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

[Mr.Samsa]

I guarantee you that if you search through ratskep, no one ever has or ever will again be sanctioned for referring to cowardly behavior.

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.

That's my answer to everything you write.

Context can't turn a valid comment into one that breaches the rules or vice versa. That makes no sense.

[Mr.Samsa]

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.

Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 44590.html

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.

Any scoop on what the policy change was that Weaver referred to in the other thread, that caused a mass moderator resignation?

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

As for what Weaver is referring to, I assume he's pulling it out of his ass.

[Surendra Darathy]

I guarantee you that if you search through ratskep, no one ever has or ever will again be sanctioned for referring to cowardly behavior.

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.

That's my answer to everything you write.

Context can't turn a valid comment into one that breaches the rules or vice versa. That makes no sense.

I'd ask you to elaborate, but what you've just said smacks of speaking Truth to Power, and what would be the point of arguing with someone waving around Truth? Thing is, Mr.Samsa, you're not the sole arbiter of the factual content of your statements. Incidentally, though, validity applies to arguments, not to statements, if you're into nitpicking someone's discourse.

In talking about context, I was merely commenting on whether or not your antagonism, personalisations, and provocations are egregious enough to merit a further sanction, rather than going down the utterly stupid path of arguing about whether 'valid' comments (as assessed by whom?) can merit sanctioning.

You failed to address Weaver's comment about the disagreement that led to the resignation of several moderators (several of whom, surprise! are showing up perpetually in feedback threads questioning the current moderation policy. Weaver did not, in fact (if you want to talk about facts) accuse anyone of 'wanting to ruin the forum'. In fact (if you want to talk about facts), Weaver specifically referred to 'you and your compatriots' repeatedly accusing the mod team of damaging RatSkep by inconsistent application of the rules. That this has been interpreted by some as itself attacking the forum in the guise of concern trolling is not outlandish, given the numerous admissions contained in these Dodo threads over here.

You simply failed to parse Weaver's sentences correctly (although you did not manage concurrently to accuse him of using a postmodernism generator to confuse you), and then emitted your nonsense about 'cowardly hiding'. On the face of the evidence, several mods resigned, and were replaced, to balance the workload of moderating a forum full of antagonistic, provocative members who also, odds on, happen to be chronic complainers about everyone else's shit but their own.

Here's a tiny tap of Surendra's clue bat: Never complain, never explain. Not to the mods. You find my stuff difficult to swallow, hence you pretend not to be able to parse it. It's one of the oldest tricks on teh netz. Your confusion about who said what, and to whom (whether or not it's dissimulation) is your responsibility.

[JimC]

It does seem to me that this head, as snarky as many individual comments may be, is providing a valuable service. The venting that goes on here has aspects similar to piercing a boil, and letting the foul-smelling pus drain away...

Rationalia is pleased to assist the psychological well-being of fellow atheistical inmates on this odd little planet...

[Mr.Samsa]

Nice story Cito, I didn't bother reading it though.

[Surendra Darathy]

You can't be banned for misrepresentation even though there was none ...

None? So you say, waving around Da Troof in your fingers. Anyway, you weren't sanctioned for misrepresentation, although it has happened, occasionally. Not this time. Keep it up, though, and see what happens. Misrepresentation is strictly about the record of what someone has said, and not about your interpretation of what someone has said. U haz a confoozed.

[Surendra Darathy]

The venting that goes on here has aspects similar to piercing a boil, and letting the foul-smelling pus drain away...

The gift that keeps on giving!

[Surendra Darathy]

Nice story Cito, I didn't bother reading it though.

Well, no wonder nothing makes sense to you.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 44590.html

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.

Any scoop on what the policy change was that Weaver referred to in the other thread, that caused a mass moderator resignation?

Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the reference to a policy change. How about a link?

[Mr.Samsa]

You can't be banned for misrepresentation even though there was none ...

None? So you say, waving around Da Troof in your fingers. Anyway, you weren't sanctioned for misrepresentation, although it has happened, occasionally. Not this time. Keep it up, though, and see what happens. Misrepresentation is strictly about the record of what someone has said, and not about your interpretation of what someone has said. U haz a confoozed.

Except of course there was no misrepresentation, we've already covered this.

[Surendra Darathy]

You can't be banned for misrepresentation even though there was none ...

None? So you say, waving around Da Troof in your fingers. Anyway, you weren't sanctioned for misrepresentation, although it has happened, occasionally. Not this time. Keep it up, though, and see what happens. Misrepresentation is strictly about the record of what someone has said, and not about your interpretation of what someone has said. U haz a confoozed.

Except of course there was no misrepresentation, we've already covered this.

There was no sockpuppetry on your part, either. Because, um, you say you didn't do it. Don't you want to remind us about that, as well? I'm seeing patterns in the data! Aliens?

[Mr.Samsa]

Of course there wasn't, which is why they couldn't find any evidence.

And no, I've told you a thousand times that aliens aren't an explanation, no matter how hard you believe.

[Surendra Darathy]

Of course there wasn't, which is why they couldn't find any evidence.

And no, I've told you a thousand times that aliens aren't an explanation, no matter how hard you believe.

Why, Mr.Samsa, I declare. There was an ineluctable fragrance of sockpuppetry fairly reeking in your denials of it, given your dedication to denying the validity of data which conflicts with your belief.

In some circles, this sort of response is laid on 'cognitive dissonance', which is mumbo jumbo psychobabble; in other circles, it may be laid on 'the Dunning-Kruger effect', which isn't, as it's supported by some data. Here, of course, I'm referring to your self-assessment of your cleverness in concealing the sockpuppetry so that you contend there's no evidence of it.

I'll grant you that this approach is a cut above crowing about it on another website, like some folks we know.

[aspire1670]

Of course there wasn't, which is why they couldn't find any evidence.

And no, I've told you a thousand times that aliens aren't an explanation, no matter how hard you believe.

Why, Mr.Samsa, I declare. There was an ineluctable fragrance ofsockpuppetry fairly reeking in your denials of it, given your dedication to denying the validity of data which conflicts with your belief.

In some circles, this sort of response is laid on 'cognitive dissonance', which is mumbo jumbo psychobabble; in other circles, it may be laid on 'the Dunning-Kruger effect', which isn't, as it's supported by some data. Here, of course, I'm referring to your self-assessment of your cleverness in concealing the sockpuppetry so that you contend there's no evidence of it.

I'll grant you that this approach is a cut above crowing about it on another website, like some folks we know.has used a sock puppet.

Hope this helps with your English language studies.

[Warren Dew]

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.

Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 44590.html

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.

Any scoop on what the policy change was that Weaver referred to in the other thread, that caused a mass moderator resignation?

Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the reference to a policy change. How about a link?

And, for me at least, of claiming over and over that there must be some secret rule change that altered business from how we all used to do it - when, in fact, nothing changed, it's just that you and your compatriots lost an argument over policy and left in a huff, and are now trying to convince everyone that a cabal has determined to ruin the forum it it wasn't for you plucky kids and your loyal dog exposing them for the mask-wearing incompetents they must be. [emphasis added]

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2000967