Concerning MR's ban

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by C C, Aug 23, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I'm happy with that.
    Just a note though, being referred to as a "scientific wannabe" could be viewed as insulting. Of course though I'm not that thin skinned.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    see post 157:
    I'll agree to that also, but please consider my thin skinned remark and post 157.
    In other words let the "personal insults" thingy apply both ways.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    I would imagine it has to do with showing the kind of media he (MR) reads for information. Much the same as one would look curiously at someone who got their news entirely from Fox.

    Because after having post upon post upon post dodged, ignored, or otherwise left unanswered, what kind of rational discourse is left?

    You refuse to allow Magical Realist to be held accountable for his share of the burden of proof. You refuse to hold him accountable for his posts. When people report him for insults and other such violations of the site rules, the general response is "it can be argued out in thread".

    Guess what - this is what it descends into.

    Can you guess what that makes the person(s) who allow such behavior to continue? An enabler, and just as guilty as those taking part.

    One could ask you the same question regarding your apparent hatred for anything and anyone who harbors a religious affiliation...

    If you weren't so out of touch with reality, you would realize that this has been a festering problem for well over a year; after a while, it gets hard for people to abide the rules when certain members are constantly given a pass.

    And if you wish for the rules to be taken seriously, then they must be UNIFORMLY, FAIRLY, and CONSTANTLY enforced. Ergo, if member A insults member B, and then member B insults member A, either they BOTH get infractions, or NEITHER do.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Quote where I have insulted posters. Where have I compared them to Bernie Maddoff? Where have I compared viewing their posts to looking at child porn? Where have I called them stupid, naive, bigots, ignorant, intellectually dishonest, lying, or nutcases. Go ahead. Quote it.

    Where do I insult members here? Give me some quotes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2015
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,030
    Your refusal to accept any possible explanation that's contrary to the conclusions you've already jumped to, is insulting.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Oh I see. Vague metaphorical insulting. Not REAL insulting that can be linked to any one statement. Got it.
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,663
    It is no different to people reading religious magazines or news sites or stories and believing that Jesus appeared on a piece of toast or that the Virgin Mary made the sun spin and dance in the sky, and then pay thousands of dollars to fly there to see if they can see it for themselves.

    Irony...

    I do not refuse to allow him to be held accountable for what he posts.

    I refuse to accept that personally insulting him is somehow the "scientific method".

    The issue here is that some of us do hold him accountable for his posts. The difference is that we are able to do so without being personally insulting about it. And you see that as a refusal to hold him accountable.

    You want an example of holding him accountable and actually employing the scientific method and not being a dick or insulting about it? rpenner provides a perfect example.

    How have I allowed his behaviour to continue?

    By asking that you leave the personal insults out of it? Do you think it is acceptable to deliberately seek people out to insult them, Kitta?

    I said that people should not be descending into the religion sub-forum and abusing people and trolling it. You have somehow or other, either through deliberate misrepresentation or stupidity, said that I am supporting people descending into the religion sub-forum and abusing people and trolling it.. When I said the exact opposite.

    You are merely insulted because I hold your religious belief as being exactly the same as someone believing in UFO's or aliens and believe the exact same standards towards such individuals should be applied - ie leave out the personal insults and abuse and discuss it in a logical manner without said insults and personal abuse.

    It is telling that you are now going out of your way to drag what is a clear and very present issue between you and I into the public forum and lying and again misrepresenting what I have actually said. How do you think this is going to help you?

    The only festering thing here has been your gross behaviour and your often deliberate misrepresentations of what I have been saying and your blatant dishonesty in openly attributing things to me that I never said.

    Cease and desist.

    And that is the problem. Others are enforcing the rules uniformly and equally by saying to keep personal insults out of it. Why is this such a huge problem for you, Kitta?
     
  10. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    The difference has nothing to do with content (a point you continue to deliberately dodge) - rather, the problem is with presentation. There is a huge difference between someone who holds a personal, private belief in, say, Christ, and someone who demands everyone accept that Bigfoot is real and Aliens come around to abduct little children (I wasn't aware that aliens had to resort to pedophilia for entertainment)

    Indeed - sucks, doesn't it. Perhaps next time you will be able to recognize it for what it is and do something about it (though I doubt it)

    And yet:
    You have even gone so far as to state what I am stating now:

    I refuse to accept that personally insulting him is somehow the "scientific method".

    See above - you too have "resorted to personal insults"... heal thyself, doctor.

    And did you happen to notice how MR utterly ignored rpenner's post? Now, what do you call that, hm?

    See above.

    Do I think it is acceptable? No.
    I think that, given the repeated pattern of behavior MR exhibits, it is inevitable. People simply give up trying to be civil when they don't get civility in response... hell, you yourself are guilty of it. Your very next line:

    insinuates that I am stupid. That is insulting.

    Not to mention:
    Why the sudden backpedaling on your position?

    I will consider religious beliefs the same as belief in alien abduction or Bigfoot the day Jesus Christ comes down from above and abducts someone, or has sex with a lady resulting in a "human/ape hybrid". Not to mention the key difference you continue to refuse to acknowledge - the aspect of preaching

    The only "lying" here is being done by you - lying down and allowing dishonest "debate tactics" (if you could even call them that) to continue.

    Right - again, see above.

    Explain your sudden reversal in position... what is MR giving you or doing for you that you suddenly feel compelled to protect that which you previously admitted was in the wrong?

    And that is the problem. Others are enforcing the rules uniformly and equally by saying to keep personal insults out of it. Why is this such a huge problem for you, Kitta?[/QUOTE]

    http://sciforums.com/threads/skepti...project-intriguing.145359/page-7#post-3290838
    [Admin note: link to a thread in the Moderators' forum deleted]
    Again... heal thyself doctor.

    Why have certain members been given an extraordinary number of second, third, etc chances?

    As to why do this in the public view? Simple - Transparency is the vaccination against Corruption.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2015
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Did I? Wow. Now my threads are being tracked minute by minute for possible flaws or otherwise non-responses. Is not responding to a post now a violation of Sci Forum rules? What if I'm ignoring someone? What if I didn't respond because I had to go to the store? Can anybody say "abuse of moderator power"? This obsessive targeting of me for infractions and banning has gone on long enough.
     
  12. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    If this was a "one off" thing, sure, no big deal.
    If you hadn't been to the thread since, no big deal.

    However... this is a pattern of behavior with you (not responding to posts you cannot refute).
    And you have posted several times in that thread since (rpenner posted at 6:38pm, you posted at 6:38pm as well, then again at 6:53pm, 7pm, 7:33pm, and just 11 minutes ago...)
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    LOL! So now you are timing my posts to see if I'm not doing something else? How much time do I have to respond to a post? Do other posters have a time limit? And you still have yet to prove how not responding to a post is even a violation of Sci Forum rules, much less that the non-response is because I can't refute it. Why don't you quit making up shit about people and confabulating new rules to infract me by and go do something useful. Don't you have a real life beyond this?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2015
  14. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    Simple - it's dishonest. You know you cannot beat the argument, you know the evidence disproves what you are saying, so you ignore it. To any sane, logical person, that is dishonesty. A lie of omission is STILL a lie.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    So not responding to Penner's post in your required time makes me dishonest? How does that follow?
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,985
    So why was I banned?
     
  17. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    Aw, you're making me blush.
    Well, it did give me time to edit my use of a wrong word. (I am not a professional art collector.)
    In that thread. In this thread. Much ignoring going on.
    This is not new. Some write. Some read.
    Kittamaru's 7 forum rules (referenced in the forum Action Notes) from 2014 appear to have been lost. In post #3 you asked the forum “So what's your so-called "explanation" [for dismissing the video and story as evidence of aliens]?” and I replied that there were reasons. Ignoring a requested answer seems to render the fact that these forum threads are called "discussions" moot, so is a breach of the implication that the purpose of these forums is not broadcasting but rather dialogue.

    //Added in edit:
    In this, you agree with me. For in the very same post, didn't you write “this forum's sole purpose is for the posting and discussion of exactly such [alleged] sightings” ? Ergo, you violated the forum's purpose by ignoring a cogent response to your question. Check and mate.
    We're not talking about a mysterious "someone". Either you were actually ignoring me (Kittamaru's claim) or you used forum software to ignore all my posts (intellectual suicide) or neither. But since all the facts are on your side of the table it is disingenuous to post this as a factual question.
    Clearly counterfactual from the time stamps of your responses to other posters.
    Most any English speaker can. That's closer to demagoguery than demonstrating the claim.
    I tend to agree, but you never learn, and so repeat the offensive behavior. So rational people have every expectation that the pattern will continue.

    // Added in edit:
    Better English phrasing would be "This targeting of me for obsessive infractions..." but as long as we both agree they are your infractions, this is but a tiny quibble.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2015
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    There are many many posts and questions you refuse to respond to.
    I have asked you questions in the other thread you started.
    You also so blatantly obviously will find, fabricate, and use whatever excuse that suits your fancy.
    You continually disregard scientific explanations or other reasons [again see your 9 year old boy thread] with the most unlikely assumptions on your part, or again, fabricate more excuses.
    I may be wrong, but as yet, in my time here, I have never seen you say, well yes, it could be a delusion...or it could be just a weather phenomenon...or it maybe a maladjusted camera...or possible the poor light was playing tricks.
    And then you get all indignant when people start calling these things for what they are.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    "I have asked you questions in the other thread you started."

    Half your posts I don't even respond to. Haven't you noticed? I have the total right to do that with anyone I feel like. If you are insulting or flaming me, raising a red herring, trying to trap me into something, dredging up off-topic crap, depicting me in some sexual manner, spouting verbal salad, repeating the same assertion without arguing for it, or whatever, I will probably ignore you. Doesn't mean I'm dishonest. Doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything. This is a freedom all posters enjoy here. I am no exception.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,273
    Took only a few posts on this very thread:
    "Don't you have a real life beyond this?"

    Most other of your threads are similar.
     
  21. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    And here, you are being dishonest yet again.

    You responded SEVERAL times to that thread since his post - you have, quite obviously, seen his post, and have CHOSEN not to respond to it.
     
  22. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    Thing is, your pattern of behavior is to refuse to acknowledge or otherwise ignore FACTS you cannot counter... thus, dishonest.

    I would love to see you as a prosecutor or defense attorney in court, MR... you would be held in contempt and most likely disbarred for this kind of behavior.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,663
    Where is he demanding that you believe in bigfoot or aliens?

    He believes in it. Has he told you that you have to believe in it?

    And what is "it", Kitta?

    What should be done about "it"?

    And I fully stand by those statements. Nor am I trying to pretend I never said them, nor have I or am I saying that I was right. What is your point?

    That it should continue?

    What do you call someone who ignores another's post?

    Happens all the time on forums.

    Are you now tracking every single one of his responses?

    Are we now demanding that people respond to every single post aimed at them? Pretty sure this is not a new rule.

    Should he respond to it? If he feels like it. It would be nice if he did. But I don't think we should be moderating people for failing to respond to people's posts. We are not the thought police and it is not our job to do so.

    Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to infringe on the rules if we feel the person deserves to be insulted for not agreeing with us or accepting what we say is the truth?

    Do you think he deserves to be personally insulted Kitta? If not, I fail to understand why you are so upset and offended that I posted that people should leave the personal insults and abuse out of it?

    Not really.

    Because you continue to misrepresent (and at times completely fabricate things and apply them to me) what I say either because you are dishonest or because you cannot understand what I am saying and so, you put your own slant on it. I would rather that it was down to stupidity and lack of understanding. That would make sense and would make it better than to consider that it is deliberate. One is out of lack of understanding and innocent. The other would mean it is deliberate. One is clearly better than the other.

    What backpedaling?

    I have never said any differently.

    Where have I said that we should not employ the "scientific method"? Where have I said that it should not face scientific scrutiny? I stand by those words.

    The problem that has clearly arisen is that people are taking it personally and responding by being personally insulting about it and at times, even making offensive remarks and attributing it to him and even others.

    What, exactly, is your point?

    Whatever you personally consider or believe is irrelevant.

    Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of rules for personal belief in one forum and a completely different set of rules that would allow people to abuse and insult others for their personal beliefs in another? Is that what you prefer?

    Or do you think that the personal beliefs of people should receive the exact same treatment?

    I'll put it this way.. How would you feel if everyone who behaves this way in the Fringe, did the exact same thing in the religion sub-forum? Would you be so vocal in protecting them as you are in protecting their doing it in the Fringe?

    So when you attributed words to me that I never said and made an announcement about it, what was that? See, I call that lying. You, on the other hand declared it was for your own amusement. When you go out of your way to misrepresent what I have said in the moderator's forum and then post said fabrication and misrepresentation in a public forum to somehow or other boost your argument, I call that lying.

    Remember, Kitta, you have dragged again this dispute into the public forum and you are doing it by again misrepresenting me and by applying arguments to me that I never said.

    Do you consider that a good way to debate anything?

    I beg your pardon?

    What, exactly, are you trying to imply here?

    Firstly, why are you linking the moderator forum in this thread?

    And secondly, where did I say that insults should be allowed in any of those posts that you linked? Where do I say that he needs to be forced to respond to everything? I am trying to understand why you linked what you did, and what you are trying to say here, when my words in those threads that you linked have not deviated from my argument at all this whole time. Are you trying to imply that I said differently in the moderator's sub-forum?

    You really want to be careful about such statements. Especially when you are basing such arguments on your fabrications and misrepresentations of what I have said.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page