RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Vote< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,19:41   

All,

I am going for a first, I've never done anything like this before so bear with me if I am getting it wrong.

I am significantly pissed off. I consider the posting behaviour of Ghost of Paley to be intolerably abhorrent, and I have no wish to tolerate it further or be part of a selective forum that tolerates it. So I am totally unfairly forcing the issue. This probably comes across as an ultimatum, and it probably is. So what? I'm annoyed! I can only apologise if this annoys or offends anyone in turn. I also apologise that this, at least potentially, creates work for Wes and Steve. An unfortunate side effect, I hope it creates little to none. I will make it clear again that what I am doing I consider to be unfair to all of you, and for that I apologise. I'm a touchy fucker when riled.

Ghost of Paley has continually lied and twisted his way through every topic he has touched. He is calling my personal integrity into question in precisely the manner I call his into question. I am unfit to judge the evidence, obviously I consider myself to have been scrupulously honest, and him to be the polar opposite. I would like to know, and I would like Ghost of Paley to know, the opinion on both matters of all members and management.

I ask the members and management of this board to vote on the following questions:

a) Have I in anyway dishonestly misrepresented the public views of the poster known as Ghost of Paley? (I absolutely concede that I have been in no way charitable or granted him the benefit of the doubt. I explicitly am not charitable nor do I grant him the benefit of the doubt regarding any of his claims)

b) The current situation cannot continue, I request that either Ghost of Paley or myself or both be banned from comment at this forum.

I have no great desire either way. I cannot and will not tolerate dishonesty, even if it is my own (obviously I don't think I have been dishonest). If the members and management of this forum consider my conduct to have been dishonest, then I will happily so concede, and cease to post here. Should the members and management decide against me, I will of course apologise unreservedly to all concerned. Needless to say I expect the self same courtesy.

c) With recent removals/restrictions of AFDave, Thordaddy and members of this forum who have demonstrated conclusively that they cannot and will not debate or discuss any issue with any degree of intellectual rigour or honesty I suggest that the poster Ghost of Paley to have more than earned his placed amongst them. Regardless of the result of the vote on b) I would like the members and management to vote on whether or not Ghost of Paley's conduct has been materially different to that of AFDave or Thordaddy, and as such, on whether it has made him deserving of being banned.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,19:46   

Oh it should be abundantly obvious why I am doing this:

1) I have developed an abiding loathing of the Troll.

2) I have developed an abiding respect for the opinions of the members and management of this forum.

P.S. One thing I have considered is that this is very self centred, and probably very annoying of me. I am tired and annoyed, no excuse, perhaps mitigation, but tomorrow I will stand my this. Why today of all days I don't know, bad oatmeal or something. I apologise for wasting people's time on a vote of this type.

I would also be more than willing to hear from people who wish to criticise this action.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,20:05   

I actually didn't know Ghost of Paley was still posting here. Maybe because I avoid threads like 'From LUCA somethingorother'? The GOP threads are Ghettoes, and I'm like the cops in East LA, I don't go there unless somebody Asks me to go there.

edit: I think one of the reasons for the different treatment of AFDave and GoP is that a majority of the action lately has been AFDave related, and almost no one was still engaging GoP.

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,20:13   

a) I do not follow GoP threads closely, because I frankly don't find them very interesting and don't trust GoP to be serious. With that said, I don't believe that GoP has ever said anything inherently racist (he's proposed some odious ideas that would affect some races more strongly than others, but I think the ideas could stem from boneheaded philosophy rather than racism), and I think you've leveled that accusation against him. So for that I believe you (and others) have misrepresented GoP's public views.

b) In light of this statement
Quote
1) I have developed an abiding loathing of the Troll.
I would suggest you ban yourself from the forum, or at least abandon the GoP threads. He's been far less poluting (ie, stirring shit in threads and trying to change the focus of the thread to himself) since "coming out." You should be here for fun, and I can't imagine hating someone is actually fun.

As for who stays and goes, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't really know why GoP continues to hang around here. Is he making actual contributions to threads (eg abiogenesis thread, which I don't read at all), or is he still existing just to be inflamatory?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,20:20   

I'm far from one of the more prolific posters here, not being a biologist, archaeologist, linguist, etc.

Just a pinhead.  Discount what follows appropriately.

It follows from the above that I don't have much in the way of "history" with either Louis or GoP, though the former cracks me up and the latter I have disagreed with on the few times we have crossed paths, going back to one of the fossil discovery threads over on PT.

I appreciate the depth of Louis' feelings.

But I'm very much against banning, unless...well, the situation with afdave doesn't bother me, because he was given every opportunity to say something meaningful and proved simply incapable of it.

My vote would be to simply ignore GoP, starve him for attention outside of his "LUCA" ghetto and whatever other threads he has gotten going for himself.  If someone wants to lower themselves to engaging him on whatever latest drivel he's spouted, have at it.  GoP's moronic sociopolitical maunderings interest me even less than his evo posturings...

Otherwise, treat him as a pariah, but don't outright ban him.

Were I Louis, I'd probably feel differently.

If push came to shove, I'd miss Louis (though I'll try to avoid going completely squishy).  I wouldn't miss GoP for a nanosecond.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,20:21   

Sorry, I don't read his posts much, and even at your request I don't intend to read them.

I have been in the same head place as you are in (and worse).  Get some sleep, eat a good meal, avoid the internet for a week and see what you think.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,20:49   

Stick around Louis.  If not for your banter then just for your present avatar.  Good find.

My 2 cents.....

Ahem.....

AFDave style...  :p

BAN THE PRESENT APPARITION CALLED GHOST OF PALEY.  BUT ALLOW THE CONTRIBUTOR TO REGISTER AS A NEW NAME LIKE GHOST II.  THE PRESENT NAME IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TROLLING BEHAVIOUR OF OVER A YEAR.  MANY ARGUMENTS AND ASSERTIONS BY THE PRESENT APPARITION ARE CONFUSED BECAUSE OF THE CONNECTION WITH THE PAST BEHAVIOUR.

There.  That felt better.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,21:14   

It's in the rules:

Quote

Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.


It is, though, up to you to make your case. If you think "Ghost of Paley" has falsely represented someone else, provide the quotes or permalinks that make that clear. If he doesn't make good on an explanation or retraction, that's grounds for booting him.

In the meantime, I'm packing. I'll look in from time to time, but I can't be omniscient or omnipresent, even in so limited an extent as this BB.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,21:44   

I haven't read any of GoP's posts lately, either. I find him eminently ignorable. So I don't really have an opinion. But your posts entertain me; I'd be sorry to see you go.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,22:01   

I do not like the idea of people getting banned. However sometimes it is necessary (Thordaddy and Larry Fafarman spring to mind). In this case, I don't think a ban is required.

Calm down Louis, I certainly do not want to see you dissapear, but I don't want GOP banned. GOP has been dishonest so any frustration with him is understandable.

Could you not just ignore him? I know from experience that is easier said than done, but it isn't impossible.
Quote

Russell



Posts: 1076
Joined: April 2005
 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,21:44    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Louis)... But your posts entertain me; I'd be sorry to see you go.

Agreed.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,22:19   

If my opinion matters to you, here it is.  Much of what you get here is exactly what would be expected.  You may have unreal expectations or taking issues a little too personally.  Granted, I haven't read all of GoP's posts (I only read him in moderation) so maybe be you're referring to a specific instance and if so then I'll retract this advise.  If it just a general objection to his style and methods then the best alternative is to ignore him.  You don't have to read his posts and any contributions to threads you are reading can just be skipped.  You are in complete control of that situation.  Personally, I take his posts with a grain of salt because I believe his intentions are to inflame sometimes but I do enjoy his perspective sometimes exactly because it is so different from mine.  By that same token, even though we rarely agree, I appreciate your posts and the boards (and I) would miss your contributions.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,22:36   

Louis, I have shared your frustration on this same subject in the past. Paley's a disingenous egomaniacal shitheel, but I have to admit, I lost all interest in engaging with him in any way when he revealed the little two-man troll job he pulled for a year. Somehow when it became clear that it's quite literally impossible to tell when/if he's sincere about anything, he simply became... boring. Pointless. His posturing was revealed as just hollow narcissism. Worse yet -- BORING narcissism. Is he serious? Who knows? Who cares?

I still have no idea why he wasn't banned for one years worth of trolling by two different people, but I agree that that best way of dealing with him now is simply to ignore him. He seldom wanders off his vanity threads. He comes here to stroke himself by getting reactions. If he fails to get those reactions, his posts will continue to taper off. Yell at him and he just enjoys himself all the more. That's what he comes here for.

That said, Louis, you're definitely one of the more entertaining, incisive posters here, and I'd miss you. I think it'd be silly for you to leave permanently.

--------------
"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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,23:38   

Quote
I lost all interest in engaging with him in any way when he revealed the little two-man troll job he pulled for a year. Somehow when it became clear that it's quite literally impossible to tell when/if he's sincere about anything, he simply became... boring. Pointless. His posturing was revealed as just hollow narcissism. Worse yet -- BORING narcissism. Is he serious? Who knows? Who cares?

I still have no idea why he wasn't banned for one years worth of trolling by two different people, but I agree that that best way of dealing with him now is simply to ignore him.

I'll go along with that and I'd rather lose Paley to this forum than you, any day, Lou. You're valuable, he's not. Just ignore the itch, as Russell would say...I don't bother with the fucknut tag team or whoever they are. Ostracize / shun seems the best compromise.

Edit: I got the benefit of the doubt a few times myself, due to my errm...choice of language /tone BUT.. I should add that if it were MY decision, I'd have banned GoP outright immediately. His "excuse" for trolling was patently B-S. More importantly, he's still trolling.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:30   

Erlichda.

--------------
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

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,00:38   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 16 2007,23:38)
... I'd rather lose Paley to this forum than you, any day, Lou. You're valuable, he's not...

I would agree with that. Losing neither would be my choice (if possible).

My inpression of GOP is that he is a young man and still possible to educate. I doubt that he is a dyed in the wool creationist.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,01:05   

Quote
My inpression of GOP is that he is a young man and still possible to educate. I doubt that he is a dyed in the wool creationist.


Nietzsche would have had something to say about such ideals :p

Anyhows Louis, don't let GoP get under your skin. Oh, and don't leave either!!!

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,02:05   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,05:36)
I still have no idea why he wasn't banned for one years worth of trolling by two different people, but I agree that that best way of dealing with him now is simply to ignore him.

I haven't followed the GoP threads at all.  But I've heard lots of references recently to his having admitted to trolling for the past year.  Which thread, and when did he admit this?

--------------

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,06:35   

What we need is an "ignore" function, that allows you not to see the posts of certain people.  It can be very useful  :D

This sort of thing comes up quite often on message boards.  Taking a break from the whole thing is often useful, or just ignoring the poster, if that can be managed.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,07:59   

Louis,

As a long-time lurker and fan of both ATBC and PT who posts very, very rarely, I would ask you, please not to go.  I enjoy your posts and indeed the posts of the majority of the posters here.  I have learned a very great deal.  This forum would be poorer without you in it!

Please ignore the Troll and stay.

Best wishes

Huwp

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:00   

Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 17 2007,02:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,05:36)
I still have no idea why he wasn't banned for one years worth of trolling by two different people, but I agree that that best way of dealing with him now is simply to ignore him.

I haven't followed the GoP threads at all.  But I've heard lots of references recently to his having admitted to trolling for the past year.  Which thread, and when did he admit this?

The initial announcement was made in the LUCA thread, last October 13th:

Quote
OK, it's almost one year to the day when I started this character, so the time has come to fess up....the Ghost is a creation of an evo-loving Deist. It was fun while it lasted, but I'd like to post as a "regular, evolution-supporting guy" from now on. Sorry for any hostility that I've created, and I wouldn't blame a lot of posters for still hating my guts, but trolling is as trolling does, and ya gotta go where the market is. I plan on keeping this moniker, though I'll probably change the avatar when I get a chance.


A few messages later came the two-people admission:

Quote
The last post was not quite accurate. The Ghost was actually a tag team. The last post was written by the nice, jolly part of his personality. The fire-and-brimstone part was me. I guess we all have trouble "owning our own shadow" as Carl Jung would put it.

There were several speculations wondering how the Ghost was able "to keep his act up." Now you know. All of the stratospheric brain activity on this board, yet nobody figured it out---Hmmmmm.


--------------
"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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:04   

Louis, my good man. I had come to believe that you must like writing page after page after page bashing Paley. It was the only thing that made sense to me.

I have no smegging clue if Paley is "racist" or not. Either way, it wouldn't change my opinion of him very much. I also don't think it's worth exploring that particular issue with anyone on this board.

I'm afraid you've developed a nasty habit. You're wasting brain cells and electrons on those threads. Stick around. Stay away from Paley, and maybe pick up a bottle instead.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:10   

HUGENESS WARNING!

All,

I'm not worried about any form of popularity contest, although thanks for your comments.

What I AM annoyed about is that a self confessed troll and demontrable liar is tolerated at all. Especially in his attempts to post revisionist nonsense in an attempt to muddy the waters. Perhaps, due to lack of sleep and general annoyance I was a mite hasty, but the facts still stand. AFDave has been restricted, Fafarman and Thordaddy were banned all for the same reason: they were demonstrably oblivious to evidence, they regularly demonstrated an inability to read for comprehension, they demonstrably engaged in dishonest tactics in conversation, and their threads/comments/conversations provided no material use to the forum.

So after some sleep I'll outline my case a tad more coherently for anyone who is interested, and for Wesley:

1) It is my opinion that the poster "Ghost of Paley" is a demonstrable message board troll as defined:

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."

Here is a "confession".

Personally I do not believe this "confession" as it stands. I absolutely don't believe that GoP was two different people posting (Wes could confirm this with IP addresses I suspect, if so inclined), it is my opinion that GoP is and was a troll first and foremost, as defined above. It is my opinion that this "confession" was a gambit in a series of shell games being made by GoP in order to troll this board. What GoP's REAL opinions are about anything I have no idea, I wouldn't be certain that they are in any way represented by his posting habits here or not. I have no way of telling.

Why should a self confessed troll who espoused various asinine notions (Geocentrism, "guts to gametes" etc etc), has demonstrably distorted facts, misrepresented arguments and lied (evidence to follow) be granted ANY benefit of the doubt when he has consistently demonstrated himself to be undeserving of such a boon?

I don't grant him such a benefit. I am taking his words at face value.

I am also far from the first and only person to think this:

See here or here for example.

2) It is my opinion that the poster "Ghost of Paley" is making racist comments deliberately to inflame, this is a subsection of my overall trolling claim. Whether or not he actually believes them is moot, it's impossible to tell. From his posting habits (all the evidence we have) he is at least as concerned with issues of immigration, race and ethnicity in an obsessive manner as Thordaddy was with homosexuality. GoP is at least smarter than Thordaddy in attempting to hide his prejudices behind obfuscation.

I was far from the only poster to notice GoP obsession with racial/immigration issues.

This thread is but one example

Note the claim that as he doesn't support the USA's "Jim Crow" laws this means he is not a racist. A claim he repeats. Note also his argument is always with a "StrawLiberal", a confection of his own mind. Again this requires actually reading his arguments in context, and this is partly why he is such a subversive troll. His claims are swathed in clouds of deliberately obfuscatory ink. This too will be returned to.

This thread is another example of early GoP.

Note again: obsession with race/ethnicity/"white culture". Note again the standard "declaration of victory in absence of evidence" we know and love from such funsters as AFDave. Note again the assumption of "all liberals hate the white race/themselves/America". Note again the use of the term "Yenta", which I assume (perhaps wrongly) is a term for "whining Jew" (correct me if I'm wrong on that last one). Note again it was GoP who brought in issues of race/ethnicity etc.

Here is yet another example of GoP's assumption that "Liberal Bias" is what is wrong with the universe.

On that thread an amusing example of GoP being caught in a lie can be found here.

Another example of GoP's confusion of correlation and causation and of is and ought. This is especially the case when it comes to matters ethnic/racial.

Arden sums GoP's approach up very well:

Quote
Don't flatter yourself, people who believe that fairies keep the stars lit up at night don't intimidate me.

And I still don't think you read the book before this, I think you just snagged a copy and grubbed around in the intro since you read a review that discussed that part of the book.

Okay, now I see here your typical, uh, 'debating' style, where you throw out 10 times more information than necessary, in hopes that people will be so overwhelmed, they'll be less inclined to see how unsupported your core point is.


Here.

Same thread, caught in a lie, again.

Oversimplifications like this:

Quote
Now, if these differences are due to cultural factors, then all that needs to be done is try to fix the problem. But what if the difference is genetic? Then we have lots of lots of wasted money, a creeping totalitarian society, and demonisation of the intellectually gifted group. One way or another, finding which situation applies has important ramifications.


Which include transparent misrepresentations of the other person's argument (in this case me and many others) and which also give away GoP's "area of concern" (i.e. nasty foreign folks hanging on the coattails of us brilliant whites). The fact that this is insinuated rather than stated out loud makes it no less racist.

Another gross distortion:

Quote
This just after you denied being a genetic determinist. Oh goodness, is this a silly thread or what? Well, this explains the moonbat insanity -- you are engaging in doublethink. You believe in average group differences (a racist concept), yet you accuse libertarian cultural determinists of vile racism because.....why was it again? Oh that's right, you never explained.


In response to a comment that some racial characteristics were genetic. Note that as usual GoP a) does nothing to support his assumptions and claims, whilst performing his, whilst b) presenting a black or white argument (no pun intended) and c) repeating the justified descriptions of his posting habits back at his accusers as if that will alleviate his own responsibility.

Again I invite people to read the thread.

When asked by BWE "What is your real position?" we get:

Quote
Basically libertarianism without the open borders. I believe in an almost absolute freedom of speech, association, and commerce, and that these freedoms apply to each American citizen. The problem is, this philosophy is best suited to those who've been saturated in Western values from birth; bring in people outside the tradition, and these values can be abused or even turned on their heads. For more detail, see "A Modest Proposal". My position hasn't moved an inch since then.

[By the way, I haven't forgotten my original position in this thread. It's just fun to mine the rich ore of insanity that you guys bring to the race issue.]


Bolding mine. This is explicitly an argument for racial/cultural segregation. The strawman of "Not supporting Jim Crow" laws that GoP consistently uses as his "yardstick" of racism is a total red herring. One can be a racist and not support the Jim Crow laws. Segregation can mean BETWEEN nations as well as WITHIN nations.

Another telling quote from the same rich thread:

Quote
Now, I don't agree with Auster's racial views, but he does have a good point here. If scientists ever tie racial differences to biology, then it's very likely that the Left will show their true genocidal face and argue for the abolition of whites as a distinct group. As Mr. Auster notes, it's the only logical conclusion to the liberal view on the race "problem".

By the way, this is one reason why I am not eager for the Jared Taylors to prevail; instead of leading to a "renaissance" of whites, it could very well be our death knell. Keep in mind that whites would likely be a minority in America and Europe by this time.


Here we have yet another expression of GoP's hatred of liberals, and curious admission that skin colour doesn;t matter as long as you are "culturally white". Interesting. What was that definition of racism again?

Western Civilisation is in deep trouble. In addition to an aging population, we are experiencing historically low reproduction rates - below replacement level, in fact. What to do? Most governments turn to immigration for an answer. The immigrants, they reason, provide the cheap labor that allows for economic expansion, while their consumption fuels the growth of service-sector industries. The enriched tax base allows us to maintain the social services and trust funds that cushion retirement accounts. And this does not even account for the cultural enrichment the newcomers also provide.
 There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old. Politicians scramble for a solution. Perhaps Western society itself must change? Crime rises, liberties wither, and resentments build. This, of course, leads to yet more crime and even more Draconian laws to fix the rising tide of chaos. Civilisation ultimately collapses. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution later.


Another racist classic. Diseased culture? Please.

So here's the solution:
1) Restrict immigration to those nations who respect our culture.
2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.


Immigrants forced to respect the prevalent culture of the host nation (what is the prevalent culture of the USA or the UK btw?). Forced repatriation of people who dare to differ from said prevalent culture (with a cash bonus! How kind). Nope these are not culturally racist in any way. In a post full of strawmen, veiled attacks on GoP's "StrawLiberal" in his head, this is the last paragraph.

Doubtless in GoP's mind, objection to his racism equates to anti-white prejudice, in fact he openly states this exact belief many times. This anti-white prejudice couldn't be further from the truth as a scan of the the threads linked shows clearly. But with GoP we don't need to let tiresome facts get in the way of a good racist "final" solution and a dreamt up liberal conspiracy.

His justification for his irrelevant political and racial sidelines:

Quote
While cheerfully ignoring and forgiving the gratuitous insult, let me explain the relevance to evolution. In my nation, local communities will dictate what gets taught and what doesn't. Once again, a natural selection of ideas will prevail. Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition? Ya'll have to raid your slush fund, that's for sure, and the cheerleaders might have to provide their own blow, but mainly, you'll have to adapt to the new intellectual standards if you want to survive. No circular reasoning, no ducking arguments, no ad homs. Mano a mano with the Wizard and Master, Queensbury style. We'll even provide the wheelbarrows for your prize hitters.


Again from the same thread.

Quote
Immigrants from most African/Caribbean nations: Here, alas, the evidence is equally clear. They don't thrive in Western nations. Some of it's clearly not their fault, but different remedies have failed in different Western countries. Yes, the immigrants make contributions in several areas, but these areas don't outweigh their relatively high crime rates or use of social services. Worse yet, their economic failures lead to heavy-handed government programs that crush the liberties of everyone else. Look at most of Europe: you can be fined or even sent to prison for saying many things that would have been tolerated earlier. Even in the US, the average resident must navigate a complex zone of affirmative action law, corporate speech codes, frivolous lawsuits, and easily bruised feelings just to get through the day's work.


Another great summary of what GoP's REAL hot button issue is. Again from the same thread.

Couple this to the comments I made in the other thread.

I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that GoP espouses racist ideologies as per the defintions given:

rac•ism         - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

[Origin: 1865–70; < F racisme. See RACE2, -ISM ]

—Related forms
racist, noun, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
rac•ism   (r&#257;'s&#301;z'&#601;m)  Pronunciation Key        
n.  
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

From the OED:

“The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”

Not only that, but even a cursory glance at the number of threads and posts GoP has made one can see that the majority are concerned with his racial and political views.

One important point to close this section. The words "racist" "racism" "bigot" "bigotted" are descriptions of well defined opinions and habits. It is in THIS sense I have continually used them. They are intended neither as insult (exactly like lair btw) or discouraging to discussion. If I want to insult GoP (and I regularly do) I call him a "cunt" or a "pointless wanker". These are insults, I do not literally believe that GoP is a female's genitals, I do literally believe he is a racist.

Again, bear in mind I categorically do NOT accept all the elements in his "claim of trolling". I accept he has trolled and is trolling yes. I do not accept his views are signifcantly different from that of his claimed "Troll Persona" and view his attempts to disavow his racist commentaries as yet another gambit in his trolling shell game.

Note well that post 13 October 2006 he was STILL advocating his racist politics, a stark disavowal of his claims to hold "different" positions.

For example:

Well, the parody certainly equated Muslim with bad. Personally, I don't think Muslim immigration is bad if:

1) The host country tolerates the Muslims while demanding tolerance in return. Muslims must realise that they are not in Islamic countries anymore; if they want to engage in Jihad they can get the fuck out. Obviously, they have a right to practice their religion without harassment.

2) The host country is very selective. They should give extensive security checks, keep the total numbers relatively small and make sure the immigrants are given time to assimilate, while deporting or locking up illegals/criminals without hesitation.

3) No affirmative action. If you can't hack it in our free market system, find a socialist republic to live in.

Basically, study what Europe does and then do the opposite. Personally, I would rather just import another passel of NE Asians instead of going through the headache -- but that's just me.


Is a basic restatement of his previous "solution" to naughty immigrants.

Another restatement of his "Pre-Confession" lliberal/immigrant conspiracy ideas.

I suggest that any interested parties read this whole thread (~12 pages). I think it is an excellent microcosm of GoP's racist politics and tactical dishonesty.

3) Rule Breaking:

To quote Stevestory at the end of the "Muslim Integration" Thread:

Quote
Okay, well, masturbating hoboes has sealed the deal. We're done here.

I encourage anyone who wants to deeply pursue issues of race and islam to set up a blog expressly for that purpose. The purpose of this site is Anti-evolution.


And this from Wesley on this thread.

This

Quote
C'mon guys, you're smarter than this.....look, technology, art, clothes, pop culture.....we agree that these things can influence society, correct? Furthermore, their influence isn't always predictable, correct? So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety.


from later in the same thread shows again a deliberate trolling.

Here are the rules interspersed with my comments:

Quote
Antievolution.org Discussion Board Rules

MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.

I'm guilty of this one

MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.

I'm probably guilty of this one too

1) No illegal messages. Posting an illegal message will be considered excessively annoying.

Depends on what you consider illegal I suppose. I don't know enough about US race hate or libel laws

2) No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.

I'm completely innocent of this one. I've never used the word "fuck" in my life. This is humour, I'm extremely guilty of this one

3) There are many different fora. Be sure to pick the *most appropriate* forum for your message. That could be at a different board.

How is GoP's obsession with racist politics relevant to "antievolution"? He has been reminded of his love of irrelevance more than once

4) Advertisements should be limited to items of a scientific interest and should not be posted by those with a vested interest in the item being sold, unless specifically requested by another participant.

Innocent on all counts, except I do have this vacuum cleaner for sale, anyone? Anyone?

5) Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s). Pointing out gaps in fields of reference (otherwise known as "ignorance") is *not* an attack.

I hate to be so childish as to say "he started it" but just remind me who it was who came to this forum insulting "evos", "liberals", "lefties", "atheists", posting silly pictures of his violent "evo/liberal/lefty/atheist" bashing etc? I am more than aware that I am far from innocent on this one too. "Liar" is not an insult, neither is "racist". "Cunt" on the other hand is a different matter

6) Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.

As stated above, I think I have more than justified my opinion that GoP is a racist, or at least plays one on the web. And this is a key point: GoP's intentions. Whether or not GoP is a real life racist or not is moot. Going by his posting habits here he at least is pretending to be one. Going by his own admission to have been deliberately trolling this board for at least a year (I maintain he is still doing this, I do not buy elements of his "confession"). GoP's intentions are not only crystal clear but openly stated! I don't see how deliberate, self confessed trolling for flames and fun constitutes a meaningful participation in any conversation. A good troll has some merit, GoP is NOT a good troll, he is flamebait and nothing more. GoP's deliberately dishonest, Google trawled nonsense has not led to any new or interesting insights, nor has it spawned any indepth analysis of relevant topics. At least AFDave can claim to have been on topic.

7) Each user is requested to consider the quantity and quality of his/her messages. One specific item to be aware of is that repetition of the same quoted material at a frequency greater than once per month is considered annoying.

Then GoP falls foul of this one too. We have had nigh on interminable repetions of the same well refuted fallacious nonsense, both post and pre "confession". All "supported" with near identical Google trawled nonsense.

8) Science makes no claim to be a source for all truth, i.e. events and activities which are unobservable and/or untestable are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Religious beliefs that are outside the limits of science may be true or not; science is silent on the issue.

I could have an epistemological discussion about this but I won't

9) *Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.

This one I don't get. How can one deal with Antievolution without encountering its only source: religion? I see where we are going but surely if this applies to GoP and his comments on the evils of islam, it applies to all of us and our comments on the excesses of fundamentalist christianity? I guess then if GoP is guilty we pretty much all are, and by that token he is innocent!

10) Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.

As far as I can tell, innocent on all counts

:Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.

:Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.

If I haven't provided sufficient evidence to convince a dead judge, let alone one with full faculties, that GoP both pre and post "confession" is a total hinderance to harmonious and interesting discussion, then I really don't belong here. And not for any negative reason about myself, other than I was grossly mistaken about the integrity of the people here


4) I am not claiming to be a wide eyed innocent, I am not. I also hope that I have provided masses of evidence for my own condemnation.

My case is simple:

a) GoP is a self confessed troll and a disruptive and disharmonious poster who certainly does not provide interesting discussion. Unless by interesting one means "car crash interesting". GoP's contributions fall foul of the same issues that have got Larry Fafarman banned, Thordaddy banned, and AFDave heavily restricted. I question why GoP has not been banned also.

b) GoP, despite his whining, is a demonstrated racist. This is not a lie on my part, and I have in no way had to distort his claims to shoehorn him into this category. Note that I vehemently disagree with Skeptic and AFDave and yet I don't think they are racists. It isn't like I pull this charge out to stifle debate or to have someone punished by teacher. Quite the opposite. I call GoP a racist because he advocates racist policies and ideology, period. I also think I have supplied plenty of evidence.

c) I have specifically requested that people state their opinions of my actions, i.e. whether or not I have lied to make these comments regarding GoP. I would like to know if GoP's claims are considered valid by my peers on this board. Not only for my own personal edification and development, but also so that I make it clear that I believe I am being scrupulously honest, and yes very uncharitable, in my treatment of GoP. Obviously I am unfit to judge my own conduct perfectly objectively, I have a POV.

5) Ignoring GoP. Yes this is an option. However, while I make no secret about the fact that I have recently come to seriously dislike GoP based on his behaviour, it is quite clear he has an interest in trolling this board and annoying me (and others) specfically. I will admit freely that I didn't dislike him until very recently, he was a curio, an amusing plaything. Needless to say I have changed my opinion.

Of course he'll claim it paranoia (an easy claim you'll note) but directly after I stated I would be ignoring him on 05 Dec 2006 he started this thread the very next day. A thread dealing with a relevant topic (amazing! ) which just so happens to be in my professional field, a fact he knows well and alludes to here. I replied on 07 Dec, and posted a few times on that thread on 08, 09, 10, 14 and 15 Dec. The conversation post 15 Dec is mostly about snakes and irrelevant to the thread's topic. I started a "troll free" abiogenesis thread on Dec 15 to enjoy discussion about a fascinating topic in the absence of GoPs shennanigans (note he was up to his usual high standards of dishonesty and bait and switch proving again he is not interested in actual discussion. A fact noted by other posters). I also did this because I was hoping to avoid discussing anything with GoP.

I might be mistaken, but I think that GoP and I had no interaction until almost a month later when he posted this on 12 Jan. Again, I am not trying to establish anything other than GoP is persistantly making a nuisance of himself and thinks I'm easy meat (which in terms of being annoyed by dishonest trolls is very true).

To the "ignore advocacy" crowd: ok then boys, girls and others. Ignore AFDave. Ignore Skeptic. Ignore Cordova. Ignore Dave Scott. Ignore Dembski. Ignore Behe. Ignore Johnson. Are you beginning to see my point? GoP is no Dembski, but he is an AFDave. A ground trooper in the anti-Enlightenment. A pawn on the side of unreason on life's great chess board.

Despite whatever claims he makes to be an "evo-loving deist" (who would phrase it thus?). One of the purposes of this board is debate and discussion. Are we prohibited from discussing things with people who differ in viewpoint? Ask yourselves why no one has the same level of annoyance with Dave or Skeptic (although both have occasionally inspired great annoyance and one of them has been restricted in his access to this board because of it). Difference is manifestly NOT the issue, dishonesty IS. Some people say that there is value to lurkers in debating these kooks, ok then, why should I ignore the vicious lies of GoP when I am amongst the best placed people to refute them (as you'll note I've done a number of times)? I realise that getting annoyed gets me nowhere, but sorry, when did being a dishonest troll become acceptable?

6) Perhaps I was hasty last night, perhaps not. I DO have very high standards of personal integrity, and it would genuinely disturb me to think I had violated them, this is why I value your input, not that I have had that specific input yet I note. I don't like making silly ultimata, but I think I am left with little choice. I would like the members opinion on whether or not I have DISHONESTLY misrepresented GoP in ANY sense. If you think I have been harsh or uncharitable, I agree and sorry, but this is a very different thing to dishonest.

Do the members of this board find that GoP's claims of my dishonesty (or indeed homophobia and hatred of disabled people having read back) to be validated based on my posting behaviour?

I consider this important and would take it as a favour if you would give the matter some consideration.

7) I think that Mike PSS's idea a few posts up is an adequate compromise. IF people think that I have not been dishonest (or a homophobe or an anti-disablity bigot should you care to read the relevant material) in my treatment of GoP, and IF the management are amenable I am more than willing to interact (or not) with a GoP Mark II as an entirely new entity on the ONE single proviso that he acts in an honest manner unlike his GoP persona. If he cannot do that, then I will absolutely call for him to be banned just like Fafarman, just like Evopeach, just like Thordaddy.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:29   

Quote (Ved @ Jan. 17 2007,15:04)
Louis, my good man. I had come to believe that you must like writing page after page after page bashing Paley. It was the only thing that made sense to me.

I have no smegging clue if Paley is "racist" or not. Either way, it wouldn't change my opinion of him very much. I also don't think it's worth exploring that particular issue with anyone on this board.

I'm afraid you've developed a nasty habit. You're wasting brain cells and electrons on those threads. Stick around. Stay away from Paley, and maybe pick up a bottle instead.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Ved, if I'm honest, the self same though occured to me. It was mainly that he made such outrageous gufferies that I found it compelling. Perhaps dealing with trolls is like dealing with crack?

AFDave seemed well sewn up, I seemed to be lumbered with the dishonest shitbag known as GoP.

Also I think it is manifestly unjust to ban people like Thordaddy and leave GoP extant. It's like shooting Goering for war crimes and allowing Goebbels to shag your wife!

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:33   

All,

As for leaving, if I am deemed to have been dishonest by my peers then my honour demands no less.

Yes I realise that sounds like I have been watching too many samurai movies, but personal standards are just that, personal standards! I won't break them for anyone or anything.

Louis

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

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:36   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,16:00)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 17 2007,02:05)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,05:36)
I still have no idea why he wasn't banned for one years worth of trolling by two different people, but I agree that that best way of dealing with him now is simply to ignore him.

I haven't followed the GoP threads at all.  But I've heard lots of references recently to his having admitted to trolling for the past year.  Which thread, and when did he admit this?

The initial announcement was made in the LUCA thread, last October 13th:

Thanks.

--------------

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,09:36   

Quote
I would like the members opinion on whether or not I have DISHONESTLY misrepresented GoP in ANY sense. If you think I have been harsh or uncharitable, I agree and sorry, but this is a very different thing to dishonest.

I haven't read ALL of the most recent exchanges, but I don't think you're being dishonest.

And I don't think teasing someone about sweaty wrestler pics makes the teaser a homophobe.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,10:20   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,09:33)
All,

As for leaving, if I am deemed to have been dishonest by my peers then my honour demands no less.

Yes I realise that sounds like I have been watching too many samurai movies, but personal standards are just that, personal standards! I won't break them for anyone or anything.

Louis

Don't fuck off Louis. I like your wildly funny posts. Given a choice I would rather see GOP go than you. Personally, I want you both to stay around.

To be fair (in my opinion) I don't think GOP is anywhere near as bad as the people that did get banned. I am probably in a minority on that point though as many posters sem to want GOP banned.

I do not blame them/you as it is a tad difficult to reason with somebody who openly admits to lying to us all for a year.

Myself. I like having people around that dissagree and argue. It sometimes forces me to think. The Geocentrism thread is a case in point. I suddenly had to think why those beliefs where so hard held. It was fun. Well it was fun for a while, untill GOP stopped answering anyway (or in any credible way).

Finally. If it came to a choice on who to stay, I would vote for Louis to stay. I just don't want it to come to that.

MY (God knows how many) cents.

  
Ogee



Posts: 89
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,10:34   

GoP is a consistent and proven liar and troll.  Even  post-"coming out", his posts on race/religion/immigration/liberals/etc, and misogynistic language betray a pretty thinly-veiled bigotry.  His claims to be pro-science are inconsistent with his ineffectual but dogged attempts to defend  idiocies like cosmo-ID and creationist 2LOT arguments against evolution and abiogenesis.  His penchant for tossing insults, acting like an utter bastard, and then playing the wounded innocent when insulted in return, is pathetic.

All that said, I don't think banning is the answer (yet).  Louis, I think your methods (and my own prior to ignoring him) are counter-productive.  The massive diatribes, while largely accurate and sometimes entertaining, are exactly what he, being a rather obvious preening attention whore, wants.  Ignoring him worked very well over most of the last little while, and should be the preferred tactic.  If he shuts up, good.  If he shapes up, even better.  If he continues to act like an ignorant arsehole, he'll eventually end up banned.  None of it is worth raising your blood pressure, or leaving the board, over.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,10:57   

Stephen,

Quote
Myself. I like having people around that dissagree and argue. It sometimes forces me to think. The Geocentrism thread is a case in point. I suddenly had to think why those beliefs where so hard held. It was fun. Well it was fun for a while, untill GOP stopped answering anyway (or in any credible way).


I agree very strongly that having people who disagree around is a vital thing to any discussion forum. And yes, I will concede that the geocentrism idea originally had some utility in terms of thinking about how we know what we know.

What I DON'T agree with is that GoP was the useful part of it. The actual parts of his "model" almost universally took ages to materialise, when confronted with actual data he'd googletrawl, lie and obfuscate (demonstrating that his motivation was pure trollery), people got pissed off and bored and the conversation stagnated to GoP posting pictures of sweaty men and vapid fantasies about his beating "Evos" and "Liberals", which you'll note he STILL does. Sorry but I personally don't see that as a useful contribution, in exactly the same way as I don't see me shitting on the Queen's sausages as a useful contribution to her breakfast.

Which is actually a tragedy to my mind. If GoP has the energy and time to troll a board such as this for whatever reason, he has more than enough time to actually play the role well and informatively. After all, he isn't afraid of Google and can occasionally string a sentence together. He manifestly can't read for comprehension or follow an argument, but hey, neither can Dave.  If this really was as GoP claims an attempt to seperate point from person, then why be so obnoxious? That ISN'T seperating point and person, that's trolling for flamebait which he is STILL doing. As I said above I like Mike PSS's suggestion but I'd be lying if I said I thought GoP could manage to post like a rational human being for a minute, let alone a week.

Sorry but this really has nothing to do with difference of opinion, and very little to do with my recently realised dislike of GoP. You'll recall that I have been an advocate of his removal since he confessed to trolling. THAT is the key point. I couldn't give two hoots if he agrees with me on anything or not, it annoys me that he lies and it annoys me that he trolls. Why tolerate it when we don't tolerate it in others?

The question I asked is not "who do your prefer?", that I am not interested in. My question is "Do you think I have lied about GoP's stated views on this board, given that I dont believe all the elements in his "confession"?", or put another way "do you think GoP's accusations of me lying are baseless or not?". Whether I choose to absent myself or not based on the answer to that question is nothing anyone else can decide.

Whether Steve and Wes ban me for the many violations of the rules I have made is also a different and seperate issue. Whether they also ban GoP for his violations of the rules is yet another seperate issue.

I'm trying not to make it "him or me" but I can't see how GoP's conduct is better than Dave's or Thordaddy's etc. I've staked out my position, which is that I am extremely surprised that he is still here based on that behaviour, for which I have given considerable evidence. If that behaviour doesn't warrant some form of ban/time out/offical reprimand then I am fucked sideways if I know what does! Sorry, but I have to ask this again: when did dishonesty trolling for flames and fun become acceptable behaviour on any of the PT/ATBC or related boards? I know T.O and A.A. can be cesspits of this kind of thing, and yes I enjoy that element of it sometimes, but we openly don't have that same tolerance of kookery here. How does GoP's conduct NOT count as "excessively annoying" as defined in the rules? Has ANYONE had a rational conversation with him?

I'm getting somewhat tired of explaining the obvious! Or at least what seems obvious to me. Does that make me a creationist? ;)

I have no trouble reasoning with someone who has trolled for a whole year. I DO have trouble reasoning with someone incapable of reason or playing someone incapable of reason for trollish purposes.

Why has Dave "gone"? What has GoP done that elevates him above Dave? Is GoP someone's sock puppet and everyone is in on the joke but me? He seems to get a lot of unwarranted benefit ofthe doubt, note that this is the same doubt he does not grant anyone here.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,11:16   

Quote (Ogee @ Jan. 17 2007,16:34)
All that said, I don't think banning is the answer (yet).  Louis, I think your methods (and my own prior to ignoring him) are counter-productive.  The massive diatribes, while largely accurate and sometimes entertaining, are exactly what he, being a rather obvious preening attention whore, wants.  Ignoring him worked very well over most of the last little while, and should be the preferred tactic.  If he shuts up, good.  If he shapes up, even better.  If he continues to act like an ignorant arsehole, he'll eventually end up banned.  None of it is worth raising your blood pressure, or leaving the board, over.

Ogee,

I agree with much of what you have said. One thing I don't agree with is that he hasn't earnt the boot.

I openly admit to my part in this by responding to him at all, and yes ignoring him IS an option. But it is also an option that has been tried by many, not just me, to sadly less effect than one might hope. Just how many chances does GoP deserve? He's taking the chronic piss. What better way to deprive him of the attention he whores after here than to force him to find it elsewhere?

Did we get ~1500 posts of trollery and shite from Thordaddy before he was banned? Granted Thordaddy isn't as bright as GoP and was more of a one issue wonder, but then GoP isn't demonstrably brighter than my houseplants and has about one and a half issues, do we really have to set the bar so low?

Dave has been deemd unproductively dishonest and ignorant, and thus restricted. Is GoP somehow an intellectual tour de force by comparison? Is he somehow contributing items of greater worth and relevance than Dave? I'd strongly argue no! So why the double standard. Granted I'm playing into his hands by ever conversing with him, or indeed by raising this whole issue, but since when did openly admitted trolling become an acceptable part of any form of productive discourse?

Let's be honest, GoP would not be being banned UDlike for the temerity of dissenting from authorised dogma, he would be being banned for persistent and openly admitted trolling.

As for my leaving the board or not, I think I've made it pretty clear how and why I will do that if I feel I need to. I'm not sure I can retain the respect I have for people like Steve, Wes and indeed many people and at the same time quietly accept the double standard being advocated wrt GoP. That's my problem, not anyone else's, I don't expect either sympathy or support. My standards are mine alone. And yes, as stated I am being an unfair bastard by making my problem with GoP's continued free licence to troll public.

Louis

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,11:18   

I can't answer that. Too drunk ATM. I will try tomorrow. But you are probably right. (Back at work tomorrow and so need to be sober[B'Stards]).

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,11:47   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 17 2007,12:18)
I can't answer that. Too drunk ATM.

Coward! That just makes it more fun.

GOP has violated board rules and if Wesley bans him I won't think twice about it. Anywho, because of this thread I decided to go look at the LUCA thread. Haven't been there in forever. GoP smartly adhered to requests to stay in his ghetto threads where he wouldn't be as noticeable. I think I drove by that part of the hood once or twice in the last six months. And hardly anyone ever goes there, is the impression I had. That thread was barely on the edge of my perceptions, which is how it survives, annoying and worthless as it is. It certainly didn't suck up all the oxygen like AFDave's thread did. So I click on the link, and I go to the last page, and I see

Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis

etc etc.

So as far as the board goes, GoP is a tiny nuisance with a very small audience of people who apparently find some reason to engage him. It's not any threat or burden on the health of the board, and so I let it go.

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,11:59   

I just don't bother to read the threads with peculiar titles ("toilet", "luca the mafioso"  and "thick as two short planks".  I tried a year or so ago and had absolutely no idea what they were about.

Hence I was surprised to see GOP was still here when he surfaced.

How about locking those threads and sending to the great message board in the sky?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:30   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2007,11:47)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 17 2007,12:18)
I can't answer that. Too drunk ATM.

Coward! That just makes it more fun.

GOP has violated board rules and if Wesley bans him I won't think twice about it. Anywho, because of this thread I decided to go look at the LUCA thread. Haven't been there in forever. GoP smartly adhered to requests to stay in his ghetto threads where he wouldn't be as noticeable. I think I drove by that part of the hood once or twice in the last six months. And hardly anyone ever goes there, is the impression I had. That thread was barely on the edge of my perceptions, which is how it survives, annoying and worthless as it is. It certainly didn't suck up all the oxygen like AFDave's thread did. So I click on the link, and I go to the last page, and I see

Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis

etc etc.

So as far as the board goes, GoP is a tiny nuisance with a very small audience of people who apparently find some reason to engage him. It's not any threat or burden on the health of the board, and so I let it go.

Coward? WTF am I scared of here?
GOP has certainly broken board rules. I do not deny that. I just don't want him banned if it is avoidable.

Now why are you calling me a coward?

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:39   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 17 2007,11:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2007,11:47)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 17 2007,12:18)
I can't answer that. Too drunk ATM.

Coward! That just makes it more fun.

GOP has violated board rules and if Wesley bans him I won't think twice about it. Anywho, because of this thread I decided to go look at the LUCA thread. Haven't been there in forever. GoP smartly adhered to requests to stay in his ghetto threads where he wouldn't be as noticeable. I think I drove by that part of the hood once or twice in the last six months. And hardly anyone ever goes there, is the impression I had. That thread was barely on the edge of my perceptions, which is how it survives, annoying and worthless as it is. It certainly didn't suck up all the oxygen like AFDave's thread did. So I click on the link, and I go to the last page, and I see

Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis

etc etc.

So as far as the board goes, GoP is a tiny nuisance with a very small audience of people who apparently find some reason to engage him. It's not any threat or burden on the health of the board, and so I let it go.

Coward? WTF am I scared of here?
GOP has certainly broken board rules. I do not deny that. I just don't want him banned if it is avoidable.

Now why are you calling me a coward?

Ah, now that's the kind of drunken reaction we all like to see!

Read again, discard your initial impression, and I think you'll get it.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:41   

Stephen,

I think Steve is joking. You know that driving drunk is less dangerous than driving tired (apparently). Well it seems that posting tired is more dangerous than posting drunk! I should know ;)

Louis

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:45   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,13:41)
Stephen,

I think Steve is joking. You know that driving drunk is less dangerous than driving tired (apparently). Well it seems that posting tired is more dangerous than posting drunk! I should know ;)

Louis

FFS I hope you are right. I would hate to fall out with someone I respect because of a drunken (not really tired) missunderstanding.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:50   

Ooops! Sorry! I saw the word coward and got wound up. Reading comprehension went out the window after seeing that. Again, sorry!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:53   

SteveStory,

So because GoP stayed in a minority of threads he is free to openly troll as much as he likes?

Thanks for letting me know. I'll remember that for future reference should I desire to troll. (Note to self: honesty and productive debate are optional as long as one is relatively quiet). What am I missing here? Is GoP someone's buddy's sockpuppet? Why the special treatment?

Thordaddy hardly made a big impact, and who even remembers Evopeach? People have been banned for being intractably dishonest and stupid. Dave has been encouraged to find pastures new because he was intractably dishonest and stupid (as well as being prolifically crap spouting). GoP's geocentrism and associated threads were very popular, although less long lived than Dave's. Possibly something to do with GoP over playing his hand and.....oh yeah, that's right admitting to trolling this board deliberately. For fuck's sake! In what universe is this remotely excusable?

Louis

P.S. I've admitted my part, i.e. replying to the Troll, see above.

P.P.S. Added in edit after Stephen's post: You're not the only one kicking themselves. I'm seriously irritated with myself for even mentioning this. I regret it totally. Oh bollocks, me and my temper. Sorry boys and girls.

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,13:58   

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 17 2007,13:39)
Ah, now that's the kind of drunken reaction we all like to see!

Read again, discard your initial impression, and I think you'll get it.

I guess you are all correct. I was out of order. Sorry folks. So bloody embarrasing. I am kicking myslf now.....honest Guv.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,15:00   

I pay as little attention to the GoPster--as long as he stays in his ghetto threads--as I can restrain myself to.

Every once in a while, I'm overcome with the urge to point out to him what a poseur he is.  (Or, as better put by someone, "preening attention whore.")

FWIW, I don't pretend to have any idea what the lout "really" thinks--that was the whole point of his sock-puppetry, allegedly.  I paid little attention till after his "confession."  My impression since is that his claims of reform--"you'll now be getting the 'real' pro-Evo me"--and renunciations of any previously-announced radioactive positions--"I'm against Jim Crow and government-enforced discrimination"--have been immediately undercut by the next forty sentences he slags out.

Despite all Louis' helpful links, I'm not about to go back and wade through all the cess I did my determined best to avoid in the first place.

Thus, I have no clue whether the guy is a racist in reality, and frankly couldn't care less.  Bleh!  I resolve to pay even less attention to the bloke in future.

More to the point, though, is that--while I may have avoided reaching a similar conclusion to Louis', mainly by dint of nose-holding and eye-squinching--the conclusions that Louis has reached seem well within the range of reasonable.  

Even more to the point, they seem to be the very conclusions that GoPpy was hoping someone like Louis would reach.  For no better motives on GoP's part than pure flame-fomenting giggles.

In my view, therefore, Louis' personal honor remains unimpugned.  And GoP is the very last person who would be justified in complaining about the views he has troll-baited Louis into adopting.

I'll leave it to the moderator(s) to determine whether any of this past troll-foolery justifies a ban or some further imposition of Coventry.  

But if this is our little version of Kesey's bus, and if this indeed came down to a "on the bus" or "off the bus" showdown, and if I had a vote (which, will Louis or will he not, I doubt I do) then it would clearly be Louis who would stick around to pass the hookah, and GoP who'd get the hook.

I'll not comment on this thread again, no matter how massive the provocation.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,16:14   

Quote

Ah, now that's the kind of drunken reaction we all like to see!

Read again, discard your initial impression, and I think you'll get it.


Shhhhhhh!!!! Out of courtesy to Stephen, don't post so loud right now!  :p

--------------
"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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,17:49   

Don't listen to these fuckers, Stephen, they're a bad influence. Have a Herod's Dock...er, Hairy Dog...Dare of the hog...I mean have a damm drink. And watch out for that Richardwhosis guy, he's all hands.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,20:20   

Stephen points a wobbly finger at me "Oh yeah well I bet I could kick yer ass..."

Fight! Fight! (Picks up a chair)

Sorry Stephen, it was just a joke. Posting drunk is more exciting. You might wake up the next day and recall saying something and realize you need to slink away and just get a new login name and start over ;-) Me, I try to not post drunk in the same way as I avoid making phone calls drunk. That way I don't have any apologies to make the next day.

(so don't expect to see many posts from me in an hour or so, when the Bacardi kicks in)

:p

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,20:52   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,14:53)
SteveStory,

So because GoP stayed in a minority of threads he is free to openly troll as much as he likes?

Thanks for letting me know. I'll remember that for future reference should I desire to troll. (Note to self: honesty and productive debate are optional as long as one is relatively quiet). What am I missing here? Is GoP someone's buddy's sockpuppet? Why the special treatment?

Thordaddy hardly made a big impact, and who even remembers Evopeach? People have been banned for being intractably dishonest and stupid. Dave has been encouraged to find pastures new because he was intractably dishonest and stupid (as well as being prolifically crap spouting). GoP's geocentrism and associated threads were very popular, although less long lived than Dave's. Possibly something to do with GoP over playing his hand and.....oh yeah, that's right admitting to trolling this board deliberately. For fuck's sake! In what universe is this remotely excusable?

Louis

P.S. I've admitted my part, i.e. replying to the Troll, see above.

P.P.S. Added in edit after Stephen's post: You're not the only one kicking themselves. I'm seriously irritated with myself for even mentioning this. I regret it totally. Oh bollocks, me and my temper. Sorry boys and girls.

I've banned only one person in the 6 mos I've been moderator. VMartin, and that was because there's a 50% chance he's JAD using a european proxy, and a 0% chance he has anything interesting to say even if he's not JAD. I leaned on GoP a bit, and toward the end I leaned on AFDave a bit more. Even AFDave isn't banned, he's just been asked to stick to the Bathroom Wall, and not try to turn that into AFDave's UPDATED Thread 3. GoP and AFDave have responded politely to my requests, and I appreciate that. A lot of the decision of what do in questions of banning has to do with, how much damage is this doing to the board? The policy of Containment worked so well with GoP that I didn't know he was still posting here. One of the things that went through my mind when he unveiled himself was, 'can I ban someone for saying he was dishonest before, but will be honest in the future, when I wouldn't have banned him if he'd just continued being secretly dishonest?' And I can't just ban anyone who has engaged in any sockpuppetry, or I'd have to ban LouFCD, and Lou's a good guy.

I think the board's running pretty smoothly. There's a little too much bad language and grotesque imagery, but otherwise things are running fine. I don't even care about the language and imagery personally, but it's better strategy to resemble a NYT oped than a bar full of sailors.

Louis, don't kick yourself. I do experiments occasionally. They usually don't work. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2007,23:24   

Quote
I think the board's running pretty smoothly. There's a little too much bad language and grotesque imagery, but otherwise things are running fine.


Just because I'd vote to flay him alive and dance in his skin like a priest of Xipe Totec...please don't call my theological views "grotesque," TYVM.  :p

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,03:55   

Stevestory,

In no particular order:

Quote
Louis, don't kick yourself. I do experiments occasionally. They usually don't work. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Ok now THAT is a little too close to the truth for comfort! ;)

Quote
And I can't just ban anyone who has engaged in any sockpuppetry, or I'd have to ban LouFCD, and Lou's a good guy.


Ah but useful and intersting sockpuppetry, and even trolling is a useful part of any internet forum. Lou was making cogent points, not engaging in flamebait. Productive and insightful conversation can and does arise from an intelligently managed Loki, sock or troll. In principle I have no real problem with that, or at least not one I am unwilling to compromise. The history of "Devil's Advocate" is well established in debate, and indeed any serious debate club will occasionally coerce members into arguing the opposite case to their own.

My point is that GoP's sockpuppetry (if it is sockpuppetry) and trolling (which it definitely, self admittedly is) is nothing more than flamebait, again self admittedly. IF GoP's post "confession" behaviour was markedly different from GoP's pre "confession" behaviour then I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. I'd laugh, say "You got me" and carry on regardless. But it isn't different.

Secondary to this point, other people have been banned for less, why is GoP being protected from the consequences of his actions? Usually when we encounter an idiot as intractable as GoP (or as GoP is playing) they are cut out like so much sub-intellectual tumour after being given time to mend their ways. What's going on behind the scenes I ask myself? I have a number of unpleasant ideas, some of them distinctly uncomplimentary. Is it only me that sees this as a ferocious double standard? Come on Steve, you're a bright bloke, not unused to picking apart poor arguments, how does the case FOR GoP stand against the case AGAINST GoP?

The self same arguments could have been (and I think at least partly were) made for AFDave's recent curtailment. Dave's threads had served their purpose, the whole shebang had jumped all available sharks. What purpose does GoP's presence serve other than irritating me? Which I admit is a comedy, wonderful and noble purpose!

Louis

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,13:36   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,10:57)
Stephen,

Quote
Myself. I like having people around that dissagree and argue. It sometimes forces me to think. The Geocentrism thread is a case in point. I suddenly had to think why those beliefs where so hard held. It was fun. Well it was fun for a while, untill GOP stopped answering anyway (or in any credible way).


I agree very strongly that having people who disagree around is a vital thing to any discussion forum. And yes, I will concede that the geocentrism idea originally had some utility in terms of thinking about how we know what we know.

What I DON'T agree with is that GoP was the useful part of it. The actual parts of his "model" almost universally took ages to materialise, when confronted with actual data he'd googletrawl, lie and obfuscate (demonstrating that his motivation was pure trollery), people got pissed off and bored and the conversation stagnated to GoP posting pictures of sweaty men and vapid fantasies about his beating "Evos" and "Liberals", which you'll note he STILL does. Sorry but I personally don't see that as a useful contribution, in exactly the same way as I don't see me shitting on the Queen's sausages as a useful contribution to her breakfast.

Which is actually a tragedy to my mind. If GoP has the energy and time to troll a board such as this for whatever reason, he has more than enough time to actually play the role well and informatively. After all, he isn't afraid of Google and can occasionally string a sentence together. He manifestly can't read for comprehension or follow an argument, but hey, neither can Dave.  If this really was as GoP claims an attempt to seperate point from person, then why be so obnoxious? That ISN'T seperating point and person, that's trolling for flamebait which he is STILL doing. As I said above I like Mike PSS's suggestion but I'd be lying if I said I thought GoP could manage to post like a rational human being for a minute, let alone a week.

Sorry but this really has nothing to do with difference of opinion, and very little to do with my recently realised dislike of GoP. You'll recall that I have been an advocate of his removal since he confessed to trolling. THAT is the key point. I couldn't give two hoots if he agrees with me on anything or not, it annoys me that he lies and it annoys me that he trolls. Why tolerate it when we don't tolerate it in others?

The question I asked is not "who do your prefer?", that I am not interested in. My question is "Do you think I have lied about GoP's stated views on this board, given that I dont believe all the elements in his "confession"?", or put another way "do you think GoP's accusations of me lying are baseless or not?". Whether I choose to absent myself or not based on the answer to that question is nothing anyone else can decide.

Whether Steve and Wes ban me for the many violations of the rules I have made is also a different and seperate issue. Whether they also ban GoP for his violations of the rules is yet another seperate issue.

I'm trying not to make it "him or me" but I can't see how GoP's conduct is better than Dave's or Thordaddy's etc. I've staked out my position, which is that I am extremely surprised that he is still here based on that behaviour, for which I have given considerable evidence. If that behaviour doesn't warrant some form of ban/time out/offical reprimand then I am fucked sideways if I know what does! Sorry, but I have to ask this again: when did dishonesty trolling for flames and fun become acceptable behaviour on any of the PT/ATBC or related boards? I know T.O and A.A. can be cesspits of this kind of thing, and yes I enjoy that element of it sometimes, but we openly don't have that same tolerance of kookery here. How does GoP's conduct NOT count as "excessively annoying" as defined in the rules? Has ANYONE had a rational conversation with him?

I'm getting somewhat tired of explaining the obvious! Or at least what seems obvious to me. Does that make me a creationist? ;)

I have no trouble reasoning with someone who has trolled for a whole year. I DO have trouble reasoning with someone incapable of reason or playing someone incapable of reason for trollish purposes.

Why has Dave "gone"? What has GoP done that elevates him above Dave? Is GoP someone's sock puppet and everyone is in on the joke but me? He seems to get a lot of unwarranted benefit ofthe doubt, note that this is the same doubt he does not grant anyone here.

Louis

I said I would answer today and so I will. On the whole I agree with you. Here are my minor quibbles...

1) The usefull part played by GOP on the geocentrism thread was to start it. I don't recall if he was the thread starter but even if not, it was started at least due to a (mad) claim that GOP made.

I kinda enjoyed that thread for the reasons I gave earlier. Unfortunately GOP was very dissapointing in the way he defended it. But I don't suppose that should be unexpected considering the evidence against him.

2) I do not think that you have lied about GOP. I have said this before. However, I consider it likely that you have missrepresented him on occaision. You have outright called GOP a racist (IIRC). I don't think the point is proven. Let me clarify. I think you are probably corect, I think that GOP is a racist, but the proof isn't there IMO, just a likelyhood. I prefer to give the benefit of doubt as racism is an ugly dehumaizing thing and I dislike using that name on people unless it is proveable beyond reasonable doubt. We probably dissagree on what is reasonable.

3) I would say GOP is "better" than AFDave or Thordaddy in the extent that GOP does seem to accept evidence against his arguments ocaisionally. Not usually but occaisionally. I do not recal either of the former accepting any evidence whatsoever against their opinions.

4) I am certainly not in on a joke regarding GOP.

Well that is the 2 cents from this coward (ouch, my face is probably Still red).

Now something anti-GOP that I feel quite strongly about is that he was called a parody many times by many people (at least once, if not several times by myself) while under his troll persona but consistently denied it.

Yet I still do not want him banned. I would not cry if he was banned BTW but it isn't something that I crave.

It is a shame that we can't have more "dissenters" here. Why are so many critics so unreasonable in their behaviour? Perhaps because ALL the critics need to deny evidence to the extent that they are unable to answer reasonable questions?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,13:57   

Stephen,

1) I have not had to misrepresent anything GoP has said. Ever. Please show me where I have done this. Big claims require big evidence. Provide it. Reality is not negotiable or open for compromise. In attempting to make peace (which simply isn't going to happen while GoP still lies) you are forgetting this simple fact. Unless you can show exactly where I have misrepresented GoP's views, retract your accusation that I have misrepresented them.

2) As for GoP being a racist, whether or not he is in real life is a moot point. How the #### would I know? What I DO know and have conclusively demonstrated using his own words above (please read them) is that he APPEARS to be a racist based on his posts here. Whether this means he is a real life racist or just that he plays one on the net is totally irrelevant. Unless I run off to wherever the maggot calls home and talk to him I cannot tell, and probably not even then. I couldn't give two shits if he hugs every black guy he meets and is actually a hippy human rights lawyer playing a racist on the net. It's totally irrelevant. All that IS relevant is that HERE on this message board his posts are racist. He is playing a racist, or actually being racist, right HERE. Whatever he does beyond this board is not in question, nor is it relevant. Why do I have to explain this? Look at HIS OWN WORDS for fuck's sake.

Louis

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,14:11   

Louis,
I used the wrong word. I don't think that you did anything deliberate to missrepresent GOP (and I see the word "missrepresent" implies a deliberate act)

You have called GOP a racist though, yet I see nothing in his posts that proves that he is one.

I can see a few of his posts that indicates he might be.

Do you really want me to point to a comment where you call GOP a racist? I am not saying GOP isn't BTW. I just don't think it is anywhere near proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,14:37   

Louis,

With all due respect, ignore him.

Sincerely,
BWE

--------------
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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,16:12   

Stephen,

I am in no way denying that my opinion is that GoP is a racist  (or plays one on the net), or that I have called him a racist. I do hold that opinion and I have called (and do call) him a racist. Look back and read what he has written. I've saved you reading through all the threads by summarising some of the relevant bits under point 2 in the very long post above.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,16:24   

BWE,

Him? GoP or Stephen?

Stephen's a really decent bloke, I've had a beer with him. In some cultures that means we're brothers and gives him the right to sleep with my mother in law. A privilege he is welcome to!

GoP on the other hand is either precisely as he appears, or is playing a character in order to appear thus. I cannot conceive of an honourable motive for either case. Whether or not GoP is a racist or troll in real life, one thing his behaviour here demonstrates conclusively is that he has no honour. Personally I cannot think of a worse trait.

You are however, right about GoP, I shouldn't reply to him. But such dishonesty, even for fun, annoys me. I'll try harder.

If you mean Stephen, I have to disagree. Apologist for GoP he might be in this instance, but I genuinely think that's because he's a decent bloke. If he thinks that forced repatriation for "undesirable" immigrants (even with an all new cash bonus) is not racist, then perhaps I have misjudged him.

Louis

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,18:27   

GoP(s).

You're all decent blokes I assume. If you were in portland, I'd  buy you a beer.

--------------
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

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2007,20:35   

Well, I said I'd never be back, but this is O/T, so there.

SteveStory:
Quote
And I can't just ban anyone who has engaged in any sockpuppetry, or I'd have to ban LouFCD, and Lou's a good guy.


Not to mention whatever nattering nabob is behind that silly gaggle of "Lenny" characters, the pizza kid, the pizza lady, and the deli delight...!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2007,03:17   

Gents,

I think I summed up my views on sockpuppetry here:

Quote
Ah but useful and intersting sockpuppetry, and even trolling is a useful part of any internet forum. Lou was making cogent points, not engaging in flamebait. Productive and insightful conversation can and does arise from an intelligently managed Loki, sock or troll. In principle I have no real problem with that, or at least not one I am unwilling to compromise. The history of "Devil's Advocate" is well established in debate, and indeed any serious debate club will occasionally coerce members into arguing the opposite case to their own.

My point is that GoP's sockpuppetry (if it is sockpuppetry) and trolling (which it definitely, self admittedly is) is nothing more than flamebait, again self admittedly. IF GoP's post "confession" behaviour was markedly different from GoP's pre "confession" behaviour then I wouldn't have any issue with it at all. I'd laugh, say "You got me" and carry on regardless. But it isn't different.


My disagreement with GoP is NOT based on the simple fact of his being troll, Loki, or sockpuppet. It's the fact that as a sock, loki or troll he was not trying to parody or satirise a debate but to engage in trolling for flamebait. A fact he has himself confessed to.

Arguing that because GoP is a sock/Loki/troll and thus should be banned would be like arguing that because some murderers drive to their crimes and use their cars to kill their victims, all drivers should be tried as murderers. Which I hope is at least relatively obvious I'm not doing. I am not condemning the use of socks/Lokis/trolls full stop, point blank across the board, I am condemning their use as deliberate flame attracting distraction and disruption. These are two quite different arguments. One is an absolutist case against all trolling types, which I couldn't reasonably make, the other is an individual case against a specific troll, which is easy to make in this instance. Each case on its merits.

So no I don't accept that banning/censuring GoP is in any way an advocacy of banning all those who engage in socks/loki/trolls. What's that quote from the Bhagavad Gita? "To each man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates to ####". Many people use their key to open the gates to heaven. Many do not. It isn't the key's fault.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2007,07:32   

Oh and there was a cracking mother in law shagging joke in there and no one has replied to it. I might be pissed off with GoP but I haven't lost my sense of humour. Now make with the funny.

Louis

P.S. If you were in London I'd buy you all a beer dammit. Do we hug now and talk about sports?

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2007,13:15   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 18 2007,16:24)
BWE,

Him? GoP or Stephen?

Stephen's a really decent bloke, I've had a beer with him. In some cultures that means we're brothers and gives him the right to sleep with my mother in law. A privilege he is welcome to!

GoP on the other hand is either precisely as he appears, or is playing a character in order to appear thus. I cannot conceive of an honourable motive for either case. Whether or not GoP is a racist or troll in real life, one thing his behaviour here demonstrates conclusively is that he has no honour. Personally I cannot think of a worse trait.

You are however, right about GoP, I shouldn't reply to him. But such dishonesty, even for fun, annoys me. I'll try harder.

If you mean Stephen, I have to disagree. Apologist for GoP he might be in this instance, but I genuinely think that's because he's a decent bloke. If he thinks that forced repatriation for "undesirable" immigrants (even with an all new cash bonus) is not racist, then perhaps I have misjudged him.

Louis

Thank you Louis,
The feeling is reciprocated.

Just one thing. I would forcibly remove some immigrants. Don't get me wrong here. It would have to be because of behaviour rather than beliefs (well usually).

Let me expand on that. If somebody wishes to live in the UK and expects to be able to say things like "women = 1/2 of a man" or "daughters should have their clitoris removed" etc. I have no time for that.

####! On re-reading that I sound like a Sun commenter. I am not really. I just think that there are certain people in the World whose views are pretty much unacceptable to our way of life.

I have lived in places where men think that it is OK to rape a woman if she doesn't wear a Burkha outside of the house. I do not want that sort of idea to become prevalent/legal in the UK. If an individual believes that then OK. However, if they act upon it or encourage others to act upon it, it aint OK. I am not too certain about the belief being OK TBH.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2007,17:37   

Dudes, Paley is here to pick fights (call it "trolling", call it "sockpuppeting", call it whatever you like).  Apparently it gives him some sort of warm fuzzy all inside or something.

He craves our attention like a tapeworm craves shit.

If we don't GIVE him any shit, he'll move on to a new intestine.

(shrug)

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2007,18:28   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 18 2007,18:27)

You're all decent blokes I assume. If you were in portland, I'd  buy you a beer.

You'd buy all of us ONE beer?

Cheap bastard.  :p

--------------
"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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2007,04:17   

Stephen,

And I want female circumcision to become prevalent now do I?

Only kidding! ;)

I would not force deportation of any legal immigrant to the UK, once they're in, they are a UK citizen like you or me.

If they are in the process of migration/seeking asylum/illegally here and not seeking asylum or whatever an they commit a crime, then deportation it is.

There's a difference between 100% multiculturalism and supporting immigrant populations. For example I think that we need just the one legal system, not as some people are calling for a separate sharia law for muslims. I happy for people to have their own cultural views and I'm happy for people to question ours, but I'm not happy for different people to be held to different standards. I'd also like our laws to be broad and tolerant enough to cope with minor cultural differences.

The example you bring up of female circumcision is a good one. Usually this is done to a child or young teen and is also usually an abhorrent and non consensual (or coerced consensual) practice. We really don't have to respect some people's beliefs over the human rights of another person, and we really don't have to play the silly relativist card and claim "it's another wonderful cultural difference". This is the key difference, we don't allow this to happen, and yes some immigrant communities will get pissed off about it. And like you and like any Daily Mail reader (which I am not) there are going to be lines drawn in the sand that people don't like.

I am comfortable making the judgement call that Bronze age inspired mutilation of women's genitals is a fucking terrible idea and we should punish anyone who does it in this country to the full extent of the law. Deportation is not the answer. Open confrontation and visible punishment is. (By the way like the good public school boy I was, I have a  harsh view of what should happen in prison. I'm an advocate of criminals actually paying their debt to society by labour. Useful labour which benefits society as a whole and which teaches the prisoner a trade and also allows them to be rehabilitated. BTW this is not the easy or gentle option! ) Like I said to the Troll compromises have to be made both ways as part of a modern evolving democracy. Not cutting off women's clits from the immigrant, letting them practice their religion within the limits of the law from us.

Here's a question for you. We have two muslim gents who are strong advocates of female circumcision, one who has been here two years, fresh from his home land, and the other who has been born here and has never been to the land of his ancestors. Both guilty of equal crimes. Do you send them both "back"?

As for people saying things like "women = half a man". Let them. It's called freedom of speech. Just because you and I don't like it doesn't mean they should be silenced. Debate with them, confront their beliefs, show them up. If they become a nuisance, say by discriminating against female colleagues in the workplace, punish them. (Same as a message board! Debate, discuss, disagree, all good. When someone is disruptive, dishonest and a dickhead, punish them! )

This is what confuses me about this issue. People want tolerance for their views and cultural identity (and that includes the hosts) but they are unwilling to grant that same tolerance to others. I don't like the antediluvian rantings of imams and vicars any more than the next atheist, but I respect their right to disagree with me. What I don't respect, and will never respect, is their lack of tolerance for others. If they want to be heard freely the price is that they must allow others to be heard freely and to disagree with them. That is the price of a pluralist (NOT multicultural) egalitarian secular democracy. Their views don't have any special claim under the law.

Another strawman is the silly relativist one: "Oh but their cultural beliefs don't support human rights, we're forcing our culture on them". Sorry boys and girls but looks the the progress of the entire world over all history and it is moving in one direction: a greater degree of respect for human rights. There are blips and reversals, but the general trend is undeniable. This is where we CAN bring out the evidence, where we CAN say "sorry but your view that I can be tortured is not equal to my view that I sodding well don't want to be". How this intensely simple difference eludes the silly relativist left wing and the silly racist right wing I'll never know. I guess some people is just dumb!

Louis

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2007,05:24   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 20 2007,04:17)
Stephen,

And I want female circumcision to become prevalent now do I?

Only kidding! ;)
...
Louis

I pretty much agree with you.

In answer to  
Quote

Here's a question for you. We have two muslim gents who are strong advocates of female circumcision, one who has been here two years, fresh from his home land, and the other who has been born here and has never been to the land of his ancestors. Both guilty of equal crimes. Do you send them both "back"?


I wouldn't send either anywhere for having that opinion. If they where actually doing it then they should go to prison. If the person not born here was not a UK citizen, he should be prevented from becoming one and sent back.

Nobody should be punished for an opinion. Everyone should be accountable for their actions.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2007,07:28   

Stephen,

Then you and I agree!

Louis

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2007,11:53   

When it comes to Paley (or whatever Paley is sockpuppeting this week) being a racist (Aryan supremacist), I think his own sig makes my feelings on the matter pretty clear.

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2007,12:45   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 20 2007,07:28)
Stephen,

Then you and I agree!

Louis

I thought we might. The internet is a wonderfull comunications tool but far more limited than a face to face conversation.

  
  64 replies since Jan. 16 2007,19:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]