Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
A&A Feedback
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »robindch says this
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111853187&postcount=1399
The thread revolves around Folau saying gays will go to hell. God's wrath will be upon them.
He now says God's wrath is upon six people who died in bushfires
Folk won't be pleased with Folau
Now I come in..
It's fairly clear what I mean. Folk would have no problem had Israel said the wrath of God would be on Epstein. They are picky and choosy when it comes to where they think wrath ought to be applied.
Mod warning follows. Mod thinks I'm comparing gays to paedophiles. I query and point out the obvious. Infraction follows as I haven't followed mod instruction (presumably I'm not allowed to mention gays and paedophiles in the same area, in any way, shape or form - lest I be seen to be saying the gays and paedophiles are some way equatable. Even if it's patently clear I'm not connecting the two in this context.
[I gather too, that saying gay actions are sinful isn't permitted on this forum anymore. For to do so would be to equate those actions with the sinful actions of every other person in the world. Fair enough, it's someone elses forum to do with what they will]
This is the warning you received:I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have phrased that badly and are in no way comparing LGBT people to a convicted sex offender and trafficker of girls. Kindly think more carefully before posting as rather like Australian Rugby there is a policy of not tolerating homophobic comments in this forum and it would be a shame if you were sanctioned in the future for ill judged remarks.
It's quite clear that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - therefore I did not think you were comparing LGBT people to paedophiles, I did think it could be read that way. If I had thought you absolutely were making that comparison I would have issued a sterner sanction for inflammatory language and/or being uncivil. I did warn you to mind your phraseology going forward as benefit of doubt has it's limitations.
You were carded for questioning a mod instruction in thread. Which you have been around long enough to know is a cardable offence.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »It's quite clear that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt
Why was there any doubt to give me the benefit of? The point was about as crystal clear as it could be. If it were a case of people being triggered by the word gay/paedophile in the same post then I think the problem isn't so much with me.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Why was there any doubt to give me the benefit of? The point was about as crystal clear as it could be. If it were a case of people being triggered by the word gay/paedophile in the same post then I think the problem isn't so much with me.
nobody is triggered by the word gay/paedophile. they do have an issue when they are conflated. The mod may have given you the benefit of the doubt but i wouldn't.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »nobody is triggered by the word gay/paedophile. they do have an issue when they are conflated. The mod may have given you the benefit of the doubt but i wouldn't.
Just one fly in the ointment for your career prospects. There was no conflation.
People wouldn't object if Folau said Epstein was being subjected to the wrath of God
People would object if Folau said people burnt in bush fire were being subjected to the wrath of God.
Were is the conflation in noting what people get their knickers in a twist about?
I think it is you who is conflating. By reading something other than whats written.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Just one fly in the ointment for your career prospects. There was no conflation.
so you keep insisting.0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »The point was about as crystal clear as it could be.
Clear? Have you even read what you've written, one could be forgiven for thinking you're speaking in tongues?antiskeptic wrote: »Wrath no problem, so long as man the decision maker on where and when it ought be applied.If it were a case of people being triggered by the word gay/paedophile in the same post then I think the problem isn't so much with me.
Again, you're language is as clear as mud. A kind interpretation would replace 'the word gay/paedophile' with 'the words gay and paedophile' or even 'the word gay and the word paedophile'. Given you use 'word' in the singular another interpretation is simply 'the word gay paedophile', as the '/' character is not a well understood alternative for the word 'and'.
Cynically one might also suspect intentional use of association by proximity. So for example, if I were to talk about Christianity, and then to talk about homophobia, even without making an explicit connection the reader starts to form an association between Christianity and homophobia. Even without making an assertion, people read Christianity and homophobia.0 -
Clear? Have you even read what you've written, one could be forgiven for thinking you're speaking in tongues?
I think your clutching @ straws. Or should I say 'you're". The point was clear if you read it, through. And if you somehow managed to sea a conflation, well, that's you doing you're damndest 2 find it.
Punctuation imperfections notwithstandingAgain, you're language is as clear as mud. A kind interpretation would replace 'the word gay/paedophile' with 'the words gay and paedophile' or even 'the word gay and the word paedophile'. Given you use 'word' in the singular another interpretation is simply 'the word gay paedophile', as the '/' character is not a well understood alternative for the word 'and'.
Cynically one might also suspect intentional use of association by proximity. So for example, if I were to talk about Christianity, and then to talk about homophobia, even without making an explicit connection the reader starts to form an association between Christianity and homophobia. Even without making an assertion, people read Christianity and homophobia.
Again, if your looking you'll find, even if it's not there. It's clear from the point that gay/paedophile are not/meant/synonymously.
I'd hope that if you were writing about Christianity and homophobia that I'd be able to see whether you mean the two connected or are talking about two distinct things.
We are in serious trouble if even empirical evidence isn't believed.0 -
Carded for referring to people who probably consider abortion to be murder.
Not sure why the card. Since when can abortion not be referred to in the manner one side view it? And what discussion is possible when the grounding view of one side is out of bounds.
Or is it the intent to merely have a 'ha ha' echo chamber thread.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Carded for referring to people who probably consider abortion to be murder.
Not sure why the card. Since when can abortion not be referred to in the manner one side view it? And what discussion is possible when the grounding view of one side is out of bounds.
Or is it the intent to merely have a 'ha ha' echo chamber thread.
Since the charter was updated last May. You seem to be falling foul of it quite regularly these days so I might suggest you reacquaint yourself with it if you intend to continue to contribute here.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's fine, it works for you so go for it. I think the problems start happening when people start presenting their beliefs as undeniable truths that others should accept and live their lives accordingly. In this case, they should be able to evidence their beliefs if they are to have any kind of a convincing argument. Someone tells me they're Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or Jedi I've absolutely no problem with it. The problem happens if they tell me I should also become Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or Jedi or whatever, or try to teach it to my kids. Likewise if they try to set down rules as to who can or cannot get married, have sex, or engage in planned parenthood.
Absolutely, as long as you're happy why should anyone else try to convince you will be happy +++ if you close your mind with restrictions...
Christianity is very restrictive and might I add vindictive...I found when I became a pagan I opened up to a whole new world that's amazing and all inclusive...
Whether you're an atheist, Christian Mulsim Jew Buddhist we can all get along ok
But being a dick head doesn't discriminate.
Call a spade a spade, I notice a lot of anti religion and spirituality and point's being scored on this forum, collective thanking and moderators taking the atheists side more frequently, and shutting people down and ruining some banter and the odd squabble which could be sorted out here rather than face the rath of somewhere else to sort out the problems...
So in effect if this forum represents Atheism as a whole on board's it's quite PC sterile and boring... don't question a mod, you're banned because you questioned a mod ?
One more infraction and you're out, it's like school..
Then the mod puts up a smart comment...so and so are taking a break for a few days to cool down and the usual happy clapper's giving it a like.
Seriously, there needs to be a bit of room for heated debates and discussions...
This place used to be very popular and entertaining now it's been run like a politically correct Californian college campus...one strike and you're infracted...
A bit like what Atheism doesn't stand for...ye left the church and religion only to create something that's so similar.
Very much like the Abrahamic dogma without the god head in charge.Mark Hamill wrote: »What I see is a lot of critical discussion of theistic and spiritualist claims, well written and thought out posts receiving thanks from other posters who appreciate the points made and effort invested, and moderators working quite well with posters to keep discussions moving.
The other thing I am seeing is posters who don't like their ill-thought religious and spiritual crutches being deconstructed in front of them, aghast that the mods don't step in and rescue them from the nasty atheists with their offensive reasoning and logic.
I am sure that you are not one of these people and that you actually have plenty of evidence of your claims happening in this thread.
There is a feedback thread to discuss this kind of thing and I would genuinely like to continue discussing this with you there because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The only times I have seen mods exercise their powers is when posters are directly insulting someone or ignoring direct mod instructions and they are very lenient when they do use their powers (any other forum on this site where calling a mod an idiot to their face would only get you an infraction?).
It is still entertaining, maybe the problem is that your posts and banter aren't as entertaining as you think you are?
Where's your evidence for me thinking my post's are entertaining or my banter is appreciated ?
My favourite personality trait is not giving a sh1t what people think of me, my humour, banter or debating style...
As long as I'm not intentionally harming anyone else and I can sleep at night without any resentments or guilt.
I think I'm doing ok.
You assume that some people are deconstructing others belief's in front of them.
I think that's quite egotistical to be honest.
Cohesion isn't about destroying people's beliefs and using my post to validate your argument or discussion is a poor attempt to get your point across.
Proselytizing isn't tolerated on the Atheist and Agnosticism forum, why should deconstructing people's beliefs be allowed ???
Then I've a moderator telling me maybe this forum isn't for me, maybe it's not the forum but the way it's been moderated isn't for me and many others...
I'm ok I accept that.
I'm not going to discuss this with you where you'll have the upper hand in a discussion.
I often can have these discussions with friends who are Atheists over a coffee or a hike.
And we find common ground and agree to disagree.
You've a right to your opinion and me mine.
It doesn't mean we don't have anything else in common, only our beliefs in how certain things work.
There's more than one way to prune a tree or set a sail.
I think in action and pictures rather than number's and targets...
I adapt more metaphorically rather than intellectually...
I'm dyslexic and slightly autistic, so neither of us have an advantage over the other.I have to say Iam quite happy I posted here, its easy to converse with like minded people where everyone more or less agrees.
I knew I was walking into the lions den, but felt I had to challenge my beliefs.
I understand totally where you are all coming from and would like to thank everyone who took part.
Not been able to give evidence for the existence of God, in a logical debate, was an eye opener, seriously,that is a problem.
Again thank you to everyone who took the time, but may I ask one more question, and could we apply the same strict parameters of logic and science and dealing with the five senses.
Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.
Love is all around, you experience it iceman and I wouldn't ask anyone here about the existence of love. Like yourself I dip into the lion's den now and again and it's the only forum on board's where one has to walk on eggshells.
A moderator here in a roundabout way suggested to me that if I want to share and respond in my usual way, that after hours might suit me better.
And I appreciate their heads up about that.
Not everyone in here will try to set a trap for you, there's more reasonable people than unreasonable...
I love debating with banter and a bit of heated debate doesn't cause me any bother, doesn't do me any harm.
You'll get people plagiarising from Richard Dawkins book's and other popular author's, thinking they're intelligent or scoring point's.
And the lion's will start coming out of the grasslands and my observation is they're not there for a balanced debate.. only to push people out. It's their territory.
I like holding ground until the lionesses or lion tells me that it's time to leave our den now, so like a cheetah I'm sprinting to greener pastures and then when I feel safe I'll have a look through the tall grass and pop my head up only to be chased off again.
I've heard it all in here,and I'll admit yes I do derail the thread now and again.
You'll never get someone agreeing to disagree, or respond to your genuinely nice post above, and say..
No worries man, were all different but we can get along all the same and sure it's like being being in the lion's den but our roar is worse than our bite. Oh no there's not an ounce of that here.
I tried to be friendly here or put my hand up and apologise for my attitude or upsetting the decorum of the subject matter, and when I do it's only the moderators who'll thank your post,as they have mine sometimes.
Maybe we should have a better place to discuss these matters, such as a loosecloak type of sub forum.
Where people can let off steam,slag each other off etc.. and have a warning that if you're highly sensitive or lack emotional intelligence maybe it's best you steer clear.
There's a sub forum here where you share about the Hazard's of belief etc and it undermines religion and spirituality quite a lot, so what's good for the goose should be good for the gander...I note you still haven't given us your definition of what love is. Can't exactly put forward evidence indicating that something exists when you haven't even said what that thing is.
I've seriously come to the conclusion there's a lot of sock puppetry here,and if the moderators had access to the IP addresses they'd get multiple accounts under the one IP address.
Love exists all right,and quite frankly cupcakes if you have to question it's existince maybe you don't exist at all.
This thread has a bang of narcissism and gaslighting, what a place this turned into.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people in here are chatting with themselves, just one person who has multiple accounts.
Iceman seems to be making a lot of sense about the existence of love...but if you smacl are going down the same route of trying to push iceman out of the forum as Robindch is with me, well this is going to be a lonely place...
There's been tumble weed blowing through here for a few years now, and with the present situation I'd say it'll be a ghost town soon.
I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love itUsername here wrote: »Why do you want a ban? So you can play the victim card? Or is your impulse control so poor that you need someone else to take that decision out of your hands?
Oh and by the way - the mere fact that people don't share your worldview doesn't make them narcissists.
I'm far from playing the victim, it's you lot running to the moderators every time I supposedly derail the thread, or say something which ye deem to be upsetting athiests...
The only time I ever ever get infractions is in the A+A forum.
And I'm being told by a moderator to abide by the forum rules, because I'm upsetting other forum members.
Now there's only a fckn hand full of people who are here regularly, so it's not hard to see who is more than likely getting triggered by my posts...
So I think there's a double dose of impulse control going on here...
The amount of people who gave up posting here is phenomenal, ye have ran them all out of the forum.
This is like a middle class Christian mans club, no cursing, no going off on tangents, the mods decision is final, don't argue with a mod, you you're ok you can say what you like, I don't like your attitude you're very bold...I'm putting you in the corner..
Robin likes to fire his moderator whip in front of everyone, so you can all see how powerful and effective he can be, he is like a white knight swoops in like a hero and saves the day...
Then he tells you all he's sending the poster on a holiday, you all gleefully clap your hands like chickens..
Why on earth would I play the victim card ? there's feck all people interested in coming in here anyhow. If anything it's some of you people who play the victim card... I've been told by a moderator that people are upset.
And I've to tone down and stop my rant.
You're all experts at plagiarism and suggesting that so and so wrote a certain book and on page what ever it says.... they're well qualified therefore they're right.
Have ye not got mind's of your own ?
Are any of you original ?
Plagiarise this...
Be Fully Present in the Conversation. Finding common ground requires listening; you need to be fully present in the moment. ...
Realize and Vocalize the Things You Agree On. ...
Seek Understanding More than Being Right. ...
Honor the Other Person. ...
Commit to Communicate with Kindness.
Iceman and myself often might I add try to communicate with kindness, admit when we're off on tangents.
Or say we understand your side of things.
I've said sorry now and again in here for being a dick, but there's a lot of dick's in here who've over the years, belittled people, reduced them to hopping out of here like timind rabbits, and the moderators didn't flinch or batt an eyelid.
There was a member here frequently called sarky and he was left do and post whatever he liked, I had a feeling he had some connection to the website because nobody else could get away with his rants only him. And anyone who had a problem with him could end up getting an infraction or ban.
Haven't seen him here in a long time....Pherekydes wrote: »You're being asked to follow the rules of the forum. Every forum on boards has its own rules. If you breach the rules you get warnings or bans.
You seem to think that the trite style of AH posting you're used to will be tolerated everywhere.
So do you think if I created or got the permission to open a more loosecloak style subforum where people like myself and others who've been run out of here is a good idea..
It could be similar to The hazards of belief and we could scoff and discuss how we think agnosticism and spirituality is far more open minded than Atheism.
And we could post clip's similar to The Hazards of belief too.
One thing for sure it would probably gain more momentum than this haunted place and having to wear a straight jacket and a gag on entry.
Back in the day this place was a hive of activity and people were having a great laugh, JC coming in here winding you all up and the laughs etc
Maybe ye need a new management structure and bring in more relaxed moderators.
Bring back the zest and get the juices flowing...
Mod
Posts discussing moderation and containing suggestions merged and moved as this is the correct thread for them.0 -
You assume that some people are deconstructing others belief's in front of them.
I think that's quite egotistical to be honest.
Cohesion isn't about destroying people's beliefs and using my post to validate your argument or discussion is a poor attempt to get your point across.
Proselytizing isn't tolerated on the Atheist and Agnosticism forum, why should deconstructing people's beliefs be allowed ???
Why shouldn't be allowed? Deconstructing a belief doesn't necessarily destroy it and even if it does, so what? If your belief falls apart under examination then is it not better to discard it?Then I've a moderator telling me maybe this forum isn't for me, maybe it's not the forum but the way it's been moderated isn't for me and many others...
I'm ok I accept that.
Many others? I think most people are happy with how the forum is moderated.
The few who have a problem are those who are not interested in actually discussing anything.0 -
Proselytizing isn't tolerated on the Atheist and Agnosticism forum, why should deconstructing people's beliefs be allowed ???
Because thats what Atheists do - its nothing personal. Remember that at one stage or another most of us had some sort of belief, which we deconstructed ourselves.0 -
Because thats what Atheists do - its nothing personal. Remember that at one stage or another most of us had some sort of belief, which we deconstructed ourselves.
I hear you, I'm a heathen/pagan myself not into the Abrahamic belief's some of ye deconstructed, so that fire and brimstone aint something I can fully identify with.
My family came from North Kerry on my dad's side, and they never went to mass or put the church on a pedestal. The old people used to say my grandmother would run the priest out of the house if he came knocking on the door. She didn't like nuns either. So maybe I should be less is cuma and more iomasach...
Like a leopard I won't change my spots but I'll carry them around with better intentions.
It's over I said how I felt.
I'm moving on and I'll try to behave myself...0 -
Because thats what Atheists do - its nothing personal. Remember that at one stage or another most of us had some sort of belief, which we deconstructed ourselves.I hear you, I'm a heathen/pagan myself not into the Abrahamic belief's some of ye deconstructed, so that fire and brimstone aint something I can fully identify with.
My family came from North Kerry on my dad's side, and they never went to mass or put the church on a pedestal. The old people used to say my grandmother would run the priest out of the house if he came knocking on the door. She didn't like nuns either. So maybe I should be less is cuma and more iomasach...
Like a leopard I won't change my spots but I'll carry them around with better intentions.
It's over I said how I felt.
I'm moving on and I'll try to behave myself...
Mod
Can we please keep this thread for Feedback?
The ins and outs of beliefs or lack thereof have many many many threads available - indeed, the one I had to move posts into this thread from is ready and waiting... but this thread is for feedback about the forum.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Mod
Can we please keep this thread for Feedback?
The ins and outs of beliefs or lack thereof have many many many threads available - indeed, the one I had to move posts into this thread from is ready and waiting... but this thread is for feedback about the forum.
I think in that post above, you have made nthclare's argument. Possibly better than anyone.
nthclare and Odhinn seem to have no problem with entertaining/arguing each other's idea's. It looks very civil to me.
Yet ,still, they got a (gentle) Mod intervention.This place used to be "buzzing" at times .Recently, it has had more mods than posters.
It is curious. I suspect the regulars here know this.0 -
I think in that post above, you have made nthclare's argument. Possibly better than anyone.
nthclare and Odhinn seem to have no problem with entertaining/arguing each other's idea's. It looks very civil to me.
Yet ,still, they got a (gentle) Mod intervention.This place used to be "buzzing" at times .Recently, it has had more mods than posters.
It is curious. I suspect the regulars here know this.
They are civil, but nthclare's original post was a question about what should and shouldn't be allowed on this forum (on topic for this thread) and when answered he responds with anecdotes about his life (wildly off topic). This is not the first time they have done this.
Maybe this place did used to be "buzzing" before, but the quantity of non-atheistic posters capable of discussing their points in even a semi- rigorous and thoughtful manner has largely fallen off of a cliff. It is unfortunately not unusual for a non-atheist poster to admit that they aren't here for discussion, don't care about what anyone else says and to immediately decry heavy-handed moderation when they are inevitably told that insults and soap-boxing don't make for engaging and entertaining posts.0 -
I think in that post above, you have made nthclare's argument. Possibly better than anyone.
nthclare and Odhinn seem to have no problem with entertaining/arguing each other's idea's. It looks very civil to me.
Yet ,still, they got a (gentle) Mod intervention.This place used to be "buzzing" at times .Recently, it has had more mods than posters.
It is curious. I suspect the regulars here know this.
Perhap you would prefer a forum where posters can post what they like when they like where they like?
It could be called A(narchy)& A(holes)
In this forum we ask that people try and stay on topic, and even then allow an awful lot of leeway while asking people to kindly post in the relevant thread - which tbh generally only happens when what they are posting falls under the category of feedback specific.
Despite being asked to do so - rather than sanction or delete sections of posts that are off topic, a mod goes to the trouble of finding, merging, and moving the feedback related posts to the feedback thread, and then politely asks that the feedback thread is kept for feedback.
And you think this is heavy handed modding?
nthclare and Odhinn may entertain each other in a plethora of other threads.
But this thread is for feedback.
And if it gets clogged up with entertainment either a)important suggestions re improving the forum will be missed or b)the entertaining posts will be deleted as off topic clutter.
Which would you prefer we do?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »They are civil, but nthclare's original post was a question about what should and shouldn't be allowed on this forum (on topic for this thread) and when answered he responds with anecdotes about his life (wildly off topic). This is not the first time they have done this.
Maybe this place did used to be "buzzing" before, but the quantity of non-atheistic posters capable of discussing their points in even a semi- rigorous and thoughtful manner has largely fallen off of a cliff. It is unfortunately not unusual for a non-atheist poster to admit that they aren't here for discussion, don't care about what anyone else says and to immediately decry heavy-handed moderation when they are inevitably told that insults and soap-boxing don't make for engaging and entertaining posts.
You're like a dog with a bone, but I respect your opinion.
I'll keep it on topic and stick to the charter, myself and the moderators have been quite civil to each other via pm
And I'm trying to adhere to the principles of the A+A rules and I'm entitled to move on and be left get on with it.
So Mark can we just move on please as I've made my points with the moderators, and I know this isn't after hours and the discussions are more serious here so I'll have to engage in a more professional manner, and leave my ego outside.
I think I can do it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Perhap you would prefer a forum where posters can post what they like when they like where they like?
It could be called A(narchy)& A(holes)
In this forum we ask that people try and stay on topic, and even then allow an awful lot of leeway while asking people to kindly post in the relevant thread - which tbh generally only happens when what they are posting falls under the category of feedback specific.
Despite being asked to do so - rather than sanction or delete sections of posts that are off topic, a mod goes to the trouble of finding, merging, and moving the feedback related posts to the feedback thread, and then politely asks that the feedback thread is kept for feedback.
And you think this is heavy handed modding?
nthclare and Odhinn may entertain each other in a plethora of other threads.
But this thread is for feedback.
And if it gets clogged up with entertainment either a)important suggestions re improving the forum will be missed or b)the entertaining posts will be deleted as off topic clutter.
Which would you prefer we do?
Two gentle points here.
I never mentioned "heavy-handed" moderation. I suspect you are fair enough to acknowledge that.
I never said I had a preference for a forum where folks can post "what they like,when they like ,where they like". Again ,in fairness,these are what you read into my post,and not my words.
The rest of your reply seems, to me, a fair viewpoint of your position as a mod currently. I have "no probs." with that. I think nthclare offered a viewpoint that had some valid observations in it too.
It seems both sides have resolved the issue ,which is a credit to moderation and feedback, so I'll leave it there, on a positive note.
P.S.
I've noticed recently that you got "Mod" status, congrats on that. Best of luck.On a lighter note,I am now off to the Anarchy "n" Headcase forum- (A-H to the rest of you). You can have half the royalties on that pun as you inspired it.0 -
I didn't call anyone a troll, but the thread in question is clearly a low-quality low level trolling thread. Amazing it's lasted a year... is the policy to allow shyte to draw in the flies?
Scrap the cap!
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »I didn't call anyone a troll, but the thread in question is clearly a low-quality low level trolling thread. Amazing it's lasted a year... is the policy to allow shyte to draw in the flies?
The Charter states it is against the rules to indirectly call someone a troll - so saying the OP started a troll thread is to indirectly call them a troll.
There have been some interesting posts in that thread, and regardless of the intentions of the OP, it is a question I am sure many religious people have pondered - who better to ask than the unconvinced?
It is the policy to let discussion develop and not to interfere unless the charter is being broken.
I, personally, see no reason to close this particular thread. You do have the option of simply ignoring it. But going in there just to complain it's a troll thread could, in a certain light, be considered trolling.
Just saying like.0 -
Fairy nuff. We should make more use of the "rate thread" button
(never used it - is there a "zero stars" option?) Scrap the cap!
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Fairy nuff. We should make more use of the "rate thread" button (never used it - is there a "zero stars" option?)
No idea. Never used it either. :P0 -
What, in a nutshell are the things which differentiate belief in empiricism from belief in God?
One is measurable, the other isn't.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I assume those who display evidence of being empircists are empiricists on the looks like a duck basis.
If you prefer I wait until they declare which philosophy to believe in I'll wait.
You are, I suggest, engaging in protectionism when its not exactly a secret that posters display their adherence to empiricism.
Whether it is better or worse lies in the eye of the beholder. That it is better than a theistic approach to interrogating reality is assumed by those who congregate here.
But until such time as that can be demonstrated (without arguing in a circle) a belief about the superiority of empiricism over theism it remains.
Isn't that the position here? That you show your work. Otherwise the empiricists claim is just a claim as any other.
The belief is in the superiority of the method as a way of interogating reality. Indeed, the circular reasoning is that all reality is to be interrogated by the senses because thats all the reality being detected.
I suggest stalemate is the end we will arrive at. That nobody will be able to demonstrate the superiority of their empiricism method over alternatives.
That conclusion is not shutting down the discussion. If that conclusion then the discussion might move to the need for members of this forum to step down from their high horse. For instance.
Summary. Empiricism is a methodology. Supposing empiricism a superior way to approach and interogate reality is a belief.
Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions. They do not form the basis of an argument. Not even when all you have are assumptions.
If you wish to proceed to frame your 'discussion' as an attack on empiricism the onus is on you to ascertain if your assumptions are correct, not to proceed as if they are fact.
And no - believing a methodology is superior to other methodologies does not mean that the methodology in question is a belief system.
Let's be blunt here - you have been officially warned often enough that telling other people what they believe (particularly when they have on several occasions corrected you) is soapboxing, and using that tactic to drag discussions in a circle in order to cause a stalemate is essentially trolling. You know that continuing to do so will attract further sanctions. And such sanctions will increase in severity.
As I see it you have three choices:
i) carry on as you are until such time as you are permanently banned from the forum.
ii) change your debate (I use the term loosely) style in such a way that it is not based on your assumptions about what other people believe (which would require you to take to board what people are saying to you) and/or stalemate.
iii) convince the mods that telling other people what they believe is not soapboxing, and posting with the aim to stalemate discussions is not trolling.
You can waffle on about empiricism being a belief - and a belief that is shared by the majority of posters in this forum - that is your choice. My job is to tell you that you will be sanctioned if you do so.
I have also outlined ways to get past this impasse - the choice is yours.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Superior to what? And measured how?
Superior to anything. And measured in a way that doesn't rely on circular reasoning or belief.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Quite easily determined. I simply ask the question before proceeding along the lines already taken.
How long do you think it will take before I'm dealing with a bunch of self declared empiricists?
A can kicked not very far down the road.
The problem isn't my convincing anyone. The problem is the self declared empiricist demonstrating the superiority of their method. Since they won't, I suggest, be able to do that without:
- sidestepping with appeals to arguments from incredulity (pink unicorns)
- asking me do I not value empirical method (I do)
- pointing to squillions of theistic belief systems
...and all the rest of the deflecting tricks used to avoid the problem: you claim superiority, you show superiority else yours is just a belief claim.
Let's get past first base: non theists showing themselves other than mere believers. That would be progress indeed.
But they won't be able to do it. And you already know it.
Judging by the amount of quacking contained therein I am going to assume you have chosen option i) and we shall proceed accordingly.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Judging by the amount of quacking contained therein I am going to assume you have chosen option i) and we shall proceed accordingly.
You don't seem to realise that I am not the only one making a claim. Very easy to sit there and throw rocks from the comfort of your assumptions. Nozz encapsulated that well: "the accumulated knowledge of mankind"* or some such. Time now for 'your side' to cough up regarding their claim.
I'm supposing them as unable as me to demonstrate their claim.
*where 'mankind' are people who globally share Nozz's worldview.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »You don't seem to realise that I am not the only one making a claim. Very easy to sit there and throw rocks from the comfort of your assumptions. Nozz encapsulated that well: "the accumulated knowledge of mankind"* or some such. Time now for 'your side' to cough up regarding their claim.
I'm supposing them as unable as me to demonstrate their claim.
*where 'mankind' are people who globally share Nozz's worldview.
antiskeptic.
You have been warned, you have been sanctioned time and time again for the same breaches of the charter. What other posters may or may not have done is besides the point. This is about your posts and yours alone.
You have been told why you are attracting mod attention.
The mod position vis a vis the forum charter has been explained - you are considered to be soapboxing and trolling.
Your options going forwards were outlined.
And here you are = persisting with the same old same old soapboxing utterly failing to take on board what is being said to you.
Mod warning bit:
This thread is for feedback - not to rehash your single argument or deploy your circular tactics. If you persist in rehashing here in this thread you will be sanctioned. If you attempt to stalemate this thread you will be sanctioned.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »antiskeptic.
You have been warned, you have been sanctioned time and time again for the same breaches of the charter. What other posters may or may not have done is besides the point. This is about your posts and yours alone.
You have been told why you are attracting mod attention.
The mod position vis a vis the forum charter has been explained - you are considered to be soapboxing and trolling.
Your options going forwards were outlined.
And here you are = persisting with the same old same old soapboxing utterly failing to take on board what is being said to you.
Mod warning bit:
This thread is for feedback - not to rehash your single argument or deploy your circular tactics. If you persist in rehashing here in this thread you will be sanctioned. If you attempt to stalemate this thread you will be sanctioned.
I suppose your being even handed. The modding over at Christianity seeks to protect the believers there so that they can discuss their beliefs without constant interruption from those with contrary beliefs.
The level of 'argument' here, that still stretches unto invoking the Pink Unicorn, needs all the protection that can be mustered. I suppose your only doing your job. No hard feelings.
I'll get my coat..0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I suppose your being even handed. The modding over at Christianity seeks to protect the believers there so that they can discuss their beliefs without constant interruption from those with contrary beliefs.
The level of 'argument' here, that still stretches unto invoking the Pink Unicorn, needs all the protection that can be mustered. I suppose your only doing your job. No hard feelings.
I'll get my coat..
A number of post from here relating to Is/Isn't Empiricism a belief have been moved to a new thread dedicated to that very topic.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124841
Everyone is more than welcome to discuss it there.
Let's keep here for feedback.0 -
Mod:
And here in A+A, the mods aim to allow discussion to continue peaceably, regardless of posters' beliefs or lack of them. In the case where one of the participants - you - has stated that his/her aim is to stifle discussion, your friendly mods, having discussed it amongst ourselves, have decided that the best approach is to restrict your posts to a single thread while allowing you to continue to attempt to stymie actual discussion by refusing to engage in any, or soapboxing, arguing around in circles, reductio ad absurdam, tail-chasing and all the other names for the one rhetorical pigs' bladder which you deploy.antiskeptic wrote: »I suppose your being even handed. The modding over at Christianity seeks to protect the believers there so that they can discuss their beliefs without constant interruption from those with contrary beliefs.
In this way, the charter can be stretched a little at the edges to allow new forum visitors to continue to experience the full limitations of your religious thinking.
The thread concerned is the Big Bird thread and should you accidentally post elsewhere in the forum, we'll happily return your post(s) here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124841
Enjoy!
There has been a wee breakdown in communication so for clarification: antiskeptic is free to post in other threads subject to abiding by the Charter and on the proviso s/he has not specifically been thread banned. However, should antiskeptic post on the theme of Empiricism (which has after all this time and all these warnings been deemed to be soapboxing) outside of the dedicated thread s/he will be sanctioned and the post will be deleted.0 -
Mod:And here in A+A, the mods aim to allow discussion to continue peaceably, regardless of posters' beliefs or lack of them. In the case where one of the participants - you - has stated that his/her aim is to stifle discussion,
My aim was to stalemate an element of the discussion, namely to arrive at the point where both sides accept they are unable to demonstrate their belief system superior.
That opens up the next phase of discussion: encouraging your worldview to get off its high horse, for example.
If stalemate is a natural and inevitable point along the way, its not my fault that I drive towards it.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »My aim was to stalemate an element of the discussion, namely to arrive at the point where both sides accept they are unable to demonstrate their belief system superior.
That opens up the next phase of discussion: encouraging your worldview to get off its high horse, for example.
If stalemate is a natural and inevitable point along the way, its not my fault that I drive towards it.
On the contrary.
You aim was to stalemate discussion by falsely insisting other people hold a belief system and then arguing that point.
You were attempting to frame an argument akin to insisting that a work of poetry is superior to a quill pen.
Now, you have a thread to make all your arguments. THIS is the FEEDBACK thread.
We listened to what you had to say and have afforded you the opportunity to make your argument without fear of sanction for soapboxing.
As far as the Mods are concerned a line can now be drawn under this particular issue.
Do you have another feedback issue you wish to raise?0 -
Smacl takes me to task for advising another poster to perhaps brush up on his Christianity. Since the poster in question expressed a view on Christianity which is clearly problematic (folk trying to get to heaven by being good - something the Protestant side of Christianity would disagree with) it seems reasonable to advise as I did.
Not quite sure what the objection from mod is..0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Smacl takes me to task for advising another poster to perhaps brush up on his Christianity. Since the poster in question expressed a view on Christianity which is clearly problematic (folk trying to get to heaven by being good - something the Protestant side of Christianity would disagree with) it seems reasonable to advise as I did.
Not quite sure what the objection from mod is..
The mod made it very clear what the objection is.
There is absolutely no onus on anyone in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum to 'brush up' on any religion, let alone one with as diverse and often contradictory a set of beliefs as contained within Christianity.
If you feel - as the Christian- that there is pertinent information which may bolster your arguments contained in which ever version of Christianity you profess then it is up to you to provide that information.
You seem to have difficulty in respecting other people's right to know nothing about your religion if that is what they wish, yet you wish to argue with people for whom your religion is as invalid as all the other religions you don't believe in their own forum.
You are the guest here and we are trying to be accommodating and allow you space to express your views. Do not mistake that accommodation for permission to make demands.0 -
This latest card strikes me as somewhat trigger happy - similar to the eagerness to robindch showed in banning me for 'closing down the discussion' in my driving to the stalemate I felt inevitable. (Driving an element of the opponents position to stalemate doesn't, as it happens, close the discussion. Stalemate might cause the person to reflect on the superior position they've assumed up to that point. Discussion is then possible as to the new position they might assume. And things might never get to stalemate anyway - perhaps arrival at stalemate was robindchs fear)
But the trigger was just waiting to be pulled and he eagerly pulled it.
Here again. Peregrinus is a believer. Peregrinus, will, like me, have been told countless times that his faith is the product of his having been brainwashed by his parents.
In writing what I wrote I wasn't attacking Peregrinus, I was mocking the A&A trope which is deployed with yawning regularity here.
It is clear from the quality of that post of his that the charge of his having been brainwashed into his faith (a charge he stands in the dock for, what with his being a believer) is an utter nonsense.
The trope, a nonsense. That was my post.
-
For sure I've earned some of the cards I've received. What's life with threading over the line in response to posters who thread over the line at times.
But to suppose as unambiguous soapboxing my cumulative same-response to the same claims by multiple A&A posters (brainwashed by your parents, to think of one example)? It's the same lack of nuanced modding that sees you card me now, merely because you've missed the mark by a mile.
It is you who played the man and not the argument. Because you didn't see the rather obvious argument. Or the fact I'd thanked the post..0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »This latest card strikes me as somewhat trigger happy - similar to the eagerness to robindch showed in banning me for 'closing down the discussion' in my driving to the stalemate I felt inevitable. (Driving an element of the opponents position to stalemate doesn't, as it happens, close the discussion. Stalemate might cause the person to reflect on the superior position they've assumed up to that point. Discussion is then possible as to the new position they might assume. And things might never get to stalemate anyway - perhaps arrival at stalemate was robindchs fear)
But the trigger was just waiting to be pulled and he eagerly pulled it.
Here again. Peregrinus is a believer. Peregrinus, will, like me, have been told countless times that his faith is the product of his having been brainwashed by his parents.
In writing what I wrote I wasn't attacking Peregrinus, I was mocking the A&A trope which is deployed with yawning regularity here.
It is clear from the quality of that post of his that the charge of his having been brainwashed into his faith (a charge he stands in the dock for, what with his being a believer) is an utter nonsense.
The trope, a nonsense. That was my post.
-
For sure I've earned some of the cards I've received. What's life with threading over the line in response to posters who thread over the line at times.
But to suppose as unambiguous soapboxing my cumulative same-response to the same claims by multiple A&A posters (brainwashed by your parents, to think of one example)? It's the same lack of nuanced modding that sees you card me now, merely because you've missed the mark by a mile.
It is you who played the man and not the argument. Because you didn't see the rather obvious argument. Or the fact I'd thanked the post..
Mod warning: You are getting repeatedly carded because you are repeatedly breaking the forum charter, which as it happens is much looser than others I can think of. Read your own post again and then look at the very first point of the charter1. No personal insults. Attack the post not the poster. If you can't keep your head, take it elsewhere.
As ever, you are attacking the poster and not the post. As for Perigrinus and his posts, it is patently clear that he is more than able establish and defend his own arguments clearly and with respect for the other person's position. You might learn a thing or two from his approach. What he may or may not believe is entirely beside the point. I would humbly suggest what you stand back from your adversarial position if you are planning to continue posting here as you are doing yourself no favours.0 -
Mod warning: You are getting repeatedly carded because you are repeatedly breaking the forum charter, which as it happens is much looser than others I can think of. Read your own post again and then look at the very first point of the charter
As ever, you are attacking the poster and not the post. As for Perigrinus and his posts, it is patently clear that he is more than able establish and defend his own arguments clearly and with respect for the other person's position. You might learn a thing or two from his approach. What he may or may not believe is entirely beside the point. I would humbly suggest what you stand back from your adversarial position if you are planning to continue posting here as you are doing yourself no favours.
Speaking of adversarial. You said nothing at all about the substance of post you've just modded. I wrote that post due to a miscarding by a mod.
If I hadn't been carded in error, then there would be no post here for YOU to leap onto - the second hair trigger pull in as many days by a mod
Let he who has not sinned..
As for robindch? He's been playing me, the man, for a number of years now. And me him. He snipes: scorn being his usual m.o. I snipe back, dismissiveness and belittlement being my m.o. Then robindch puts his mod hat on an bans me for seeking to stalemate a part of discussion.
(I doubt you can tell me why seeking stalemate is an illegitimate approach or how it breaks forum rules. robindch couldn't.)
And you know this, yet chose to jump in on a technicality. Have you considered I might be adversarial because I have adversaries?
Why did you not read the substance of the post you just modded. And, having read it, why did you not withdraw the 'thank' you gave the mod who miscarded me.
-
Perhaps Peregrinus is more Jesus-like than me. Perhaps Peregrinus steers clear of posters who pour out scorn. Perhaps Peregrinus would take a spurious ban from a mod, who patently dislikes him, lying down. Maybe good for Peregrinus, maybe not. At risk of drawing a false comparison: they don't tend to crucify the non-adversarial.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Speaking of adversarial. You said nothing at all about the substance of post you've just modded. I wrote that post due to a miscarding by a mod.
If I hadn't been carded in error, then there would be no post here for YOU to leap onto - the second hair trigger pull in as many days by a mod
Let he who has not sinned..
You wrote the post about your perceived mis-carding by a mod. My response addressed this, in that you are getting repeatedly carded for continuing breach of the forum charter. Your last red card, suggesting another poster had been brainwashed, was yet another example of this. While you might have intended it as sarcasm or humour or more likely just taking a dig at the mods, this was not entirely apparent. The post was also just a one line dig that added no value to the discussion and hence constituted trolling.As for robindch? He's been playing me, the man, for a number of years now. And me him. He snipes: scorn being his usual m.o. I snipe back, dismissiveness and belittlement being my m.o. Then robindch puts his mod hat on an bans me for seeking to stalemate a part of discussion.
(I doubt you can tell me why seeking stalemate is an illegitimate approach or how it breaks forum rules. robindch couldn't.)
And here you go again, playing the man and not the ball. I note you've done similar over on the Christianity forum. Continuing this behaviour will attract sanctions of increasing severity followed by bans.And you know this, yet chose to jump in on a technicality. Have you considered I might be adversarial because I have adversaries?
Why did you not read the substance of the post you just modded. And, having read it, why did you not withdraw the 'thank' you gave the mod who miscarded me.
You seem to be taking this all rather too personally. As mods we're here to uphold the spirit and letter of the charter in such a way as to allow amicable civil conversations to take place, even where there are strongly opposing points of view. Each one of us is, or at least should be, more than just their point of view on a single topic. We don't have adversaries here, for any given poster we have adversarial points of view some topics and common points of view on others. If you disagree with someone on a given topic, you should be capable of amicably criticising their views on that topic without considering them 'your adversary' and attacking their person. If you can't do that, you really should consider not posting. If you find your world view runs contrary to every other poster's on the forum, you have already discussed this POV at length while failing to find any common ground, and you are intransigent in your position, perhaps you should ask yourself if this is the right forum for you.
While this forum is accepting of proselyting arguments, those arguments will be considered tired and mildly disrespectful by many long term posters here and as such are likely to attract a degree of derision. This does not excuse any response that includes personal attack or trolling, either from you or anyone else.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Perhaps Peregrinus is more Jesus-like than me. Perhaps Peregrinus steers clear of posters who pour out scorn. Perhaps Peregrinus would take a spurious ban from a mod, who patently dislikes him, lying down. Maybe good for Peregrinus, maybe not. At risk of drawing a false comparison: they don't tend to crucify the non-adversarial.
Or perhaps he simply focuses on the argument in hand, where he gains ground when finding flaw in a counterargument and graciously concedes it where the reverse is true. This makes for entertaining discussion where argument and understanding can be progressed and both sides can take something away from the conversation. Personally, I get satisfaction out of having to question my own assumptions and revise them where I get things wrong, which is as often as not. I want to enjoy the discussion and by times learn from it which is why I post on forums such as this. Experience has shown me this is much more likely to be the case when engaging with reasonable people who have a different world view from my own.
With respect, I think many of your own posts on this forum display an intransigence and repetitiveness that tend to hamstring the debate and make it rather tedious for all concerned.
Excuse the direct question, but what precisely motivates you to post here?0 -
You wrote the post about your perceived mis-carding by a mod
Perceived? Brainwashed by parents is an A&A trope. No mispercieving there. I thank what is a well written post that demonstrates a believer who has thought deeply about why he holds as he does.
The dig is at the trope, not the mods and certainly not the poster.My response addressed this, in that you are getting repeatedly carded for continuing breach of the forum charter. Your last red card, suggesting another poster had been brainwashed, was yet another example of this. While you might have intended it as sarcasm or humour or more likely just taking a dig at the mods, this was not entirely apparent. The post was also just a one line dig that added no value to the discussion and hence constituted trolling.
Trolling? You want I start reporting one line posts that add nothing to the discussion and constitute digs? Really?
By that I don't mean you respond with somr mod speak but consider what would occur were you to follow your approach. When an A&A poster hops in with a brainwashing statement, for example.And here you go again, playing the man and not the ball. I note you've done similar over on the Christianity forum. Continuing this behaviour will attract sanctions of increasing severity followed by bans.
Fair enougj, reporting posters to follow..You seem to be taking this all rather too personally. As mods we're here to uphold the spirit and letter of the charter in such a way as to allow amicable civil conversations to take place, even where there are strongly opposing points of view. Each one of us is, or at least should be, more than just their point of view on a single topic. We don't have adversaries here, for any given poster we have adversarial points of view some topics and common points of view on others. If you disagree with someone on a given topic, you should be capable of amicably criticising their views on that topic without considering them 'your adversary' and attacking their person. If you can't do that, you really should consider not posting. If you find your world view runs contrary to every other poster's on the forum, you have already discussed this POV at length while failing to find any common ground, and you are intransigent in your position, perhaps you should ask yourself if this is the right forum for you.
While this forum is accepting of proselyting arguments, those arguments will be considered tired and mildly disrespectful by many long term posters here and as such are likely to attract a degree of derision. This does not excuse any response that includes personal attack or trolling, either from you or anyone else.
When an A&A mod (you as it happens) takes it upon themselves to parlay an already suspect device (everything I say in A&A is shuttled to a prison thread in A&A) over the Christianity and infract me there on the basis that I cannot repeat anything I say in A&A anywhere you might operate across boards.ie.....
Forgive if I find your protestations of even handed for-the-good-of-the-forum a somewhat. Whatever about the deserved cardings, there's a sense that this is very personally directed, with certain mods tripping over themselves to infract. The pretext might be ad hom, trolling, soapboxing but the subtext is firing squad.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Speaking of adversarial. You said nothing at all about the substance of post you've just modded. I wrote that post due to a miscarding by a mod.
If you believe you have been miscarded you are free to take it to DRP and argue it there.
As the mod who has had cause to card you three times in rapid succession in the same thread you could have PM'd me to discuss the card and your belief you were miscarded to seek an amicable resolution prior to launching a lengthy 'defense' in Feedback - you did neither of those things.
Those facts speak volumes. Currently it appears you are not interested in resolution, you are playing an entirely different game one in which you think the mods are a) fools b)do not communicate c) do not agree d) you can run procedural rings around us.
Let's look at the 3 cards I issued during your latest tilt at the windmills of A&A - which btw is an increase on the number of cards I previously issued to you by 150% and makes you the poster most sanctioned by me since I became a mod.
My so-called heavy hand seems rather light when the evidence is examined empirically and forensically. I shall endeavour to do better in future to live up to my reputation.
So, in a thread created for you to expound a theory where you would not face risk of being sanctioned but the rest of the rules as per Charter & general Boards.ie wide apply (which was made clear) you decided to indulge in a spot of Backseat Moderation and were duly carded, a mod note was posted.
You then compounded the situation by responding to that mod note in-thread to 'apologise' and state you have changed the offending section. This led to another yellow as replying to a mod instruction in-thread is a boards wide no-no and not confined to A&A, you know this. But perhaps you forgot so in the mod post you quoted the very last line was a reminder. My 'heavy hand' gave you a yellow even though the rule of thumb is to escalate so technically I should have given you a red card. I'll let you into a secret. I suspected you would soon be back seeking further sanctions.
Which brings us to your alleged 'miscarding' - given that you apologised for the 1st yellow and really there is no defense for the 2nd I assume this 'miscard' is the red you got for 'playing the man'.
A one line post where you comment that another poster was 'brainwashed'.
Your defense appears to be :
i) Atheist posters in A&A think religious people are brainwashed. They have said so in the past in general terms.
ii) Another mod was waiting for me in the long grass to do a different thing and when I did they sanctioned me.
iii)The man I played is also religious so is like me therefore I cannot insult them as we have shared life experiences.
iv) Atheist posters break the rules sometimes.
v) Atheist posters have said mean things but rather than report them I am doing likewise.
vi)The mods are enforcing the rules against me too stringently, sure we all stray sometimes.
Let's deal with these point by point:
i) Any poster who specifically states another poster has been brainwashed will be sanctioned. Indeed any such personal comments will be sanctioned - please report any such comments to the mods as we may not have seen them.
Stating a 'group' in general terms has been brainwashed is not 'playing the man'.
ii) "A mod was waiting for me to do a thing I had been warned to stop doing and then sanctioned me when I did it again" is not the stunning defense you seem to think it is. If a mod had warned you to stop doing a thing then either stop doing the thing, discuss the thing with the mod via pm, discuss it here and wait for a clarification, take the time for doing the crime.
iii) You can't seriously expect that one to fly. A personal comment is a personal comment. There is no 'nuance' - and even if in your mind there was we are not mind readers so can only go on what you have posted. Next time you are attempting an 'insult as an in-joke' type post may I suggest the use of a visual aid such as one of the emojis to be found on the right - ":pac:" or ";)" or ":D" or even ":cool:" would aid in identifying the presence of contextual nuance.
iv) Indeed they do. And when this is brought to the attention of the mods they are sanctioned. If we only sanctioned theists there would be no need for 3 mods in this forum. I know that I can hardly take the dogs for a walk without getting a notification of dodgy dooings on this forum we are that busy.
v) Billy Bob was bold and I told no one but a month later I was bold too and got given out to and that's not fair. Again, not exactly a stunning defence. What other posters do/sanctioning of other posters is not a mitigating circumstance. You, alone, are responsible for your own actions and increasingly poor record.
vi) Nope. In fact I left you off with a yellow when I should technically have given you a red for a cut and dried infraction of a site wide rule. The mods created a thread where you would get special treatment. If anything it is the atheist posters who should be complaining that we are being more stringent with them - but they aren't.
Most posters here do not get as much mod attention, this is true. But I put it to you that this is because they don't have the same impulse to continually throw themselves in front of the mod train so tend to not attract as much scrutiny.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »When an A&A mod (you as it happens) takes it upon themselves to parlay an already suspect device (everything I say in A&A is shuttled to a prison thread in A&A) over the Christianity and infract me there on the basis that I cannot repeat anything I say in A&A anywhere you might operate across boards.ie.....
Except for the simple fact that what you are saying is not true. The post you are referring to is here and the reason you were infracted was being intentionally inflammatory in breach of the local charter. You've already raised this as a DRP and subsequently dropped it.
Mod: Going forward, I would ask you to limit your conversations about your infractions in the Christianity forum to the feedback thread in that forum. This thread is for feedback in this forum only.0 -
Not in the slightest. I have been playing with your ideas - specifically, applying your own bad logic to your own bad arguments - with predictable results.antiskeptic wrote: »As for robindch? He's been playing me, the man, for a number of years now.
Not a good idea to admit that you've been playing a moderator - it's not the kind of admission which will win you an extra life in any forumantiskeptic wrote: »And me him.
I wouldn't overegg your omlette - Don Quixote also had powerful, lethal enemies who'd stop at nothing to discredit the bravest knight in all La Mancha. Unfortunately, they were windmills.antiskeptic wrote: »Have you considered I might be adversarial because I have adversaries?0 -
Not in the slightest. I have been playing with your ideas - specifically, applying your own bad logic to your own bad arguments - with predictable results.
You've being playing with English: mangling it your attempt to stuff sentences with as much sarcasm and dismissiveness as you can.
You rarely actually make any actual points.Not a good idea to admit that you've been playing a moderator - it's not the kind of admission which will win you an extra life in any forum
Not a good idea to admit an inability to separate your personal and work life.
I've played you in the manner you played me. I could care less whether you've a mod hat on or not. It's a discussion forum robindch, not life and death.0 -
Antiskeptic banned for three days for continuing to play the man instead of the ball despite repeatedly being reminded not to.0
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26430
antiskeptic wrote: »I could care less whether you've a mod hat on or not. .
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
But this has been bothering me so much
The line is "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less"
The above actually suggests antiskeptic actually cares that robindch is a mod....if even to a small level of caring. David Mitchell explains in the video below
https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw?t=460 -
Advertisement
-
How does it feel to have gotten that off your chest over a month later?
I took to saying "I could care more" for awhile just to bother some Americans I knew for awhile. It had the opposite effect. They went back to America having adopted saying it as a preference too. I think they thought it was what us Irish say over here.0
Advertisement