DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Brian Peacock]

DAMP: Darling angel, mostly perfect?

[Beatsong]

You can't be banned for misrepresentation even though there was none (which is why Beatsong can't find a single instance of it).

Oh man. How fucking hard is it to admit that you made a mistake. And how much of a fool do you want to make of yourself to avoid such a simple remedy?

Let's make this EVEN easier for you. Here is EVERY SINGLE POST Metatron made in the first three pages of the thread:

Do yourself a favour and read all the other pages for comprehension. I would hand the Metatron his arse on a plate but you've got your nose stuck firmly between his buttocks. Hope this helps.

Go fuck yourself.

Samsa keeps denying that he misinterpreted Metatron. He denied it even when I pointed out that anyone who wanted to could go back and see that NONE of Metatron's posts prior to Samsa's accusation say anything like Samsa suggested they said. I then took the trouble to put them all in one place so that fact could be easily seen even by anyone without the inclination to look up the thread, and couldn't be denied even by wankers like you and Samsa who keep trying to insist that the evidence is not there when it obviously is. As rEv has pointed out, anyone that can read can confirm for themselves that what Samsa and you have claimed is there, is simply not there.

So now you seem to be suggesting that Samsa somehow made his accusation on page 3 clairvoyantly, about a claim that Metatron made afterwards. That itself is funny enough, but sorry - even that doesn't wash. I did actually look, before, through the ENTIRE thread and saw that it wasn't anywhere else, either.

So what the fuck do you expect me to do now? Quote ALL OF METATRON'S POSTS FROM THE WHOLE THREAD? How about we make this a lot fucking simpler: You keep claiming that he's written things that say what Samsa claims they say. You've obviously been to the thread to look, right? You know where it is, it's not hard. So how about you take me up on the offer I've already extended twice to you now, and FIND ONE FUCKING QUOTE FROM HIM THAT SAYS WHAT YOU AND SAMSA ARE CLAIMING IT SAYS.

No? Too difficult? Haven't learnt how to copy and paste on the computer yet?

Then how about you just admit you're full of shit and fuck off.

[mistermack]

He's promoted a conspiracy theory (that drugging kids is done to make them easier for society to handle), and he's alleged that big pharma kickbacks are distorting diagnoses. Whether you technically call the latter a conspiracy theory or not, he's done both.

Yes, he's been perfectly clear, every post, what he means. No it's not suggesting a conspiracy. It's pointing to the motives of various parties.
I don't see your problem, trying to read stuff into his posts that he didn't say.
What he did say is perfectly clear. You have to work very hard to derive some other meaning.

Drug companies just want to sell, and make money. Psychiatrists etc have their own self interests.
They like money, just like anyone else. And everyone knows that the big pharma work on them to prescribe their stuff, with little sweeteners etc. That's there in all walks of medicine.

He's saying that as a result of all this self interest, too many kids are being doped.
He might be right, or wrong. But if you have to look for a sub-plot, to argue with it, then I'm guessing he's right. Especially with the system in the US, where you get payment by activity.
You don't get rich by advising no action.

[Beatsong]

This is an interesting metatron-debate. Beatsong is correct that Metatron didn't say what Samsa is claiming he did. The real question is what is the reason that Metatron believes is behind this argued overdosing. Maybe he's gone the big pharma thing before, I don't know. Or perhaps he is suggesting it is like over prescription of antibiotics. It's not about money, it's about getting annoying patients out of the office.

He didn't say it in as many words but if you read carefuuly all his comments he clearly implies that chidren are being needlessly drugged, presumably for the benefit of Big Pharma.

That's your problem right there. That's your presumption (and Samsa's).

He doesn't IMPLY that children are being needlessly drugged, he SAYS it. That's not under debate, because it's what the fucking argument is about in the first place.

But he NOWHERE says, or EVEN implies that it's "for the benefit of Big Pharma". He simply doesn't. Oh, hang on, that's right - now you're going to link us to that part where he does...

Oh no, that's right. You ARE full of shit after all.

Metatron DOES actually give a reason why he thinks the overprescription is taking place, and it has nothing to do with "Big Pharma Conspiracy". I quoted it upthread. Samsa seems to be incapable of reading it. So are you, apparently. But it's still there, unlike the things that you are imagining are there.

The problem here is that Samsa seems to think he can make whatever interpretation he likes of someone elses reasons for believing the things they say they believe, state that interpretation as fact, in whatever emotive language he likes, and then have it taken as fact and not therefore qualifying as "misrepresentation". And you're so lacking in critical reading skills, or maybe have your own head so far up Samsa's arse, that you just swallowed it. And now you keep insisting on swallowing it over and over again no matter how clearly it's pointed out - and corroborated by those others here that can actually read - that what you are saying is there isn't actually there.

[Hermit]

Yep, i just found it. This post - http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... l#p1968568 makes it entirely clear that he thinks it's a big pharma con job. Samsa is right, Beatsong.

Megaphone does say that "these psychoactive drugs dispensed to treat this disorder don't do a fucking thing to cure it. Not a fucking thing" but though I strongly disagree with that opinion I see nothing hinting at conspiracy in it, unless of course profit motive equals conspiracy, but then he has never mentioned profit motive either.

So, once again I find myself being equivocal. Yes, Megadrone is wrong and yes, Mr. Samsa is misrepresenting him in regard to the conspiracy theory theory. At the same time Megadone is most likely correct in so far that drugging 10% of boys with Ritalin is a massive case of overprescription and Samsa is correct in pointing out that drugs like Ritalin do actually work. Neither Meg nor Sam is entirely right or entirely wrong, but in the heat of the debate nuances are easily ignored.

[Beatsong]

.

[Beatsong]

It's clear that Metatron reckons there's overdosing. He did offer a conpiratorial excuse about an unspoken 'they' wanting to mold problem children into the norm so they are easier for society to handle. I'd love to know who his unspoken 'they' are supposed to be.

To me it's pretty obvious that he means teachers and parents - ie, the adults who are responsible for keeping kids under control. They are the ones who suffer when the kids make that job difficult, so they are the ones likely to have a vested interest in making it easier.

[Beatsong]

Yep, i just found it. This post - http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... l#p1968568 makes it entirely clear that he thinks it's a big pharma con job. Samsa is right, Beatsong.

OK, thanks - I did miss that. I can see how this:

I leave this topic with one thought. For all of Mr.Samsa's bluster, it's very appropriate to note that these psychoactive drugs dispensed to treat this disorder don't do a fucking thing to cure it. Not a fucking thing. The only way is to keep dispensing them.

Now, tell us who this model serves.

could be taken that way.

I note however that it comes AFTER Mr Samsa makes his accusation of the conspiracy theory, and after Metatron had already made his perfectly clear statement about what he saw as the primary motivation for drugging children. So it seems more like an added afterthought - since Samsa had brought up the question of Big Pharma conspiracy, he's basically saying "well, if the shoe fits" - than a statement of his main position on it.

But at least I can see SOME context now for Samsa's "drugging children to make money" thing at the beginning of this thread. It's not as clear cut as I'd thought.

[Beatsong]

He's promoted a conspiracy theory (that drugging kids is done to make them easier for society to handle), and he's alleged that big pharma kickbacks are distorting diagnoses. Whether you technically call the latter a conspiracy theory or not, he's done both.

Yes, he's been perfectly clear, every post, what he means. No it's not suggesting a conspiracy. It's pointing to the motives of various parties.
I don't see your problem, trying to read stuff into his posts that he didn't say.
What he did say is perfectly clear. You have to work very hard to derive some other meaning.

Drug companies just want to sell, and make money.

Maybe that's the real irony here. "Big Pharma is drugging kids to make money" is not actually a conspiracy theory; it's a simple statement of fact.

Of course drug companies want to sell drugs. That's what they exist for.

[mistermack]

I think this whole concept of ''does he mean a conspiracy'' is rubbish.
Apart from the fact that he could easily say that, if he wanted to, it's a rubbish point for any other reasons.
Firstly, conspiracies do happen. Is anybody going to argue that they don't?
We only get to see the silly ones. The big ones happen out of sight, and rarely get found out.

But the other thing is that a conspiracy doesn't have to be industry-wide. You can get lots of tiny conspiracies, which are completely undetectable, because they just arise from both parties knowing the score. You don't need a single word spoken. Just favourable actions by one party, being met with favourable actions by the other.

To hold up a hint of conspiracy as some sort of lunacy is just stupid. It happens all the time, everywhere.

As far as the drugs game goes, if you want the business, it's tempting to prescribe something that will make a visible difference. And not to give a fuck, if it has long term consequences for the kid.
If you prescribe, you will probably get some credit for a visible ''improvement'' in behaviour. If you don't, you won't get any thanks or credit for not risking the kid's long-term well-being.

In such a grey area, it's very easy to make the choice that enhances your finances, and reputation.

[Hermit]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this. That is why my participation there is, shall we say, sporadic. Averaging 0.19 posts per day over a period of four years can certainly not be described as enthusiastic. On the other hand Talk Rational's hands off approach creates an atmosphere akin to that described in Golding's Lord of the Flies. Hence my participation rate of 0.11 posts per day since I joined that forum five years ago. I think the balance between arbitrary despotism and lawlessness of the jungle here at Rationalia is just about right. My average of 4.84 posts per day here is rather low in comparison to that of some other members, but in comparison to my averages in the other two forums mentioned it clearly reveals my preference.

[Fallible]

The FUA on ratskep isn't perfect, it never will be. How far away from perfect and in which direction is of course a matter of personal opinion. What causes a lot of the rancour and confusion over there at the moment though is the disparity between what the FUA says and what actually happens from one incident to the next. This was always an issue because you cannot eliminate subjectivity from moderation. What's changed is that the diverse set of people who would previously very thoroughly discuss issues and were prepared to get extremely direct with each other in order to make sure a decision was as objective as possible has been winnowed down to people who moderate based on what they feel should happen and those who were taught by them (because the vast majority of the opposing "side" of that debate left en masse). I think that there are probably still dissenting voices from time to time (I know personally of one other mod who was on the brink of leaving when the rest of us did but decided to stay on and hold that particular corner), but it's not enough now to stop the juggernaut of "I feel that this post was not nice/I feel that this post was OK", so the decisions are getting increasingly fee fee based.

Others will disagree with me, but there is also definitely less of a concern over being able to explain decisions to the membership and put errors right when they occur. People might think the critics have been exceedingly vociferous, but I gotta tell you that you can take the number of things I've raised in Feedback and multiply that by 10 and then 10 again for the number of things other members have PMed me about and you then might be getting closer to the real number of times they've made decisions that don't hang together or respond to queries with walls of word salad which explain nothing. There will be a lot of people who aren't bothered about this because they don't get involved in contentious threads or don't follow things that closely, so they can happily exist in such a place, and of course others who make the point ad nauseam that it's not a democracy and the team doesn't have to do anything. This is of course true, but there have been several incidents lately where it seems like people are just confused about what they can and can't say, expressed perhaps in a jocular way, but you get people breathing sighs of relief because they find out that the reason they can't use the search function is because it's down, and not because they've been suspended for saying something wrong. I'm not saying that posting and membership is down because of this atmosphere that some perceive, but inevitably a place such as that where you don't know what will happen will appeal to less people than one where the moderation decisions are clear and in line with the actual text new members read and accept when they join, whether they think the FUA is any good or not.

[Seth]

He's promoted a conspiracy theory (that drugging kids is done to make them easier for society to handle), and he's alleged that big pharma kickbacks are distorting diagnoses. Whether you technically call the latter a conspiracy theory or not, he's done both.

Jesus Christ, talk about bashing each other over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....FFS If someone wants to claim it's all a big pharma conspiracy who the fuck cares? If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

What a bunch of dildos.

[aspire1670]

If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

Well 13,000 plus posts by yourself says you care a great deal.

[Seth]

If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

Well 13,000 plus posts by yourself says you care a great deal.

Obviously I mean who cares enough to eject that person from a discussion forum for stating his opinion, jackass.