I know Kung Fu.Svartalf wrote:Bending a spoon is quite easy, with two hands, .Făkünamę wrote:Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.Surendra Darathy wrote:Bend a spoon.

I know Kung Fu.Svartalf wrote:Bending a spoon is quite easy, with two hands, .Făkünamę wrote:Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.Surendra Darathy wrote:Bend a spoon.
Lol, engineers (along with doctors) are the easiest STEM's to convince to be suicide bombers for the magic man in the sky. So it at least makes sense how he behaves.Făkünamę wrote:He probably gets his delusions of intelligence from his work history as an engineer at NASA.
That wasn't particularly my intention. For a start there's nothing here to defend him against, and even if there were I'm sure he's perfectly capable of defending himself. I don't even particularly agree with his position in that thread vis a vis ADHD.DaveDodo007 wrote:Honest question: Are you defending The_matatron because you feel he is being misrepresented as I have no clue what this is about.
The reason I mentioned it at all is there is some discussion in the manosphere about normal boys behaviour being considered 'bad' and ADHD which needs treatment with drugs, this would fit in with my worry about the feminist indoctrination of primary education, well fuck that as feminism and SJW (liberal progressives) influence on all education at every level of academia. If this is true then I might have to change my opinion of a Nazi mod at ratskep and that would never do.Beatsong wrote:That wasn't particularly my intention. For a start there's nothing here to defend him against, and even if there were I'm sure he's perfectly capable of defending himself. I don't even particularly agree with his position in that thread vis a vis ADHD.DaveDodo007 wrote:Honest question: Are you defending The_matatron because you feel he is being misrepresented as I have no clue what this is about.
I was only pointing out that Mr Samsa was indeed misrepresenting him. Blatently and unquestionably so.
You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.
It didn't happen. Samsa just made it up.
What do you mean "of course"?? There was no process of escalation of regular infringements that would lead to banning. Unless that's changed since I was there.Beatsong wrote:Because it's against the FUA. "Banned" only subject to the process of escalation from warnings to suspensions to bannings of course.rEvolutionist wrote:why should someone get banned for misrepresentation??
Too fucking right! It's a catch-all term used to dispense with anyone who annoys or displeases anyone with a Mod's ear in their pocket, and anyone who does not chant the Atheist religious mantra at all times.Beatsong wrote:
Indeed. Thing is that "troll" is the single most woolly, undefined, make-of-it-what-you-will piece of stuff in the whole FUA. There's not even a pretence at trying to define what it actually means.
Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?Beatsong wrote:You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.
You're thinking about it the wrong way, Beatsong. The best way to understand the definition of 'troll' at Ratskep is by induction from the list of members who've been banned as trolls. This approach does seem to go against the grain of people who prefer to have everything spelled out for them. One example of these are the people who wave around the Ten Commandments as a moral foundation. There's some more induction to be done with that. The proof is left as an exercise for the diligent student.Beatsong wrote:Thing is that "troll" is the single most woolly, undefined, make-of-it-what-you-will piece of stuff in the whole FUA. There's not even a pretence at trying to define what it actually means.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 44590.htmlWarren Dew wrote:Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?Beatsong wrote:You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.
Like I said pages ago, there's no way they'll sanction Weaver and Theropod but not me. Instead of sanctioning infractions it seems to be a case of "scoring points" so if they have to concede a point then they'll want to score one by sanctioning me.Scott1328 wrote:So, no perma ban for Samsa, just a month's long suspension for telling Weaver he was "cowardly hiding behind PM's" after Weaver had posted his rather hysterical and inflammatory rant.
Note, I believe, Samsa was making a reference to Weaver's faux pas last month, where he mistakenly posted on an open forum a PM he had intended to send to the moderators. This PM was blatantly abusive toward the Ex-mods who have lately been voicing criticism of current moderation.
It has happened on occasion that the mod team has granted leeway to those who retaliated against someone who first posted inflammatory content. Apparently not in this case however.
Aliens?Mr.Samsa wrote:Like I said pages ago, there's no way they'll sanction Weaver and Theropod but not me.
That's your answer for everything isn't it?Surendra Darathy wrote:Aliens?Mr.Samsa wrote:Like I said pages ago, there's no way they'll sanction Weaver and Theropod but not me.
Perhaps that is so. Then again, they're not regarding your post about 'cowardly behaviour' in the context-free way you'd like. You just interpret your history differently to others. If I address a punk like Jayjay in the way I did, and it's not treated exactly the same as your addressing Metatron as 'cowardly', it's entirely due to RatSkep's moderation policy yielding any kind of informal meritocracy, however distracted it may temporarily be by an onslaught of whining. Executive summary is that your interpretation lacks merit where it counts. Whine about that.Mr.Samsa wrote:I guarantee you that if you search through ratskep, no one ever has or ever will again be sanctioned for referring to cowardly behavior.
Thanks. I got tired of Mr.Samsa's repetitive claptrap before I got to the part misrepresenting TheMetatron, but there were enough other misrepresentations in the parts that I did read for me to believe it's there. Looks like Mr.Samsa's status as former mod shielded him from the permaban, as expected, though.Scott1328 wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 44590.htmlWarren Dew wrote:Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?Beatsong wrote:You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.
That just evokes more speculation about conspiracies. I see it rather differently. The long, slow process on Mr.Samsa at RatSkep looks like a fiendishly-clever and marvelously-disguised program of cognitive behavioural therapy, on which I'm now spilling the beans.Warren Dew wrote:Looks like Mr.Samsa's status as former mod shielded him from the permaban, as expected, though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests