Religion and women.

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Clearly you decided to get yourself permanently banned from this forum. I'd hate you to think that your parting shot went unnoticed, though there doesn't really seem to be much in there that requires a detailed response. Still, given that this is goodbye, I'm happy to make a few parting comments.

I have not expressed that sentiment. In fact if you look a p88 you will see that I specifically state that’s not where I’m coming from.

In post #88 you wrote "That sounds like I'm saying women are less than men, which is not where I'm going with this."

It's a pity that in the 1500 posts that followed that one, you didn't feel that it was necessary to explain where you thought you were going with that.

See, Jan, the problem is that the whole "women's place is at home looking after the kids" line, combined with the "men should head the family" line and "a woman's main value is as a bearer of a man's progeny" line makes it look a lot like you are saying that women are less than men - specifically that a woman's value lies mainly in her value to a man.

Clearly, you had many opportunities to correct that impression, if in fact you would feel bad for having people think that of you. But, also clearly, what other people think about your sexist views doesn't seem to be something that you lose any sleep over.

Making false accusations because you are intolerant of theists, does not make those accusations true

I'm not intolerant of theists, Jan. You and I have had some fun together over the years, haven't we?

Truth be told, I feel sorry that you seem unable to escape the religious prison that has you so firmly in its grasp, even after a lot of exposure to a more life-affirming alternative outlook.

You don't need me to accuse you, Jan. You've done a very competent job of convicting yourself.

You have to show how someone is actually misogynistic, or sexist.

Okay, so there are two possibilities here:
1. This is just a last-gasp petulant display from you, knowingly repeating your lie in pointless defiance once again; OR
2. You really don't understand what sexism and misogyny are.

If option 1 is correct, then I guess you really stuck it to the man there, Jan. Congratulations, and goodbye. If option 2 is correct, then let this be a lesson to you to ask the question in future, before you get yourself into serious trouble. Please, try to take this on board for future reference.

Show where I categorically state that women are lesser than men. Don’t just assume, or get trigger-happy.

Jan, Jan, Jan. We were already well past the point where repeating that tactic was going to work for you. Didn't you realise?

Here's what you should have done, if you were at all concerned that people were jumping to wrong conclusions about that: you should have stated categorically that you don't think that women are lesser than men. Then you should have told us all why, and tried to get to the bottom of how so many people could have jumped to the same misinformed conclusion, based on what you had written.

Had you done that, perhaps we could all have had a laugh about our silly mistakes, and moved on from there, on the same page. But instead, we get this from you - this demand from you that other people speak for you, rather than you speaking for yourself, combined with your repeated protestation that nobody truly understands you.

But Jan, the thing is: I don't actually think you have been concerned about being misunderstood at any point in this discussion. That's because nobody actually has misunderstood you. People are smarter than you give them credit for. We can read between the lines, Jan. You don't need to "categorically state" something before it is reasonable for a reader to infer that you hold such-and-such a view. If all your views are consistent with your holding position X, there's no need for you to categorically state "I believe X" in order for that to be a reasonable deduction. Understand?

I want you to show where I am a misogynist.

I’m not interested in wild accusations.

I could just as easily label you a misogynist, pile all this crap in your direction.

Why are you scared of conversation (seeing as you’re afraid to give evidence)?

A man who is not a misogynist would, under ordinary circumstances, at least once take the time (in a 1500 post discussion, let's say) to deny that he is a misogynist, would he not? You, on the other hand, are apparently content to settle for demanding "proof" of the accusation.

This isn't a court of law, Jan. There's no requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt here. This is the court of public opinion. People here will form opinions about you, based on what you write.

It would puzzle me as to why you wouldn't simply deny the accusation and move on with your life, rather than making this song and dance you've made, if it wasn't so clear that there is truth in this description of you and your opinions.

Yes, you could easily label me a misogynist if you wanted to. But then, I have not provided many quotable pieces of sexism in any of my posts to this thread. Your record of posts, on the other hand, tends to shift the onus of proof in the other direction, away from your accusers and onto you. And yet, you took zero interest in explaining why your views are not sexist - contrary to how they appear on their face.

To accuse me of being "scared of conversation" makes me laugh, given the lengths you went to in this thread to avoid any real conversation, Jan. Really, who did you imagine you were fooling?

As suspected there was nothing there to suggest I hate women, or think that women are somehow less than men. What was also interesting was that you said they were “sexist views”, not actual sexism or misogyny, the false claim I am being banned for.

Let's be clear: you've been banned (and not by me, let it be said) for creating a sock puppet to evade a ban. The previous warnings you received were for repeatedly and knowingly telling a specific lie. That specific lie was your claim that nobody has explained in this thread how your views are misogynistic, or provided justification for calling you sexist or misogynist.

You received no warnings for writing your sexist and misogynist views. Those views were, in fact, the subject of discussion in the thread for a short while.

(to be continued...)

 

[James R]

“Man naturally heads over his wife and family, and his wife naturally understands that as she now has a child to develop.”

Please point out the hatred, or debasing of women in this POV?

I did that previously. The assumption that a man has a god-given right to lord it over his wife is a sexist and patriarchal assumption. Are you stupid, or just trolling some more? It has to be one of the two.

Again please show where hatred, or the debasing of women is implied.

One sexist assumption is that there is one "best" way to organise a family, with the man in the "provider" role and the wife in the subservient and beholden position as "taker of provisions". Another is that this arrangement is best regardless of what the woman wants, because Jan the Man knows what is best for her.

It's small comfort to hear that you don't think that a wife should "obey every demand" from her husband, but the real problem is your insistence that she "submit" to his demands at all. That is not equality, Jan.

Why don’t you probe and ask questions before jumping to wild conclusions?

Firstly, none of my conclusions were wild. Secondly, I put a whole heap of direct questions to you, as you know.

And how did you respond? You evaded. You literally pretended some of my posts weren't even there and just skipped over them. You danced around and played your usual troll games. So, it's a bit rich of you to bring this up now, wouldn't you say?

But here your despicable-ness is not different that Bells. You seek to pile lie on top of lie, then act as though I have said something that corresponds. You are truly disgusting.

You had ample opportunity throughout to set the record straight, Jan, if I was ever in error. The problem you had was that I never was, and you were presumably too scared to tell us all what you really think, in categorical terms.

You haven't told us what your view is on the value of a woman following menopause, if there is any.

Not my problem

Wrong. Like I said, people can read between the lines, Jan. If I suggest that you only value women of childbearing age, and I directly ask you whether women who are past menopause have value, and you deliberately and obviously choose not to answer that question, then your behaviour tends to confirm my suspicions, not to mention the suspicions of other reasonable readers.

One consistent error you have made on this forum, Jan, is to assume that nothing can be read into what you don't say, what you don't respond to, what you avoid, what you ignore. When somebody asks you "Do you think X is true?" and instead of saying "No" you say "You haven't shown I think X is true. Show me where I have said I think X is true!", you give your game away. You're not the smartest person in the room, Jan. You're not pulling the wool over my eyes, for one.

All assumptions.

None of it even corroborates with anything I’ve written.

Unfortunately for you, it all "corroborates" neatly with everything you've written, and with everything you didn't write.

You just can’t stand that I think your whole idiotic belief system (or whatever), is not only harmful, expensive, messy, and created only problems, but is actually stupid

Now there's an interesting conversation you and I could have had, Jan.

I would have been most interested to hear all about your thoughts on what my "idiotic belief system" might consist of, and your detailed explanations of its idiocies. But you were always too afraid to tell me what was really on your mind. And now it's too late; you've lost your opportunity to have an honest discussion with me.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

patriarchy..

“a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line…

I don’t do feminist, or Wokety- woke- wokeyist definitions. Patriarchy means what it has always meant.

Good (?) to see you're true to form right to the end, Jan.

Whenever the definition of a word has not suited you purposes, you've tried to redefine it or restrict its meaning to suit yourself.

Possibly in this case you're completely ignorant of the whole body of feminist literature. On the other hand, you do seem aware that a feminist definition (a definition by women, notice) is available for your consideration. However, you can dismiss that as too emotional, I suppose, so you can safely ignore it. Right?

Once again, it's hard for me to overemphasise the irony of your simultaneously demanding that people show that you're sexist, whilst at the same time dismissing with a wave of your manly hand everything that comes out of feminist activism.

Nicely done, Jan. I couldn't have illustrated the point better myself.

You have little understanding James. Your mad because you are intolerant of views you don’t agree with.

I'm intolerant of your sexist views, Jan. But don't imagine for a second that I don't understand them. You're stuck in a time warp. It's 2021. You know better. Now try to be better.

You are the dishonest coward. Banning someone, then banging on them while they can’t defend themselves.

You have not been denied your response, for what it's worth.

You have yet to show where I have implied hatred of women and girls, or deem them subordinate to men. Liar!!!

Did that little outburst, complete with yet another repeat of your lie, make you feel better about yourself, Jan?

Do you know what would really make you feel more comfortable in your own skin? Trying to do better, that's what. Please try.

Bells is just downright unreasonable.

Yeah, all the women in this thread are downright unreasonable, it seems. Maybe women, being all emotional and such, are just prone to irrational unreasonableness. Does that ring true for you? If it does, take it from me: you have a serious problem that you really ought to address, and not just for your own sake.

How many people have accepted the wokety-woke lies that have been printed?

Too many, but not you, I'm guessing is the answer you're fishing for. Do you feel out of step with the wokey-woke mainstream modern society you presumably live in, Jan? You might be right that society is to blame, but then again you may be wrong. What if you're wrong and us wokey-woke types are right?

You put the “bad thing” in, to make it seem like that is what I said. But I didn’t.

There you go again with the "show me where I said X" demand, when the clear implication of what you wrote is X. And then you just rinse and repeat the original statement:

A man acting like a woman means he’s not being a man. If a man acts like a baby, it also means he’s not acting like a man. That says nothing about hating women, or babies. Neither does it put women down as lesser people. But you will spin it like that, because you have to justify you irrational behaviour somehow.

A man acting like a woman means he's not being a man? Obviously, he's doing it as a man, so you must mean something other than what you're saying literally. What could you mean, then? A man acting like a woman means he's not behaving like a man ought to behave, perhaps? So you're saying that men ought not to "act like women". Specifically, drawing on your previous comments on this, you're saying that men ought not to "be emotional like women".

And why not? Why ought men not "act like women", with their emotions? Because, you tell us, emotions are a problem. They make women irrational, and irrationality is bad. So if a man acts like a women - emotional - then he's being irrational, and that's bad.

So, let's summarise. Emotional=bad. Rational=good. Women: tend to be emotional. Men: tend to be rational. Ergo? Men=rational=good. Women=emotional=bad.

But that doesn't put women down as lesser people. No. Not at all. It just recognises a self-evident truth about women and men, a natural fact. Jan has observed that women act badly, while men act well. Women lack control while men are in control unless they act like women. Women can't be blamed for being emotional and out of control. God just made them that way; it's natural. Obviously, women should be "ruled" over by men for their own good, because women can't control their natures. They need men to help keep them in check.

Jan: please take some time to try to work out why the above is insufferably sexist and misogynistic. Try to do better. Please.

 

[James R]

I’m not lying. You have literally proved me right with your long-winded posts. Full of your own material, trying to pass it off as mine.

Your lie was that nobody had explained to you why your views are sexist and misogynistic. Where I quoted myself, it was merely to show some instances of where I explained things to you, on many occasions.

You should make wegs apologise for dragging this out for so long.

wegs is a woman who was kind enough to tell you how your behaviour towards her was perceived by her. Your response was to ignore what she told you, and to insist that she didn't know what she was talking about.

Instead of showing how egalitarian and enlightened you are, you behaved like a sexist pig towards her. You are the one who should have apologised, to her.

More advice for the future, Jan: please, please start actually listening to the women around you when they talk to you. And don't assume you're just always going to be right - or in the right - every time you talk to a woman.

You’re the one that’s lying. While people may stand behind you because they don’t chime with me, doesn’t mean they can’t see your gross irrationality, unreasonableness, and your downright nasty, lying character. You’re quite disgusting.

I have a clear conscience, Jan. Can you say the same, following your little display here?

You have a big-time aversion [to truth]

Maybe you need professional psychological help.

Gaslighting now, are we? Pathetic.

Because like the crime rate in the (woke) democratically run cities in America, it is totally brazen, and on display for the world to see.

Your concerns about crime in a thread where it is completely off topic make me suspect that there's something else going on in your life right now that's bigger than what just went on here. Do you live in a high-crime neighbourhood, Jan? Are you concerned for your own safety, or the safety of your family? If so, you have my sympathies. I'm really sorry to hear it, and I hope things get better for you.

I suggest that if you're looking for somebody to blame, you might want to look beyond laying all the blame at the feet of the Democratic Party. The issue of crime is more complex than Fox News tells you. But I can see you're already far down the misinformation rabbit hole when it comes to this particular topic, what with your waving away of academic studies and competently-acquired statistical data.

I don’t mind being banned.

Good.

But I will speak the truth, against lies.

This is a discussion board. Or do I thought.

I’m beginning to think this is a wokety-woke stronghold, and people like you and Bells it’s gate-keepers

Go right ahead and pretend your banning is our fault if it makes you feel better. One day you might look back on this and reflect on things in a more objective way. Or not.

You might want to reflect on what your actual gripe is about the "wokey-woke" stuff you seem so fixated on right now. Is it something about them (us) that's the problem, or could it be that something about you is the problem? Think it through. Please.

No. You’re an angry, intolerant man.

It's okay to be angry and intolerant about some things, Jan, as long as it's a morally justified anger and intolerance.

You're not the devil, Jan. [I don't believe in a devil, BTW.] I'm not angry at you. In lots of ways I feel sorry for you. You're stuck. I think you sort of know you're stuck. But instead of trying to solve your problems, you're lashing out at people like me, who aren't the root cause.

Just so you know, I'm under no illusion that I'm a flawless human being. I'm not always right. But I try to look at what's on both sides of most fences before choosing a side, if I choose one at all. I try to understand. That doesn't mean I have to be tolerant of everything.

You are prepared to lie through your teeth, as has been demonstrated.

No. I'm not prepared to do that in general, and certainly not in a low-stakes situation like this one. It goes against the grain for me.

You should not be a moderator in a religion section. You’ve turned into a desert, where people come merely to bash God, theism, theists, scripture, and God based religion. What a waste

If what you say is true - and I'm not sure it is - I don't think you can fairly lay the blame entirely at my feet. Our forum attracts who it attracts, for whatever reason. Our members make it what it is, for good or ill.

You might like to reflect on how effective an advocate you have been here for your God, your "God based religion", your "theism" and your "scriptures". You were here for years, yet you never actually got to the point of telling us what you believe, or why. What's your actual religious affiliation? Who knows? You were never brave enough to own it. You spent your time here trying to define yourself by what you are not, rather than by what you are. "I'm a theist!" you kept insisting, over and over, but you never told us why, or what that means to you.

It sounds to me that, like a lot of religious people, you think your religion deserves respect just because it is a religion. You complain about people "bashing" your God, your scriptures, your theism, but is your religion so weak that it cannot stand up to the "bashing"? Surely somebody as confident and comfortable in his own belief as you claim to be would have ready, easy answers for the common objections to your religion, and to religion in general? And yet, mostly the best way you found to reply to atheist objections and questions was to say "You wouldn't understand. You're Without God." You didn't even try.

Because you think you have the correct assumptions [about the world]? Riiiight!!!

I hope I don't have demonstrably incorrect assumptions about the world, like some of the ones you have. That idea of yours that you can "just know" stuff magically, for instance - that's a black hole of irrationality right there. How can you possibly be sure that you know something if you've got no objective reason at all for suspecting it to be true?

The difference between you and me, Jan, is that I'm open to changing my mind when somebody shows me I'm wrong, and you're not open to that when it comes to certain subjects. In fact, on the topic of religion, I had a major change of mind many years ago.

I see no reason why we should be deprived of good subject matters, and dialogue in the religion forum. Why are YOU still here? Why haven’t YOU been replaced with some who loves dialogue at the very least? Why all this gate-keeper bs?

That gate-keeper bs, as you put it, is there to try to preserve some minimum standards in the dialogue. I'm not sure if you ever read the sections on trolling in our posting guidelines. Certainly, you often acted like a troll. Kudos goes to you, I suppose; you pulled it off for a long time. You even had me bluffed about the possibility that you could grow and perhaps change your mind or admit that you didn't have all the answers, for a while.

Goodbye, Jan. Good luck.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said: You should not be a moderator in a religion section. You’ve turned into a desert, where people come merely to bash God, theism, theists, scripture, and God-based religion. What a waste

Some time ago I tried to join a religious website. I was required to profess my belief in God or be refused access altogether. Needless to say, I did not join.
Here, no one needs to profess their Atheism or be refused access. You enter at your own peril.

 

[Sarkus]

I have not claimed anywhere to have shown that Jan hates women.

Except when he asks you to show the evidence of hatred you refer back to the previous 50 pages, as if you have.

Look, I'm not condoning the way he went about things, nor disagreeing with his ban, I'm only opining that the way you approached his antics didn't help: you fuelled his behaviour, you fed the troll.

Don't you realise that him getting on his high horse demanding evidence of X - over and over again - is nothing but a ploy to avoid facing all the evidence of Y that is in front of everybody?

Sure it was a tactic, and you fell for it. You responded to the request rather than address the tactic for what you knew it to be. You continued (and for some reason still continue) to address the symptom of his tactics rather than the tactics themselves. And in doing so you just continued to feed him until he effectively died of over-eating. You enabled that behaviour. And as a moderator you should surely be above that.

 

[James R]

Except when he asks you to show the evidence of hatred you refer back to the previous 50 pages, as if you have.

I very carefully pointed out to him several times where his own posts provided evidence of his sexism. I quoted some of them, and patiently tried to educate him about what sexism is. I also quoted, just recently, examples of my own posts, reiterating where the sexism could be located in Jan's posts, just in case he was actually too stupid to learn the first time. Maybe you should read the thread.

Look, I'm not condoning the way he went about things, nor disagreeing with his ban, I'm only opining that the way you approached his antics didn't help: you fuelled his behaviour, you fed the troll.

His choices were his own. He knew what the outcomes would be and chose them deliberately, each time. Don't blame me. I didn't force him to do anything. On the contrary, he chose to repeatedly not to take my friendly advice.

Sure it was a tactic, and you fell for it.

No. I was onto it from the start. Maybe you should read the thread before commenting further. You don't seem to understand what happened here.

You responded to the request rather than address the tactic for what you knew it to be.

I responded to his request the first time. That's the polite thing to do when somebody appears to be confused.

Later on, I provided some additional material as a reminder of what had gone on in the thread, partly as a reminder to Jan and partly because some readers - such as yourself - appeared to be confused or unaware of the thread's history.

You continued (and for some reason still continue) to address the symptom of his tactics rather than the tactics themselves.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

There are a few separate issues in play here. One issue is the thread topic about religion and women. Some of my posts address that topic. A second issue is Jan's problematic behaviour in repeatedly telling lies, especially after receiving initial warnings to cease and desist from such behaviour. That issue was easily handled using our standard warnings and bans procedures. A third issue is the meta-discussion from posters such as yourself, commenting on Jan's behaviour and how he was moderated. I have tried to address some points of confusion among certain members on that score.

What is your specific criticism?

And in doing so you just continued to feed him until he effectively died of over-eating. You enabled that behaviour. And as a moderator you should surely be above that.

Is Jan Ardena, in fact, an adult man, who is in principle capable of self-control and rational reflection, or is he not?

If you're interested in assigning blame for Jan's exit from the forum, why don't you start by examining Jan's actions?

It sounds like you think that I somehow have the power to control what people choose to post here, before the fact. This forum, by its very nature, "enables" members to post whatever they like. We don't pre-moderate posts. We only moderate after the posts have been posted. You are obviously already aware of that. The obvious consequence of the lack of pre-moderation of posts is that any "behaviour" that a member chooses to engage in when they post here is "enabled" - not by me, by but the very nature of how an internet discussion forum like this one works. Of course, there are limitations on the content that is allowed to remain on this forum after it is posted, and sanctions are sometimes employed to encourage members to post in an appropriate way, given the published aims of this site, to which all members agree when they sign up as members in the first place.

But maybe you're complaining because you think I goaded Jan into a rage, such that he lost all self control and just couldn't help himself in continuing to breach our site posting guidelines, even after receiving multiple warnings for exactly the same offence. If that's what you think, then you're essentially saying that, in your opinion, poor old Jan needed to be protected by me from himself - treated with kid gloves rather than as a competent, responsible adult.

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Sarkus]

I'm "complaining" that as a Moderator that supposedly is "on to [his dishonest tactics] from the start" you do nothing to nip them in the bud, but instead respond as though ignorant of the tactics, as though the argument is honest.
I'm "complaining" that in the way you responded to him you fuelled his behaviour that ultimately led to his permanent ban, and that - in my view - as a Moderator you should be cognisant of when you are doing that and be above it, especially if it is you who then moderates the person.
Giving a drink to someone is not an issue... unless you know they're an alcoholic. Their actions are ultimately their own, but you should at least look to your own contributions to their downfall, both short-term and long-term. That you can't see that, or don't want to see that, and are just trying to rationalise it away as someone clearly not having read the thread, is disappointing.

Do I think you goaded Jan? No, not at all. No more than passing a drink to an alcoholic is goading them to destructive behaviour. You simply provided him in this thread with excess food, which - in my view - a moderator shouldn't do. You should have closed the refrigerator door long ago, and locked it in chains. His was a permanent banning that had been waiting to happen for the past 10 years or so. The biggest surprise is really why it took this long. But then Tiassa previously provided good insight into perhaps why he was tolerated.
Should Jan have been treated with kid gloves, and protected by you from himself? To the former: no, of course not. To the latter: in a way - by banning him long ago. The points Tiassa made seem pertinent again here as to why that wasn't the case.

And as to why you bothered to address his final few posts in detail, rather than just close up shop on his ramblings and dishonesty: well, that just comes across as petty.

Ah well, we live and learn.


p.s. maybe you should lock this thread, given the path it took. If people want to start the same topic, a new and more honest discussion would be better served in another thread, I'd have though.

 

[Vociferous]

And as to why you bothered to address his final few posts in detail, rather than just close up shop on his ramblings and dishonesty: well, that just comes across as petty.

Especially considering this:

I see. This is your idea of humour is it? Insulting somebody who isn't here to respond.

Try learning some basic manners.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

I'm "complaining" that as a Moderator that supposedly is "on to [his dishonest tactics] from the start" you do nothing to nip them in the bud, but instead respond as though ignorant of the tactics, as though the argument is honest.

When I said "from the start", I mean from the point at which he started falsely claiming that nobody had explained what was sexist about his views to him. Early in the thread, Jan offered us his views on women and the roles he thinks are appropriate for them. I think at that point he was honestly telling us what he believes. The lies only started later.

Have you read the thread yet? I mean, if you're going to run meta-commentary on it, you really should familiarise yourself with what went down, first.

I'm "complaining" that in the way you responded to him you fuelled his behaviour that ultimately led to his permanent ban, and that - in my view - as a Moderator you should be cognisant of when you are doing that and be above it, especially if it is you who then moderates the person.

I "fuelled" his behaviour? How so?

Also, have you considered the possibility that Jan wanted to get himself permanently banned? He knew what he could do to achieve that aim. It would have been simpler just to ask, of course, but maybe he thought his method would lead to a more heroic exit or something.

Giving a drink to someone is not an issue... unless you know they're an alcoholic. Their actions are ultimately their own, but you should at least look to your own contributions to their downfall, both short-term and long-term. That you can't see that, or don't want to see that, and are just trying to rationalise it away as someone clearly not having read the thread, is disappointing.

Are you under the impression that sciforums is a sheltered workshop for people with problems, Sarkus? Do you come here with the expectation that the moderators will treat you like a kid in a kindergarten, gently urging you towards right behaviour and assisting you with your personal development? I'm not saying that kind of thing never happens here, but this isn't one of the listed aims of the forum.

It's actually not my problem if Jan Ardena - or anybody else - can't control their urges to lie or troll or act out. When members sign up here, they agree to follow the site posting guidelines. There's no special clause for the mentally ill or for those with poor impulse control.

Speaking personally, I'm remarkably tolerant of sub-standard behaviours from posters here. I don't pull out the ban hammer out at the first sign of trouble. In fact, my first approach to a member whose behaviour is problematic is usually in an unofficial capacity. If friendly advice doesn't help, then it can be appropriate to take the next step, to start to issue official warnings.

Jan Ardena was a member here for years. You can't seriously argue that he didn't know what was expected of him as a member. Until quite recently, he never had a single warning. Then, at some point, he sort of snapped and decided that his trolling was more important to him than staying on the good side of the site rules. After that, he made deliberate choices, fully aware of the likely outcomes. Indeed, I took care to explain them to him, just in case.

I am not to blame for Jan's exit.

Besides, what's the great loss? Why are you so worried that Jan is gone?

His was a permanent banning that had been waiting to happen for the past 10 years or so. The biggest surprise is really why it took this long.

One thing to bear in mind is that we don't ban people simply for holding or expressing views that we disagree with. (We do warn people who express views here that are likely to harm other people.)

It's not that hard to post "controversial" opinions here and still stay within the wide tolerances of our posting guidelines.

But then Tiassa previously provided good insight into perhaps why he was tolerated.

You think?

Should Jan have been treated with kid gloves, and protected by you from himself? To the former: no, of course not. To the latter: in a way - by banning him long ago. The points Tiassa made seem pertinent again here as to why that wasn't the case.

Tell me why you think Jan should have been banned long ago.

And as to why you bothered to address his final few posts in detail, rather than just close up shop on his ramblings and dishonesty: well, that just comes across as petty.

No. It's polite.

Jan and I have had a long relationship on this forum. In the early years, I had some interesting discussions with Jan about religion, God, atheism and other things, from which I learned some useful things. I think that, ultimately, Jan felt threatened by some of the new ideas I was putting to him, so he ended up clamming up and becoming increasingly dogmatic. I don't know whether his religious leaders were in his ear telling him not to listen to nasty atheists on internet forums; it's possible. Recently, Jan spent quite a bit of his time just trolling threads, essentially, which made him uninteresting and a target for moderation.

Jan effectively said his goodbye to the forum when he created an obvious sock puppet while banned, knowing what the outcome of that would be. It was important enough to him to post those few final posts, and in my opinion our personal history has earned him the right to a reply from me. (His posts, you will note, were addressed to me.) So I posted a reply.

p.s. maybe you should lock this thread, given the path it took. If people want to start the same topic, a new and more honest discussion would be better served in another thread, I'd have though.

Well, assuming no further on-topic discussion is forthcoming in the near future, I will probably take your advice about locking this thread. But it seems to me that you still have some residual questions around Jan's exit, so I'll wait until we clear those up.

 

[James R]

Especially considering this:

Do you think I have insulted Jan Ardena? Please explain.

 

[Sarkus]

When I said "from the start", I mean...

I understood what you meant (and here's an idea: why not assume that the person has understood when you respond to them), and my response was from that understanding. Let me be clearer: answering dishonest questions fuels the dishonesty. If you know the questions are dishonest, a moderator should know better than answering them as if they are honest. That gives power to the dishonesty.

Have you read the thread yet? I mean, if you're going to run meta-commentary on it, you really should familiarise yourself with what went down, first.

I have read it, thanks for asking. Maybe if you re-read it without your blinkers on we might get somewhere.

I "fuelled" his behaviour? How so?

Now you're sounding like Jan!

Also, have you considered the possibility...

His intentions have no bearing on how you choose to respond to his dishonest tactics.

Are you under the impression ...

Nope, and nothing I said should reasonably lead to such a conclusion.

It's actually not my problem if Jan Ardena - or anybody else - can't control their urges to lie or troll or act out. When members sign up here, they agree to follow the site posting guidelines. There's no special clause for the mentally ill or for those with poor impulse control.

We agree.

Speaking personally, I'm remarkably tolerant of sub-standard behaviours from posters here.

Why yes, yes you are. And you honestly don't think that that is another part of the problem here?

Jan Ardena was a member here for years. You can't seriously argue that he didn't know what was expected of him as a member. Until quite recently, he never had a single warning.

Quite surprising given that he had been a troll for years. But hey, that's what "remarkably tolerant" moderation gets you, I guess.

I am not to blame for Jan's exit.

Never said you were. But you certainly didn't help matters.

Besides, what's the great loss? Why are you so worried that Jan is gone?

Where is any indication of worry, JamesR? Another example of you pulling fallacious conclusions out of your arse, I'm afraid.

One thing to bear in mind is...

Another thing to bear in mind is that you can't buy hammers at a bakery. Oh, sorry, I thought it was time to whip out any old irrelevancy. My bad.

You think?

It tends to be why I say the things I do. How about you?

Tell me why you think Jan should have been banned long ago.

For being a disruptive troll.

No. It's polite.

No, it really isn't. It's like a boxer going up to his opponent that has just been disqualified, and slapping him in the face, knowing he can't respond. Petty, and pointless.

Well, assuming no further on-topic discussion is forthcoming in the near future, I will probably take your advice about locking this thread. But it seems to me that you still have some residual questions around Jan's exit, so I'll wait until we clear those up.

No, no more questions, given the quality of the responses thus far at least. And you have no intention of countenancing there having been any problem on your part.

So best it's just left there.

 

[Vociferous]

Do you think I have insulted Jan Ardena? Please explain.

While I never said you insulted Jan, it wouldn't be a large leap to assume Jan could have found your replies to "somebody who isn't here to respond" as adding insult to injury. That does seem hypocritical, at least if you can fathom how "insulting somebody who isn't here to respond" might be petty.
No one is accusing you of being skilled at seeing the other guy's point of view though.

 

[James R]

Looks like we're done here, seeing as interest in discussing the thread topic appears to have dissipated.

Let us all put this episode behind us and turn over new leaves, then.