Infarcted for requiring Atheists produce evidence to support defamation

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77686724&postcount=831

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3001
Claim 1 -and counter claim by Shakeshaft and Jenkins -both reliable academic sources

Figures released by the Dublin Archdiocese suggest that around 6.5% of the priests who worked during that time were convicted of child abuse, or who had credible allegations made against them.

no evidence forthcoming to support Claim 1

It is a clear disparaging remark on the entire Roman Catholic clergy.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77688561&postcount=836
Robindch -an A&A moderator - asked me privately and publicly to come to this thread.
after I had attempted to get the data about the 6.5% by PM

Claim 2

This percentage is roughly the same as the figures produced by the Government in respect of clerical abuse elsewhere and is in line with figures arrived at by other means.

so called evidence offered for claim 1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77696548&postcount=839

1. Cloyne Report. section 1.7 on page 2 -(7.6%)

2. Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.
section 1.8 on page 2 of "Part 1"

3. A claim that "The Irish Catholic reported some years ago " 4% of convicted pedophiles in Irish prisons were clerics"

Counter 1. Cloyne isn't Dublin as claimed.
"allegations made or concerns expressed about" isnt ""convicted of child abuse, or who had credible allegations made"

Counter 2 Misrepresentation of data
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77699611&postcount=842

Or 34/2800=1.2% NOT 6.3%
The report itself says this -34- figure in 1.13 and mentions 11 convictions not 34 so the percentage is even lower.

Counter 3 the Irish Catholic never made any such report
again misrepresentation of "percentage of victims who are victims of Priests " as "percentage of abusers who are priests"

No acceptance was made on any of this.

Several personal attacks were then made on me in thread and in other threads by several posters
Posters also in this and other threads reposted the 6.5% figure.
I Pmed the moderators that I would try avoid posting but I wantd the admission of the error in the percentage claims and couldnt allow them to ignore the reposting of clearly false data.

In other threads specific anti catholic hate speech was made when I commented.
I can produce references if required.

Having failed to produce evidence to support the 4% claim and the 6.5% claim and the claim that abuse was widespread in the church and the claim that it was well documented in the thread -it wasnt - Robindch then suggested these unsupported claims then be dropped and entered yet another unsupported claim
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78009860&postcount=987

Ratzinger mentioned in a speech a couple of years ago, that local civil law should not always be followed, since it could lead to people making false allegations against priests.

And was in the following message shown counter evidence

and again people chime in with the 6.5% claim
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78011718&postcount=989

as they did before
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77700968&postcount=855
How can I be accused of dodging the question and reposting 6.5% is unsupported and Sarky be allowed to repost the 6.5% figure?

If statistical claims are made they should be supported.
If false claims that they are historically in a thread are made and they are NOT there they should be admitted.
Opînions are NOT facts and should not be dressed up as facts.

Why should I be disciplined for asking for level standards and pointing out bias and double standards?
Particularly by biased moderation allowing reposting of errors and disciplining those who ask for the errors to be admitted?

Please address this issue of things being reported as FACTS which are in fact unsupported opinion.
Biased reporting is an irresponsible behavior.

Update: It now seems the only solution the A&A mods have to not supporting their own claim and to avoiding the hate speech by other posters is to ban me.

Scofflaw

Hi ISAW,

I've looked at the thread, I've looked at the mod warnings, and all I see there is yet another trainwreck with you at the centre pursuing some minor point with inflexible dogmatism, refusing to cede a millimetre of your adopted position, telling the mods to back off when they ask you not to wreck yet another thread, and complaining of oppression when they eventually remove you from their forum.

Not only would I not consider this ban unfair, but another couple such and we'll vote on permabanning you from the entire Soc category, because this keeps happening with you - the identity of the mods and other parties involved changes, but you remain the same.

You can ask for an Admin to review this decision.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hi ISAW,

I've looked at the thread, I've looked at the mod warnings, and all I see there is yet another trainwreck with you at the centre pursuing some minor point with inflexible dogmatism, refusing to cede a millimetre of your adopted position, telling the mods to back off when they ask you not to wreck yet another thread, and complaining of oppression when they eventually remove you from their forum.

It is NOT a minor point that a claim that 6.5% of Catholic priests are sexual abusers is upheld by a moderator who claims it is in the thread and refuses to reproduce the evidence!

It is a clear disparaging and defamatory remark on the clergy.
Are you claiming that the remark is in any way supported?

Ill bet you cant support it in any way and you wont even try!

Quite simply the claim is that 6.5% of catholic priests are pedophiles is a ludicrous claim!

It is further asserted as a alternative that 4% are!

If you looked at the threads did you also look at the continual reposting of the 6.5% figure by other?
Or the obvious baiting of me by posters?
what have you to say about them?
Either the figure is supported or it is not!

clearly it isnt but rather than admit that you accuse me of "pursuing some minor point"
the point is a clear dishonest unsupported attack on the clergy!

and
"with inflexible dogmatism, refusing to cede a millimetre of your adopted position"

Wrong i didnt make the claim so dnt try to shift the burden
Robindch made the claim
I asked him in PM to show me his sources
He referred me to the thread both publically and privately
In that thread there is NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for either the 6.5% or 4% claim.

Are you offering any support for it from any source whatsoever?
If not then why are you supporting a moderator banning someone for requesting the facts which support their claim as promised public ally by them?

Not only would I not consider this ban unfair, but another couple such and we'll vote on permabanning you from the entire Soc category, because this keeps happening with you - the identity of the mods and other parties involved changes, but you remain the same.

where is the evidence that 6.54%M of priests are child sex abusers as claimed?
Have you got it or not?

If not then why are you supporting such a defamatory claim?
would you allow a claim that 6.5% of black people or homosexuals or women or Jews or any other group were pedophiles if it was not supported?

You can ask for an Admin to review this decision.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Yes I request that.

Can I name the admin myself?
Someone I know has personal experience in such matters.

Scofflaw

ISAW, I'm not here to uphold or repudiate the claim in any way. I'm here solely to judge whether you were disrupting the forum whose mods gave you the ban you're disputing.

Your ban is the result of you "pursuing some minor point with inflexible dogmatism, refusing to cede a millimetre of your adopted position, telling the mods to back off when they ask you not to wreck yet another thread, and complaining of oppression when they eventually remove you from their forum", which is all very disruptive.

And here you are doing exactly the same thing in DRP.

Anyway, leaving this for Admin review.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

ISAW, I'm not here to uphold or repudiate the claim in any way. I'm here solely to judge whether you were disrupting the forum whose mods gave you the ban you're disputing.

Your ban is the result of you "pursuing some minor point with inflexible dogmatism,"

Which minor point? Care to state thza actual point Im accused of pursuing?

"refusing to cede a millimetre of your adopted position"

Cede a millimeter from what position?
NB I didnt make the original claim about 6.5% so how is my persistence in asking for evidence when it is repeated MY adopted position?


"telling the mods to back off when they ask you not to wreck yet another thread"

what I told the mod in PM was i expected them to support their claims or withdraw them.
what I was assured by them was the evidence was there. It wasn't!
So, basically you are banning me for demanding evidence for unsupported defamatory which support a mindset of people who clearly use such FAKE statistics to support anti religious abuse?

and i am meant to accept that?

and complaining of oppression when they eventually remove you from their forum", which is all very disruptive.

And here you are doing exactly the same thing in DRP.

What I am pointing out to you is that eventually if you ban people for asking for evidence to support a clearly wrong statistic about clergy then you are open to people accusing you of incitement to hatred.

I think the continual unsupported claim that 6.5% or even 4% of priests being pedophiles is a clear attack on clergy. It is completely unfounded! It is extremely upsetting to religious people that boards.ie would uphold these repeated claims and furthermore stifle anyone who challenges those claims when they are repeated.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78038113&postcount=1023

I never kept note of which documents fully substantiated the ~6.5% claim and the original post(s) which brought this to light are buried deeply in A+A somewhere

so the original promise that they were in this thread is now changed to the assurance that they are "somewhere"?
It isn't good enough to make unsupported claims as certain and then when pressed to say "oh it is in ther somewhere"
All Im asking is that the OP admit they don't have the evidence they claimed t have and they still claim is ther "somewhere". WHERE is it? If you cant show it admit you have not got it.
Otherwise you are supporting a whole swathe of anti clerical posts.
Boards just should not uphold such standards.

EDIT: the evidence offered above for 6.5% is http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Part%201.pdf/Files/Part%201.pdf
which clearly states in 5.41 that there were 25 Dublin cases. these are not convictions just cases. but assuming all were abusers at 6.5% this suggests there are 385 priests in Dublin!

Anyway, leaving this for Admin review.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Can I chose the admin?

Scofflaw

ISAW, I'm not here to debate with you. My involvement here consists of looking at whether your behaviour is disruptive enough to warrant a ban, and my answer is yes.

Many of us have points which we take issue with, hobby-horses we pursue whenever opportunity presents itself (ask me about evidence for the involvement of French and German banks in the Irish bubble, for example, or fish, or offshore Irish oil), but you do it in a way that is incredibly disruptive.

So I'm not interested in whether there is, or isn't, evidence for the claims being made - I'm looking solely at how you personally go about challenging such claims, and solely on the basis of whether how you do it is disruptive or not. And the answer there is yes. I have no interest in the claim being made - zero, zip, nada.

And the problem here will be illustrated by the fact that you won't see how that can work, because to you all that matters here is the verity or otherwise of the claim you are challenging. But that's actually irrelevant to the problem here, while the fact that you won't see it that way is part of the problem.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

ISAW, I'm not here to debate with you. My involvement here consists of looking at whether your behaviour is disruptive enough to warrant a ban, and my answer is yes.

so in your opinion demanding evidence for continual posting of false statistics is disruptive?
Even if the false statistics are continually being reposted without any challenge allowed and those wh challenge the fake statistics banned?
do you not see the problem with that?

Many of us have points which we take issue with, hobby-horses we pursue whenever opportunity presents itself (ask me about evidence for the involvement of French and German banks in the Irish bubble, for example, or fish, or offshore Irish oil), but you do it in a way that is incredibly disruptive.

It isnt a hobby hoorse about an opinion! It is a question of fact!

the claim was made that 6.5% of Priests are pedophiles!
It is a scurrilous claim. It is constantly being remade and so called "facts" not being supplied but the additional false claim that the stats were always ther is repeated.

I would not accept it of claims of WMD in Iraq.
I would not accept it of the claim that only a few Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
why should boards accept it if a false unsupported claim is continually made about roman catholic Priests?
why are you a person who was purporting to act for boards.ie supporting
threatening, abusive or insulting posts intended or likely to stir up hatred.
By hatred I mean hatred against a group of persons -Priests- whether in the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere on account of their religion.

supporting false unsupported claims about priests is doing just that.
the posters are continuing to repost the same claims and attack me for showing then up as wrong.

I believe boards is highly irresponsible if it allows that sort of thing.

So I'm not interested in whether there is, or isn't, evidence for the claims being made - I'm looking solely at how you personally go about challenging such claims, and solely on the basis of whether how you do it is disruptive or not. And the answer there is yes. I have no interest in the claim being made - zero, zip, nada.

but in so saying you are aware of the offensive material; You can not therefore now claim that you did not know and had no reason to suspect that the item concerned did not involve the material to which the offence relates

Saying you do not care and are not interested in whether it is offensive or not is an acknowledgement of the existence of it and that you have been shown it.

And the problem here will be illustrated by the fact that you won't see how that can work, because to you all that matters here is the verity or otherwise of the claim you are challenging. But that's actually irrelevant to the problem here, while the fact that you won't see it that way is part of the problem.

While it isnt all that matters the fact that a crime of incitement to hatred or similar might be committed is more important to me.

The fact that you don't care whether it might be illegal or not does not remove your knowledge of the matter or your responsibility to act on it if it is.

whether or not you care, should I be found to be correct, the fact of you banning me after I drew this to your attention would have much greater implications on your position than it has on mine.
Edit: By the way I can also present ample evidence of me keeping out of the thread and various other posters baiting me with the unsupported 6.5% figure and new posters posting about it. I brought this to the attention of moderators.

nesf

ISAW, which part of "We're not here to debate with you" don't you understand? Your behaviour in this thread is exactly why you get banned over and over again. We've discussed this numerous times with you and our patience is growing thin, if you can't behave in the category we will Cat ban you.


And no, I'm not going to debate this with you, I'm simply trying to explain our position in as clear and unambiguous language as is possible.

Zaph

ISAW, your current record shows that you have 6 warnings, 7 infractions and 9 forum bans. This is the 10th thread you have started in the Dispute Resolution Forum. Now there comes a time when we look at a poster's record and decide it's them, not us, and decide that we have better things to be doing than dealing with them as they are simply a drain on mod and admin resources. In cases like this we have no other option but to permanently siteban the poster. You are very close to joining those ranks.

Scofflaw and nesf have explained why you were banned, and having reviewed the thread in question I see no reason to overturn that ban. Furthermore as they have pointed out, your behaviour in this thread is precisely the reason why you were banned. If you continue to debate the facts of the thread rather than the reason for your banning here, I will ban you from the DRF for persistent disruptive behaviour. It's not something I want to do, but I will if it is necessary, and should you receive any further forum bans after your current ban from A&A expires I will be giving strong consideration to a permanent siteban.

ISAW

Zaph wrote: »

Scofflaw and nesf have explained why you were banned, and having reviewed the thread in question I see no reason to overturn that ban.

Okay if you are ignoring possible Incitement to hatred don't blame me if you get problems with it in future.

I did my best to draw it to the attention of boards.ie

ISAW

Zaph wrote: »

ISAW, your current record shows that you have 6 warnings, 7 infractions and 9 forum bans. This is the 10th thread you have started in the Dispute Resolution Forum. Now there comes a time when we look at a poster's record and decide it's them, not us, and decide that we have better things to be doing than dealing with them as they are simply a drain on mod and admin resources.

Usually that time comes AFTER a judge independently deal with the facts without any reference to prior convictions and decides if they are right or not. It is not usual to judge someone based on past infringements. In fact any fair jury in a would be dismissed and a retrial necessary.
But I suppose you can claim you don't operate the same level of fairness as a legally blind system.
the question keeps arising whether or not you (by which I mean boards or their representatives and not you personally) are biased and allowing the possibility of incitement to hatred. i really do think you should take this seriously and not think banning me is the answer to people and moderators posting clearly unsupported remarks about religions and banning those who demand they support them.

You might also consider the posts I made were in response to various people making such claims and I refrained for some time in so doing.