her ideas.

The pack then turned it's attention to me, and we then got to see that abuse has just about become ritualised on this board.  First come the snide remarks on my reading comprehension.  Then come the claims that I am being an uncharitable reader (I know for a fact that I was trying my best to understand the meaning of what was being said, without prejudice, so this little epitaph was simply unjust).

At that point I was already feeling the pressure.  It was pretty clear from his aggressive tone that Louis was trying to bully me into silence.  I let him know that I was onto him, that he was being a bully.  Subsequent points in the conversation clearly bore out my conclusion.

Anyhow, as I didn't meekly back down, we got to see the same pattern repeated.  Attacks on my integrity, accusations of being a sock puppet, strawman arguments that I never advanced, flatout lies were told (and yes, I did make sure to have the evidence that it was indeed an intentional falsity that was put foward).  I was accused by 3 people at once, repeatedly, of being a hypocrite.  But when I called them on it, and asked for one single example... que dalle!

It isn't any single post that is the problem in all of this.  If I or Avocationist wished to report a post to the moderator, there was no single post that would get treated with anything but (justifiable)disdain from the moderator - we shouldn't be delicate flowers on a board like this.  but the overall, ritualised to the point that it's self-organising, abuse issued in a mob-mentaity style is just too much.  

It was this that I picked up on when I asked Lenny to cool it.  And it was this that I was feeling right until the end if my 'conversation' with the three amigos.

If a civility code is to be correctly implemented, it has to be targetted at breaking up the mob attack mentality, rather than targetting individual posts.  A simple warning in-thread of "cool it people" rather then sending stuff off to the Bathroom Wall is probably a less censoring way of dealing with it, and most people on the list seem to prefer not to be censored.

Changing the button that says something like "report this post to the moderator" to "report this thread to the moderator" would be helpful too.  It indicates that the entire thread has gone off the rails, rather than having to identify a single post worthy of identifying as unsuitable.

Anyway, that's what I saw, looking in from the outside, and when I was right in the thick of it.  Haven't had the opportunity to experience the pack attack, I doubt that Avocationist will be back anytime soon.  Can't blame her...

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,11:35   

I haven't read through all the posts here, but let me put my two cents' worth here - even if someone's made this point already.

I don't want to get into a discussion of "who stepped out of line when," and whether it's nice to be rude to creationists.  This thread makes it clear that we all have different opinions on this, and I don't think we're ever all going to agree on the acceptable level of snarkiness.

But I don't think this is all really about whether we should be nicer to avocationist - nor is everyone worked up because they feel bad for her.  I think people do feel bad for her - I do - but that's not why they're upset with each other here.

I think it has more to do with respecting each other's feelings.    Because of the nature of this forum, the conversations we start with other people are public - anyone can butt in if they want.  The question is: should people feel that they have the right to butt into any conversation on this board?  Or, if they do, should they observe a basic code of politeness - to each other, that is; at least to the extent of prefacing their remarks with "if I may add something here" or something like that.

To get back to the pub analogy, it's often as if you're having a quiet conversation in the corner - with a stranger whose opinions you find interesting, but wrong (let's call that person "A") - when along comes someone (let's just call him/her "L") yelling at A "you lying f#ck, you dickhead" etc.  It may be that L has a history going back some time with A; but, in real life, I think that L would not actually do this if A was busy talking to someone else.

Frankly, I was annoyed this time because I was having a conversation with Heddle - and enjoying it - and in swept L, as he always does, yelling abuse at Heddle.  I didn't appreciate it - and I thought it showed a fundamental lack of respect towards me as much as towards Heddle (who has probably come to expect this by now).

Anyway, we all come here, in part, because we are fairly like-minded and enjoy each others' company.  We should remember that before we do things that show basic disrespect for the people who are part of this community.

--------------

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,12:45   

"Is this soapbox available?"

I take a pragmatic approach to this forum and the comments.  Yes, this is a public place but it is so far removed from personal contact that I wonder why people get so worked up over comments.

The act of typing and sending a post, just like writing a letter, adds a level of possible editorializing by the author that the sent message should indicate exactly what the poster wishes.  The problem comes with semantics because the reader may not understand what the writer is saying due to limitations of the written word.

However, with straight-forward messages like "Idiot!", or "Your a wanker!", there is usually no clarification needed (i.e. tell me how you REALLY feel about this person/comment/situation/idea).  A post like that could/should be overlooked because it is so easy to NOT comment to these posts.  If the thread is about Avo, and I post a comment like "Avo is poop." then it is up to her to do the following actions;
1) Choose to reply.
2) Select the reply or new message button.
3) Type the response.
4) Select the Add Reply button.
Each one of these activities are direct actions chosen by the individual BEFORE the reply hits the thread.  If someone wants to engage a person slinging insults or invective then it is an active, not passive or accidental, choice.  If someone chooses NOT to engage the mudslinger then the thread continues too.

I only see the moderators job as cleaning up off-color off-topic posts or personal attacks.  (A good example of this is the "Mirkin" post with photoshop creativity by Reciprocating Bill on the UD thread.  See the bottom of page 46 of the Bathroom Wall.)Expression of your personal opinion is no problem.  The choice of someone to engage in a conversation is also not a problem.  The beuty of the forum style is you can CHOOSE who to engage.

The whole argument about "image" and mob tactics is a seperate topic item for a seperate post.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,13:15   

Demallien's current claim:
 
Quote
I was accused by 3 people at once, repeatedly, of being a hypocrite.  But when I called them on it, and asked for one single example... que dalle!


Me, back on page 5
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,09:47)
 
Quote
You, and others on this list keep accusing me of hypocrisy.  You wouldn't like, you know, have a quote or two to back that up would you?

Sure. First, I made a post generally recounting my experiences with similar criticism on the AFDave thread. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....1;st=60 . In that post, I specifically mentioned that I wasn't trying to insult YOU at all, demallien, yet you chose to take this tack:      
Quote
I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured

I replied that this was simply not so, and that I considered that an unwarranted and insulting leap:      
Quote
I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk.

Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" "  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4141;p=49268

Your response was to say :      
Quote
Oh, I didn't answer the question because I thought the question was rhetorical. Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot". http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=49277


Now, you can't say that you used "blithering idiot" merely because you spotted one use of "honorable" and not "honourable"...
or any amount of spelling differences...because anyone can alter such details in trolling. and it would be stupid to assume that such things are not done. In fact, it's been done here many times ( see the JAD examples, or DaveScot's multiple personae, or Larry Falafelman). Besides which, I didn't mention JUST spelling, but also grammar and tone.

This makes you, demallien, guilty of unwarranted insult, just as you were whining about. Period.


Demallian responds:

 
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,10:14)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,09:47)
This makes you, demallien, guilty of unwarranted insult, just as you were whining about. Period.

You firstly construe my comment on what I believe your beliefs to be as an insult.  OK, stretching the definition a looooong way there matey.  You'll have to show me where the dictionary says that that's an insult.

You then, fairly openly accuse me of being a sock-puppet for Avocationist - a direct attack on my integrity.  At which time, I responded that you are a blithering idiot.  This was not un unwarranted insult, but a direct response to you claiming that I was lying about my identity.  

So BZZZT! No prize for you! That quote does not in any way, shape, or form demonstrate hypocrisy on my part.  But thanks for playing, LOSER!


My final responses:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,10:29)
 
Quote
deadman is a blithering idiot if only for being dumb enough to accuse someone of being a sock puppet without any proof whatsoever.

Again, stupid, asking and accusing are different things. I merely asked why your writing style was similar. You chose to take that as some personal affront, when in fact, there is no real way of telling you are NOT avocationist WITHOUT asking ...there are proxies that can disguise any IP. This is also a common tactic. So I asked, quite honestly and justifiably...because trolls can change both spelling and IP's. Got it?

Now your next move is to say that merely asking is "blithering idiocy" because you say so.


And me:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,11:10)
On a final note:    
Quote
but stating a question, twice, in two seperate posts that you consider it possible someone is lying about their identity  is a pretty strong indicator that you think that that person is lying about their identity.  This, stated in a public forum is a pretty strong insult, and can expect to be responded to by insults.

Glad to see that you acknowledge your response was insulting, as I stated.

Also glad to see that you've discovered that I could contribute at least one original idea ( to you) : that it's not really possible to determine if a person is adeptly trolling a forum without asking.

You can consider this an insult as well, if you wish, demallien: Your use of "we" in claiming to speak for other posters, as well as your claim to speak for unknown lurkers -- along with your desire to get others to conform to your tastes in language use -- is indicative of some real control issues. You might want to talk with someone about that. *wink*


Demallien's final response:

 
Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,11:42)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,11:10)
You can consider this an insult as well, if you wish, demallien: Your use of "we" in claiming to speak for other posters, as well as your claim to speak for unknown lurkers -- along with your desire to get others to conform to your tastes in language use -- is indicative of some real control issues. You might want to talk with someone about that. *wink*

deadbeat,

I've said it before, I'll say it again:
get a clue, get a life.  

Having done so, report bback, and I may take you seriously


Whining repeatedly won't make you the victim you want to be, demallien. Not that I actually care very much -- I just dislike your manipulative misrepresentations, particularly since I began my interaction with you by just talking about "censorship" and you decided to claim I thought it meant I could feel free to attack others ...blah, blah, blah. It merely escalated from there.

But feel free to claim you didn't hypocritically insult...while your penultimate post to me acknowledges it. Congratulations.

Edit: By the way, your childlike use of "deadbeat" to hurt my little feelings was a real coup for you, I'm sure. Too bad you couldn't actually respond to what I wrote.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,13:30   

The use of insults is to be expected, the use of anglo-saxonisms is sadly frowned upon, so I've gone along with that for months, really.

"mob mentality" is interesting, since there's always the strong liklihood of multiple people who know each other ( relatively speaking) spotting the same flaws/fallacies/games at the same time and saying so.

"image" is also a tough one, given that this is "After the Bar Closes," which at least connotes some measure of latitude in terms of what image is portrayed. I think I mentioned on AFDave's thread that I don't consider this a formal debate situation although I'd like to think basic rules of logic and avoiding fallacy apply.

I'm just glad I'm not a moderator.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,13:41   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 02 2007,12:45)
I only see the moderators job as cleaning up off-color off-topic posts or personal attacks.  (A good example of this is the "Mirkin" post with photoshop creativity by Reciprocating Bill on the UD thread.  See the bottom of page 46 of the Bathroom Wall.)

Otherwise known as a "smirkin' merkin."

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,14:19   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2007,14:41)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 02 2007,12:45)
I only see the moderators job as cleaning up off-color off-topic posts or personal attacks.  (A good example of this is the "Mirkin" post with photoshop creativity by Reciprocating Bill on the UD thread.  See the bottom of page 46 of the Bathroom Wall.)

Otherwise known as a "smirkin' merkin."

Can moderators delete avatars?

Hmmmmmm.....

Would be a hilarious scene if the "smirkin' mirkin" was debating GCT right now.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,14:40   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,14:30)
The use of insults is to be expected, the use of anglo-saxonisms is sadly frowned upon, so I've gone along with that for months, really.
You were just overcome with Eau-du-AFDave that it expressed itself with a case of Tourrettes.  I hope you now carry the emergency injector in case of a relapse.
Quote
"mob mentality" is interesting, since there's always the strong liklihood of multiple people who know each other ( relatively speaking) spotting the same flaws/fallacies/games at the same time and saying so.
I was thinking about two situations with "mob mentality".  Yours is the first one I'll call the "critical mob mentality", and the other is case of piling-on when one commenter slings some mud and others either reference or directly agree with the first poster.  I guess you would call this the "angry mob mentality".  I think DaveScot and Dembski are guilty of inciting the "angry mob" by wielding and using the banning stick the way they do.  All the other commenters (sycophants in this case, that's all that D&D allow anymore) are cowed into submission and agreement that the banned persons ideas are wrong.

I think the "critical mob mentality" shows that the argument or idea brought forward has clear weaknesses.  With many posters commenting on the weaknesses this can be a bad day for the commenter (think AFDave in this case) but a good day for the others because multiple viewpoints of the same idea are being presented.  Only a weak (in the psychological sense) debater will be cowed by this type of situation.  In which case the debater has learned something about him/her self anyway so no harm done.

Quote
"image" is also a tough one, given that this is "After the Bar Closes," which at least connotes some measure of latitude in terms of what image is portrayed. I think I mentioned on AFDave's thread that I don't consider this a formal debate situation although I'd like to think basic rules of logic and avoiding fallacy apply.

I'm just glad I'm not a moderator.

It's surprising how much AFDave can be referenced for board performance and standards.

Mike PSS
*****************
Deadman,
Any quick or humerous updates on the Man From MO.  I wander over and read another 10 pages but the thread is exponential in its growth pattern.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,19:54   

Mike PSS: Basically Dave is stuck in a rut and spinning his wheels wildly trying to equate evolution and creationism. He's tried lots of different approaches and ploys to say that evolution can't be falsified because it's macro-evo, not science, not empirical repeatable science, not nomothetic science, not granola Keebler Elf Kookie science (okay, the last might be mine).
At present, Dave is demanding evidence that evolution made "risky" predictions from Darwin to the elucidation of the genetic code  and Dave searching hard for any statements that might show --however tenously-- that creationism made similar "predictions." Dave is also busily claiming that the creationist paradigm was "science" that Darwinian evolution supplanted.

It's all part of his plan to achieve what no one else has ever done: show evolution is NOT science and is therefore equal to creationism epistemically, OR to show creationism IS science.

He's a hoot, I tells ya.

Oh, and stevestory said this earlier:    
Quote
These days I login to see threads of insults and fights. The board is out of control.

NO! YOU'RE out of control, YOU'RE out of order!! This isn't a trial, it's a KANGAROO KOURT -- YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!!! *screams and falls to the ground, frothing and twitching *

A VOICE IN THE COURTROOM: You've KILLLLLED HIM!!!! screams erupt as the bailiff draws his gun and aims at the camera.
We HEAR an explosion and  see a blinding FLASH. CUT TO:

EXT. DAY:
A funeral, with weeping mourners.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,20:12   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 02 2007,15:19)
Can moderators delete avatars?

Hmmmmmm.....



You, uh, you lookin' to push your luck, Bub?

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,22:31   

Is it permissible to insult oneself? I'm a pretentious lying fuckwit, a hornwielding bunny-loving pussbag. I've had enough of my bullshit, and I want to be able to tell me that when the occasion arises.  

Is that OK?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,22:40   

Quote
I'm just glad I'm not a moderator.


amen brother flamethrower.

;)

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,22:53   

deadman,

The use of the word "hypocrisy" to describe me by three different people in this thread was a classic example of mob-attack.  Not because the three of you had all spotted the same flaw.  Quite the contrary one of you (I don't remember which, and frankly can't be bothered going back to check), one of you decided to use the term, innaccuracte though it was, and the other two, falling in with mob-mentality, started repeating it uncritically.  This is a classic mob response.  Thankyou for highlighting it, it really does show want I'm trying to say about mob attacks on this board.

The charge was of course without foundation.  For someone to be accused of being a hypocrite, you have to show that what they say and what they do are two different things.  Not "what I think you said, not having bothered to read it carefully", but what the person actually said.  When challenged, no-one could actually demonstrate that.

Without stopping to think about what hypocrisy actually is (which would have been the logical, rational thing to do) the other two members of the discussion apparently thought to themselves 'hey, cool insult, I'll have to use that too'.  Follow the leader.  Mob mentality.  It's when this kicks in on the board (and both this thread and the Avocationist thread demonstrate it clearly), that the atmosphere on the forum becomes truly poisonous.

One thing that members of the forum could do, instead of waiting for the moderator to jump in, would be to stop and think before posting a "yeah, me too" insult, and assessing whether said insult actually, really truly is justifiable. The whole "me too" post is the very heart of the mob attack, and all members should see that as a warning sign to check the post very carefully before hitting the reply button.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,22:56   

Quote
by three different people in this thread about me was a classic example of mob-attack


"help! help! I'm bein' repressed"

"come see the violence inherent in the system!!"

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,22:59   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2007,23:31)
Is it permissible to insult oneself? I'm a pretentious lying fuckwit, a hornwielding bunny-loving pussbag. I've had enough of my bullshit, and I want to be able to tell me that when the occasion arises.  

Is that OK?

Sure it is. The next step is, you post a few more times about how terribly you're mistreating yourself, then you send me two PM's and an email about how you should be banned, and how for not banning you I'm the worst moderator since Caveman Oog moderated a group of rocks in ancient Babylon, and how you're CC'ing Wesley so he knows what a terrible moderator I am, and then you post a retrospective of what you said to yourself and how it violates several rules I've attempted to enforce. Then you put up some posts about how hypocritical I'll be if I either ban you or not ban you. Then you talk about how great it would be if you had freedom of speech and how similar AtBC is to ancient china, and that's pretty much your close.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:03   

nawww,

too much work, Steve.

I prefer to let my laziness speak for itself.

...ancient china?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:04   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2007,22:59)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2007,23:31)
Is it permissible to insult oneself? I'm a pretentious lying fuckwit, a hornwielding bunny-loving pussbag. I've had enough of my bullshit, and I want to be able to tell me that when the occasion arises.  

Is that OK?

Sure it is. The next step is, you post a few more times about how terribly you're mistreating yourself, then you send me two PM's and an email about how you should be banned, and how for not banning you I'm the worst moderator since Caveman Oog moderated a group of rocks in ancient Babylon, and how you're CC'ing Wesley so he knows what a terrible moderator I am, and then you post a retrospective of what you said to yourself and how it violates several rules I've attempted to enforce. Then you put up some posts about how hypocritical I'll be if I either ban you or not ban you. Then you talk about how great it would be if you had freedom of speech and how similar AtBC is to ancient china, and that's pretty much your close.

Wow, can I be a moderator too?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:13   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2007,00:04)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2007,22:59)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2007,23:31)
Is it permissible to insult oneself? I'm a pretentious lying fuckwit, a hornwielding bunny-loving pussbag. I've had enough of my bullshit, and I want to be able to tell me that when the occasion arises.  

Is that OK?

Sure it is. The next step is, you post a few more times about how terribly you're mistreating yourself, then you send me two PM's and an email about how you should be banned, and how for not banning you I'm the worst moderator since Caveman Oog moderated a group of rocks in ancient Babylon, and how you're CC'ing Wesley so he knows what a terrible moderator I am, and then you post a retrospective of what you said to yourself and how it violates several rules I've attempted to enforce. Then you put up some posts about how hypocritical I'll be if I either ban you or not ban you. Then you talk about how great it would be if you had freedom of speech and how similar AtBC is to ancient china, and that's pretty much your close.

Wow, can I be a moderator too?

If you have a lot of time on your hands, talk to Wes about your desires to be moderator. It would be good to have someone here who has a lot of time on his hands. Do him a favor, though, and wait until, say, 2/10 to bring it up. Wes is in the middle of a drastic move cross-country, and he's a little occupied at the moment. But if you have a lot of time and have good ideas about moderating the place, by all means make your case to him.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:23   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2007,23:13)
If you have a lot of time on your hands, talk to Wes about your desires to be moderator. It would be good to have someone here who has a lot of time on his hands. Do him a favor, though, and wait until, say, 2/10 to bring it up. Wes is in the middle of a drastic move cross-country, and he's a little occupied at the moment. But if you have a lot of time and have good ideas about moderating the place, by all means make your case to him.

I was being sympathetically facetious! It sounds like (sometimes) thankless #### when the dogs of flame are loosed.

[edit] What is with these ridiculous pound signs for #### and ####, er, he11 and dam, when meanwhile I can call myself a cocksucking motherfucker who can't understand normal thinking? (self-censored).  When I'm sick to death of myself, I mean.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:36   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 02 2007,12:45)
However, with straight-forward messages like "Idiot!", or "Your a wanker!", there is usually no clarification needed (i.e. tell me how you REALLY feel about this person/comment/situation/idea).  A post like that could/should be overlooked because it is so easy to NOT comment to these posts.  If the thread is about Avo, and I post a comment like "Avo is poop." then it is up to her to do the following actions;
1) Choose to reply.
2) Select the reply or new message button.
3) Type the response.
4) Select the Add Reply button.
Each one of these activities are direct actions chosen by the individual BEFORE the reply hits the thread.  If someone wants to engage a person slinging insults or invective then it is an active, not passive or accidental, choice.  If someone chooses NOT to engage the mudslinger then the thread continues too.

I think everyone probably agrees with that Mike.  But then, the problem isn't really with those types of post.  When it's clear that a post is 100% generic insult, the reader probably does just skip over it.

But the problem is that you can't just skip over all of the insults.  Take for example earlier in this thread when deadman indicated that he thought I was Avocationist posting under a second identity.

I calmly took this as just a ridiculous insult that belittled deadman far more than me, so I let it ride.  But then the guy repeats it, highlighting that I haven't answered his ridiculous question.  Worse than that, the rest of the pack had alreay picked up the dumb meme that I was a sockpuppet, so I had it coming from all directions.  So you see, you can't just scrub out the gratuitous insults - you're expected to answer the dumb things.

Also, there are insults that will push people's buttons.  Personally, I don't appreciate people attacking my integrity.  Calling me a liar, accusing me of misleading or deceiving, these things I am unwilling to let them stand in a public forum.  Other people can't stand being called dumb - note deadman's response to being labelled a blithering idiot.  So that's a second class of insult that people simply need to answered.  I'm willing to bet that you too have certain insults, which you would need to answer.  If, because of a funny turn of phrase somewhere, someone could accuse you of being a child molestor for example, with enough justifications given so that a reader not paying attention might be sucked in.  You'd probably feel a need to respond to that.

Anyhow, as you note, one or two insults, people can probably let slide.  But unleash a torrent of insults from multiple sources, and the person is probably going to feel the need to respond.  We'll just have to wait until the mob turns it's attention on you to see if you remain graceful under fire...

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:46   

Quote
We'll just have to wait until the mob turns it's attention on you to see if you remain graceful under fire...


you haven't been here long enough to know this, but I would say that just about everyone here has been flamed at one time or another, including Steve.

the most productive response, based on the history here, appears to be a witty retort followed by moving on to the next arena.

think the Oscar Wilde sketch from Monty Python, if you know that one.

not letting go is a sign of insecurity.

...his majesty is like a stream of bat's piss...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:52   

Give it a rest, demallien. I didn't respond to your previous post for a reason. The facts speak for themselves and are included in my reviewing post above.

I realize you want to pose as a victim and to have the last word, but I will note now that once again, you never responded to my final post to you regarding the matter.

You did do a fine job of managing to change my screenname to "deadbeat," though -- much like Jerry Falwell calling Ellen DeGeneris " Ellen Degenerate" and about as effective.

I'm sure you will now want "the final word'" so feel free to whine away again. I won't respond to your inevitable next post.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:55   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 02 2007,22:56)
Quote
by three different people in this thread about me was a classic example of mob-attack


"help! help! I'm bein' repressed"

"come see the violence inherent in the system!!"

Well, err, yes Ichy.  

You would do well to note that the very first time that I posted about civility on this forum was to defend another, not myself.  I deliberately posted that because I figured that Avocationist had well understood that if she posted such a message, the only response she would get would be an immature one, such as yours that I've quoted.  Ergo, someone else would have to post the message.

The fact that the mob then turned it's unjustified abuse on me is just a confirmation that repression is indeed alive and well on this forum, even if it is at the hands of the mob, and not at the hands of the moderators.

Hopefully with the changes in moderation policy that Steve has since implemented, we'll see this change.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2007,23:58   

Reciprocating Bill: I like your ideas. Taken to their logical conclusions, I can cut out all the middlemen entirely.


I can appoint myself founder and moderator of the board, then engage in a nasty, obscenity-laced flame war with myself,  complain to me about my behavior and send CC's to me while I chortle in glee about my Machiavellian machinations.

Later, when I try to be conciliatory with me, I'll complain to founder me about moderator me and get myself "fired" from overseeing me. Then I'll wait for me to overwhelm myself in a flood of objections about why I relieved me of duty.

Finally, I'll ride that tide of supportive messages from me back into my former position as moderator as I pat myself on the back in triumph.

Hellz, I won't need steve at all. You are obsolete, human!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:05   

Quote
You would do well to note that the very first time that I posted about civility on this forum was to defend another, not myself


actually, that could easily be taken as a bit of concern trolling.

do you know what that is?

frankly, you've spent SO much energy and time on this issue, I find myself completely bored of your presence on this board, and have no expectations you will have anything of interest to contribute in the near future.

sorry, gotta call em as i see em.

you've been given outs to move on to something more productive any number of times, so my advice, for what it's worth, is that you do so if you actually wish to be a productive member of this little forum.

barring that, you should stick yourself like glue to this thread and shake your fist harder.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:12   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,05:50)

Quote
Avocationist was undoubtably stressed by just that.

I'm curious but at what stage do people take responsibility and accountability for themselves on these boards? Having said that, it is what I stress to people on the groups I moderate.
Quote
If someone comes to debate here, they are going to have to deal with that level of heat.

And, if they can't deal with it, does everyone go running to Steve??
Quote
But on top of that there where the snide remarks attacking her intelligence

Yes, much how when deadman was called "deadbeat" and an idiot on this thread? C'mon!
Quote
The pack then turned it's attention to me, and we then got to see that abuse has just about become ritualised on this board.  First come the snide remarks on my reading comprehension.

Victimisation works, if you are not a perpetrator.
Quote
I was accused by 3 people at once, repeatedly, of being a hypocrite.

Actually if I remember correctly, Louis was stating how he responds TO hypocrisy. I responded to that. Then you called deadman an "idiot" - he called you a "hypocrite".

*sighs* this is totally juvenile. This is NOT a controlled debate forum. It's unfair to expect Steve (who you are appealing to) to monitor everything on this board because an individual and/or individuals do not know how to filter out what they will and will not respond to.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,23:52)
Give it a rest, demallien. I didn't respond to your previous post for a reason. The facts speak for themselves and are included in my reviewing post above.

I realize you want to pose as a victim and to have the last word, but I will note now that once again, you never responded to my final post to you regarding the matter.

You did do a fine job of managing to change my screenname to "deadbeat," though -- much like Jerry Falwell calling Ellen DeGeneris " Ellen Degenerate" and about as effective.

I'm sure you will now want "the final word'" so feel free to whine away again. I won't respond to your inevitable next post.

Well, it's nice to know that I'll have the last word :-)

Deadman, since Steve stepped in, I have tried to keep this discussion civil.  You apparently are incapable of doing so, sliding back into sneering through the use of words such as "whine" and "pose as the victim'.  But hey, that's ok, one can't expect you to grow up overnight...

You still haven't come up with the pair of quotes needed to show that I'm a hypocrite.  You know, the quote where I say "Everyone should do xxx", followed up with the quote showing that I do yyy instead.  That wouldn't be because a pair of such quotes doesn't exist now would it?  I don't suppose I could ask you for an apology perhaps?

You also might note that I got what I wanted out of the discussion deadman, which is to say better moderation on this forum.  You didn't get what you apparently want, which is the right to unbridled abuse as you see fit.  You might want to think about that before dismissing my position as 'whining'.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:36   

Quote
You also might note that I got what I wanted out of the discussion deadman, which is to say better moderation on this forum.


Yes, control.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:41   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,00:12)
It's unfair to expect Steve (who you are appealing to) to monitor everything on this board because an individual and/or individuals do not know how to filter out what they will and will not respond to.

Jo,

Point 1.  You, as with others, seem to be under the impression that I think that no insults should ever be uttered on this board, and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman.  You wouldn't happen to have handy a quote saying that I feel that no insults are acceptable on this board would you?  Nah, didn't think so.  Anyway, all that's in the past.  We aren't here to rehash all those arguments, but rather to try and find a way of preventing such situations in the future.

Point 2. I'm appealling to Steve???  Again, in the heat of the discussion, I explicitly stated that I don't think running to the moderator every time there is a problem was a solution.  The only time I addressed a comment to Steve was when everyone was accusing me of being a sock puppet, and I wanted him to clarify that the IP addresses in question were in fact different.  In the post-discussion, I have tried to explain, both as an observer, and as the person under attack, what I saw as a pattern of behaviour, with the goal of finding exactly what is the unacceptable behaviour, so that reasonable behaviour, including robust debate can continue unhindered.  Note that I have even suggested that censoring by sending posts to the Bathroom Wall probably isn't the best solution.

Point 3.  Check out the phrase in italics.  I've never claimed to be the victim Jo.  I'm not stupid enough to let myself become a victim of bullies.  But that I was the person under attack froma group is un undeniable fact.  You may choose to suggest that the attack was reasonable - I disagree, and that is a debate for elsewhere.  But that I was an individual under attack froma group is a simple statement of fact.

Point 4.  You suggest that if a person doesn't like un insult, they can simply choose not to answer.  Unfortunately you have to read the insult before knowing it's there, so the poor insultee is still going to feel the sting.  And well, sure, that's pretty much what Avocationist did.  She chose not to answer by leaving.  Is that what you want Jo?  To finish every debate with the person holding the minority position  to pack up and leave?  Groupthink much?!?!

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,00:45   

must - shake - fist - harder.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,02:29   

It seems to me that if posters are off-topic, spamming, using bad language, then the mods should be alerted. A response in kind leads to escalation of the sort recently witnessed. Children behave best in an environment where the ground rules are clear, fair and enforced.

I too think it was a shame Avocationist was given a rough ride without having much of an opportunity to show whether her world view was capable of changing. Giving people enough rope... works well.

But what makes my opinions any more  authoritative than anyone else's?

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,03:25   

Quote
You, as with others, seem to be under the impression that I think that no insults should ever be uttered on this board

No I don't. Nor have I ever said that. This is NOT a formal debate. Therefore THIS does NOT afford constant monitoring.
Quote
and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman

If you are going to stress a point about behaviour, then keep within the boundaries of that behaviour. Simple. Otherwise it will rear up and bite you in the ass. "Do as I say, not as I do"
Quote
We aren't here to rehash all those arguments, but rather to try and find a way of preventing such situations in the future.

I was asking for solutions a ways back..
Quote
I'm appealling to Steve???


Well, you said:

Steve,  I'm not sure that people have really grasped where the incivility was in the last couple of discussions.  Let me explain from my point of view, at first as a bystander, and then secondly as the target.
Found here:
Link
Quote
You may choose to suggest that the attack was reasonable - I disagree, and that is a debate for elsewhere.

Ok, there is a  lot presupposition as to what I supposed am doing, posting, claiming AND thinking. So I will lay this out to save further confusion.

On these message boards as with any message boards and/or chat group and/or email group, people who decide to engage in discussions need to take responsbility and accountability for themselves. Avocationist is more than articulate enough to speak for herself. Avocationist is more than proficient enough to debate this subject for herself. The mere fact that Avocationist is debating on the other thread, is adequate grounds to say that Avocationist knows what she is doing. Also, that Avocationist chose not to speak to those insulting her, shows that Avocationist actually has taken responsibility into her hands to decide what she will and will not do - and much credit to Avocationist on that score. Avocationist is also back debating again. Probably with no long term psychological effects.

Deadman is my partner (or SO as Ichyt calls him) and the only time I intervened on his dialogue was when he was called "Deadbeat" however, I credit him with his own personal accountability and responsibility not to cock-block his discussions with anyone on any board. Nor do I defend him - he's more than capable of doing that himself - however I will pick out certain things said - that don't synchronise - one of those being "deadbeat".

The sheer fact that this has escalated to the realms it has, is a controlling factor. Who can do what, when, where, to whom, and why, and who should sort it out. It should never have escalated this far.

So let me reiterate this:

1. Personal responsibility and accountability is needed by individuals who enter onto boards where debate is present - there are opposing sides, and where it is not a FORMAL debate.

2. Avocationist is a big girl, highly articulate, eloquent and possessing skills to debate. Not to diminish anything she has done - her break away has infused her to continue debating - making this discussion MOOT.

3. Louis has conducted himself in a manner which I find to be amicable, stressing what he will and will not tolerate. In doing so he has set down his boundaries. It is up to others to accept those boundaries or not. If they accept them, then obviously it will be on the understanding of those boundaries. The same applies to Dr. Lenny, Deadman and anyone else here. Yourself included.

4. I have read many things, and I noticed that Avocationist has done the same - has she replied to everything that has been insulting? No. Why? Because she has started to self-filter. Which she is doing again on the thread named after her.

Conclusion: The original topic is back in full swing, after Avocationists short vacation - she did mention she would be away for awhile. Obviously not long lasting and with no long term negative effects. Positions have been stated, made clear and thats more than anyone could ask for - boundaries were laid down by specific people. Also, people are NOT forced to log in. They are not FORCED to answer. Why they chose to, is solely their responsibility.

I hope that's made it more clearer. If not, ask, and I'll restate it again.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,04:23   

Quote
The sheer fact that this has escalated to the realms it has, is a controlling factor. Who can do what, when, where, to whom, and why, and who should sort it out. It should never have escalated this far.

So let me reiterate this:

1. Personal responsibility and accountability is needed by individuals who enter onto boards where debate is present - there are opposing sides, and where it is not a FORMAL debate.

2. Avocationist is a big girl, highly articulate, eloquent and possessing skills to debate. Not to diminish anything she has done - her break away has infused her to continue debating - making this discussion MOOT.

3. Louis has conducted himself in a manner which I find to be amicable, stressing what he will and will not tolerate. In doing so he has set down his boundaries. It is up to others to accept those boundaries or not. If they accept them, then obviously it will be on the understanding of those boundaries. The same applies to Dr. Lenny, Deadman and anyone else here. Yourself included.

4. I have read many things, and I noticed that Avocationist has done the same - has she replied to everything that has been insulting? No. Why? Because she has started to self-filter. Which she is doing again on the thread named after her.

Conclusion: The original topic is back in full swing, after Avocationists short vacation - she did mention she would be away for awhile. Obviously not long lasting and with no long term negative effects. Positions have been stated, made clear and thats more than anyone could ask for - boundaries were laid down by specific people. Also, people are NOT forced to log in. They are not FORCED to answer. Why they chose to, is solely their responsibility.

I hope that's made it more clearer. If not, ask, and I'll restate it again.

Which is all well and good.  I even agree with most of it.  But have a think about this Jo.  I insulted deadman only after my blood had started to boil after repeated snide comments about my identity, my integrity, and my intelligence.

It should not be necessary that people's blood is set to boiling.  At any rate, as we all managed to amply demonstrate, once the blood is boiling, good debate goes out the window.  In the interest of quality debate, if nothing else, people need to ease back on the snarking.

You claim that Avocationist has started self-filtering.  Go and read her latest posts again.  She express, repeatedly, and in strong terms her disgust at the level of vitriol that is being directed at her.  She expresses frustration that people accuse her of being dishonest simply because she disagrees with them.  I confirm that this is what people have been doing to her.

Anyway, as I've pointed out previously, you can't filter out all of the nastiness.  Some of it is intimately mixed in with the arguments people are making.  To avoid debates degenerating, it would seem evident that the insults need to be toned down considerably.  Once they start flowing, they won't stop, because people get all excited.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,04:35   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,03:25)
Quote
and hence that I am a hypocrite for insulting deadman

If you are going to stress a point about behaviour, then keep within the boundaries of that behaviour. Simple. Otherwise it will rear up and bite you in the ass. "Do as I say, not as I do"

Sure, I agree with you.  But if I haven't said that nobody should ever insult each other on the board, then it's not hypocrisy for me to insult someone "Do as I say, not do as I do" .  

This is really not very difficult to understand Jo.

To help you get a handle on what I do in fact consider to be inacceptable, it's when the level of insults get very nasty (I've never really seen this on this forum happily enough), or when the number of insults starts to go passed the number of points raised (ie it becomes gratuitous), or (and I admit, I have only added this one in after reflecting over discussions of the past week), when a group of people start throwing around insults at one person, as a type of group attack.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,04:44   

Quote
But if I haven't said that nobody should ever insult each other on the board, then it's not hypocrisy for me to insult someone "Do as I say, not do as I do" .  

This is really not very difficult to understand Jo.

Good because that is why I brought the focus back on Avocationist - this should never have been personalised. It's not about YOU, its not about ME, its not about DEADMAN, or LOUIS. If in fact its about anyone, its about STEVE. I made sure I never personalised it and dealt with the context of this. That should not be difficult to understand.

What should be understood is that this was raised - the only person with a major issue was you. It was evidently Steve's job to fix it - he has done his best considering. This continued topic all goes back to Steve - as the moderator. As a moderator myself, the best one could hope for to ensure Steve's job is made easier is to help him find a solution - are you DOING THAT?

The rest of what you are saying to me in your posts now are POINTLESS - sorry but thats true. It's absolutely POINTLESS. So stop being a cause and find a solution.

I have offered solutions - I will again.

Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple.

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,05:37   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:44)
I have offered solutions - I will again.

Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple.

Sure, you've offered a solution. But it's not very practical is it.  I mean let's work through it.  Person A insults Person B.  Now if I've understood you correctly, you're fine with that.  If Person B can't handle the insult, they should just screen it.  OK.

The problem is, what if Person B does handle it, but decides that the best response is an insult in return?  Presumably you're also ok with this, because hey, it's only an insult, and Person A should just filter if he can't deal, right? And so on, until we finish up with the thread that we just had, which everyone agrees was a Bad Thing.  In other words, your "solution" is in fact what we had already.

UNLESS of course you propose that the chain should be broken somewhere.  Perhaps Person B doesn't have the right to insult Person A?  So whoever is quicker on the insult can continue insulting?  I can imagine that one: Every thread would start of with variations on "You're all fucking deranged, and nyah nyah nyah, you can't insult me back any more, because I was first!"

If Person A did get in first, and you're suggesting that Person B shouldn't respond, does this mean that person A can continue insulting Person B as much as he likes?

You see, it's just plain ridiculous! It would never work! Or at least, it would never avoid the situations that we've had recently.

I agree though that personal responsibility is the key.  But it has to come from the side of the insulter - Person A in our example above. If person A never starts throwing around insults, the cycle never starts.

Which is where my proposed solution (a few posts back)comes in.  Firstly, that everyone tries to stay civil (my position right from word go), and when they slip, the moderator gives a simple warning in-thread.  This seems to be what Steve is now doing (he almost certainly came up with this independently though - wouldn't want to be accused of trying to claim credit by an uncharitable reader)- we'll see how it turns out.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,05:58   

Quote
Which is where my proposed solution (a few posts back)comes in.  Firstly, that everyone tries to stay civil (my position right from word go), and when they slip, the moderator gives a simple warning in-thread.  This seems to be what Steve is now doing (he almost certainly came up with this independently though - wouldn't want to be accused of trying to claim credit by an uncharitable reader)- we'll see how it turns out.


So where exactly does this exclude personal responsibility (being civil) and personal accountability (moderation)? Let me map this out where you will understand:

Personal responsibility: Being responsible for ones conduct on the board. Being responsible for what one responds to, and how. Being responsible as a whole in communication - in particular ones own communication because you very well can't adequately predict and control another person's communication - therefore start with and focus on, ones personal self.

Personal accountability: If one does not conduct themselves in a manner befitting the usual discourse, then one must face the consequences. Usually having a moderator intervene.

So nothing you have said excludes what I have structured out, in fact, it's fully covered by what I have said.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,09:30   

Can someone let me know when the Politeness Policeman is finished . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,10:06   

The requirement that posters act respectful towards each other is here to stay.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,12:37   

Not you.  I meant the **self-annointed** Politeness Policeman.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,12:43   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,00:36)
I think everyone probably agrees with that Mike.  But then, the problem isn't really with those types of post.  When it's clear that a post is 100% generic insult, the reader probably does just skip over it.

But the problem is that you can't just skip over all of the insults.  Take for example earlier in this thread when deadman indicated that he thought I was Avocationist posting under a second identity.

I calmly took this as just a ridiculous insult that belittled deadman far more than me, so I let it ride.  But then the guy repeats it, highlighting that I haven't answered his ridiculous question.  Worse than that, the rest of the pack had alreay picked up the dumb meme that I was a sockpuppet, so I had it coming from all directions.  So you see, you can't just scrub out the gratuitous insults - you're expected to answer the dumb things.
But who are you engaging on the thread?  Up until the point you came in and told Lenny to tone it down there wasn't any engagement between you and deadman (or the others).  

So what changed?  The fact that the other debaters engaged your comment (and thus you) and you responded with reasoning.  At THIS point, in my mind, I would have ceased the back-and-forth and started a new thread on my own.  The subject drifted from the thread.  Therefore you could choose to engage (or disengage) at your hearts content on a thread specific to the point.  That is why many commented to bring the discussion over here.

As far as the specific "angry mob" attack I can see some of the reasoning behind the responses to your explanations.  It was fine for the first couple posts then the next few comments it resembled a Monty Python sketch (bless their creative minds) where you are the Officer (Graham Chapman) walking into a room of chaotic discussion and yelling "WHAT'S ALL THIS THEN!!!" and pontificating on your point while the others, distracted, hold their nose and pooh-pooh the messenger because of the interruption.

Quote
Also, there are insults that will push people's buttons.  Personally, I don't appreciate people attacking my integrity.  Calling me a liar, accusing me of misleading or deceiving, these things I am unwilling to let them stand in a public forum.  Other people can't stand being called dumb - note deadman's response to being labelled a blithering idiot.  So that's a second class of insult that people simply need to answered.  I'm willing to bet that you too have certain insults, which you would need to answer.  If, because of a funny turn of phrase somewhere, someone could accuse you of being a child molestor for example, with enough justifications given so that a reader not paying attention might be sucked in.  You'd probably feel a need to respond to that.

Ahhh....  So you noticed deadman and others use of the "button" tactic.  A well defined and honorable debate method that requires practice and guile.  If done poorly the "button pusher" looks the fool (take DaveScot for example), BUT if done successfully then no one else, even the "button pushee", quite sees the button being pushed until well after responses and comments have revealed or committed someone off track into (usually) purely emotional responses.  Now, with skill, the "button pushee" can recover and get the discussion back on track.  I think Icthyic said it best...
"...the most productive response, based on the history here, appears to be a witty retort followed by moving on to the next arena."
If someone can't control their own responses while at the same time defusing or derailing other attacks then I see issues in their life in the future.

Quote
Anyhow, as you note, one or two insults, people can probably let slide.  But unleash a torrent of insults from multiple sources, and the person is probably going to feel the need to respond.  We'll just have to wait until the mob turns it's attention on you to see if you remain graceful under fire...

Personnally I would look forward to the situation.  I consider myself practiced in inuendo and sarcasm enough that I would turn the insults back on the slinger.  It's not that I have a thick skin (I do), but that the attacks directed at me must either be based on something I wrote in the past or the personal feelings of the poster.  If it's factual then we can examine it openly.  If it's personal then we can enter the verbal arena (if we so choose) and see who the victor becomes.  I don't attach much value in the personal attacks of the other board members.

Mike PSS

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,13:58   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,05:37)
Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 03 2007,04:44)
I have offered solutions - I will again.

Personal responsibility - personal accountability. Screen what you respond to. Simple.

Sure, you've offered a solution. But it's not very practical is it.  I mean let's work through it.  Person A insults Person B.  Now if I've understood you correctly, you're fine with that.  If Person B can't handle the insult, they should just screen it.  OK.

The problem is, what if Person B does handle it, but decides that the best response is an insult in return?  Presumably you're also ok with this, because hey, it's only an insult, and Person A should just filter if he can't deal, right? And so on, until we finish up with the thread that we just had, which everyone agrees was a Bad Thing.  In other words, your "solution" is in fact what we had already...

I quite like most of the insults on this board. I have had a couple aimed at me and they just made me think. "Did I communicate well" "Was my post easilly missunderstood"? etc.

Most people who post regularly here are quite intelligent, interesting to "talk" with and have fascinating stories. Much better than any creationist/ID board.

The two most insulting people here are probably Lenny and Louis. I have met Louis and like him, I could not care less if we have different world views. The guy is interesting and fun to be around.

Never met Lenny, but I would probably enjoy his company if I did ( and if he had his daneaxe with him, I would at least pretend to like hin)*.

*That bit was suposed to be joke.

If you are easilly offended then please don't post here. I would rather see you gone than a change in moderation policy here.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2007,17:25   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 03 2007,13:58)
Never met Lenny, but I would probably enjoy his company if I did

You'd enjoy it more if you were a 20 year old attractive brunette.

Or at least *I* would enjoy it more.   ;)


NOTE to the Politeness Policeman, this is a joke.  Humor.  Funny.  Ar ar ar.  Good-natured friendly ribbing.

Sorry if it offends you.

No, actually I'm lying -- I'm not sorry at all.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,10:02   

Bill is correct. I've taken to just that practice, daily. Keeps me on my toes.

Just for fun, I picked on myself this morning over my slovenly "bed-head" appearance. I'm thinking about punching myself out later for that. God, I'm a prick sometimes.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,12:15   

Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D

*cries*

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,12:49   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,12:15)
Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D

*cries*

Javelin catching?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,13:25   

Quote (demallien @ Feb. 03 2007,00:20)
Well, it's nice to know that I'll have the last word :-)

Deadman, since Steve stepped in, I have tried to keep this discussion civil.  You apparently are incapable of doing so, sliding back into sneering through the use of words such as "whine" and "pose as the victim'.  But hey, that's ok, one can't expect you to grow up overnight...

Sometimes, Growing up is a tad over-rated.

In a supermarket, you can buy all kinds of fish. Today only, big special.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,14:04   

Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 04 2007,12:15)
Male sarcasm is equivalent to a javelin event by parapalegics at a special olympics  :D

*cries*

Well my javelin is bigger than theirs.

So there.

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,18:29   

Quote
I'm through wasting my time.


Oh no you're not!

come back here!

*sounds of gnashing teeth*

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,20:15   

umm....where's my insult?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2007,20:40   

*sound of hair blowing in the breeze*

uh, what's a golf clap?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,15:46   

Oops—posted to the wrong thread.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,15:52   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,17:54)
Mike PSS: Basically Dave is stuck in a rut and spinning his wheels wildly trying to equate evolution and creationism. He's tried lots of different approaches and ploys to say that evolution can't be falsified because it's macro-evo, not science, not empirical repeatable science, not nomothetic science, not granola Keebler Elf Kookie science (okay, the last might be mine).
At present, Dave is demanding evidence that evolution made "risky" predictions from Darwin to the elucidation of the genetic code  and Dave searching hard for any statements that might show --however tenously-- that creationism made similar "predictions." Dave is also busily claiming that the creationist paradigm was "science" that Darwinian evolution supplanted.

And, I'm pretty sure that after 80-odd pages of trying to show that macroevolution is "unfalsifiable," Dave has been confusing "falsifiable" with "provable" all along. I realized that if I replace the word "falsifiable" with "provable" in his posts, they actually make sense.

For example, he claims that the principle of common descent with modifcation is not "falsifiable." He continues to maintain this after we've given him at least three dozen different methods of falsifying it. But if you replace "falsifiable" with "provable," then his claim becomes "common descent is not provable." Which, of course, is pretty reasonable.

He says the same thing about the common descent of humans and chimps. He says, "The statement that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is not falsifiable," which is of course preposterous on its face. But if you change his wording to "The statement that humans and chimps share a common ancestor is not provable," then most anthropologists and paleontologists would probably agree. They'd think he was hair-splitting, and wonder why cares whether any scientific claim is "provable" or not, but they probably wouldn't disagree.

So I asked him if he could explain to me the distinction between "falsifiable" and "provable." So far he's been silent on the issue.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
  207 replies since Jan. 13 2007,18:44 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >