Adminnemooseus, msg 256 writes:
My impression is that RAZD has largely been acting as a major league jerk since and in regards to Mirabile_Auditu's arrival. Remember, we expect the evolution side to be the rational perspective.
Adminnemooseus, msg 252 writes:
More seriously, much of RAZD's recent output has been attacks on the person of Mirabile_Auditu. Feel free to look at RAZD's most recent messages.
I take that these are what you are talking about:
RAZD {Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism} thread, msg 30, subtitled: "SpiderMBA ... Off Topic: Warning to Admin." writes:
Well hello SpiderMBA aka Buxup200 aka DarwinsProf aka John Jaeger, jactitating jingoist aka aka etc etc ... funny how you cannot hide in any name you choose because you cannot keep from going over the top in your own particular fashion. Time to check for spelling errors next right?
Yes, and I have seen those "reviews" and dismantled them in their entirety for the logical fallacies and the misrepresentations and the misconceptions that you invoke in the name of reason. You know me as RAZD8 and as AbbyLeever on another board. Would you like me to post one of your "reviews" complete with the rebuttal that you have never ever answered with any substance? Maybe the "Booknook" would be the place, so everyone can see the level of rationality and logic you put into the effort ... although the thread "Return to Humor" might be more appropriate.
I have also frequently corrected you on the above noted quote and you still choose to get it wrong: this makes you the intentionally wicked one in the subset, but we knew that.
Note to admin: this is one of the most hate filled posters ever seen on the other board I frequent. You would do well to watch him. I predict he will get himself banned, and fairly soon. His blanket condemnation of others as hateful and vile is one of his trademarks. He also classifies anyone not in his orbit around Neptune as being leftist, lying, lockstepping liberals. I can give you some examples if you like.
Same old stock phrases John, even though you have been using them for over 3 years.
What have you done that's new John? Or is "invisible glass" still it?
Enjoy.
and
RAZD, {the old improbable probability problem} thread, msg 31 writes:
SpiderMBA - or Mirabile_Auditu as you are now calling yourself -
Now that I know who you are, I am not surprised that you have not answsered my rebuttal of your weak post (Message 30), or by the logical fallacies and the ad hominem attacks and the complete lack of substance that were involved in your post.
You are not new to the process, nor to me personally, and you can expect no "kid-glove treatement" from me (as I usually give to newcomers).
Those who are unfamiliar with you will do well to take as a beginning the worst example of a FUNDIE (Fundamentalist Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) they know as a starting point.
Enjoy.
These are, I thought, very clearly posted as warnings, to admin and to others, about this person: they are based on actual experience, rather than beng gratuitous
ad hominem attacks on his person.
I also note that the substance of these comments that may appear to be attacks, have been substantiated by "Mirabile_Auditu" aka SpiderMBA himself in his several other posts (whether they are to admins in the post new topic forum or to other posters on other threads). For an example of this look at:
http://
EvC Forum: RAZD HYPOCRITICAL, HATEFUL AD HOMINEMSor
EvC Forum: Tweaking the Big Bangor
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinismor
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinismor
EvC Forum: Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class!etc.
These posts substantiate what I have said about John, so I ask: is telling the truth about someone an
ad hominem attack?
After I was informed that you did not want such warnings I posted:
RAZD {Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism}thread, msg 42 writes:
have at it then.
If anyone is aware of a reply from John where he actually and civilly debates (ie - responds more than once) the questions raised by others responding to his posts and without attacking
them, please point me to it. I am not averse to changing my opinion of John.
As far as this comment goes:
RAZD reacted by dragging in all sorts of ugly past experiences from other forums.
There are many things I know about John Jaeger from my past experience that I have not posted because they are personal information and have nothing to do with the arguments he makes (or fails to make). If I had wanted to attack John personally I would have posted much more about him.
Adminnemooseus {Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)} thread, msg 273 writes:
For persisting in posting in a topic clearly labeled "(MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)", and for ongoing general harassment behaviour.
What I posted was
RAZD {Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)} thread, msg 272 writes:
fyi - he.
his name is John Jaeger.
Because Phat (non-admin mode? posting as a civy?) had said "She/He" -- clearly this was just information.
I find it rather silly to have an open forum board that has a thread where everyone can post but are expected not to do so and then have admins get into a fit whenever someone does. I also find it silly to be so upset about a post that is only a piece of additional information and that is totally neutral about that other poster.
ohnhai, msg 250 (this thread) writes:
and how come admin only threads are not admin only.. I've set up several boards in my time and restricting access by group is really easy... so Why can non Admins even post in these topics?
Exactly.
Here's an easy solution:
close the thread.
Admins can still post to a closed thread but no-one else can (they also have to be in admin mode to do it so this would be clearer in usage as well).
I think that RAZD is very knowledgeable and intelligent. I also think he has heavy tendencies to be an arrogant bastard.
Thank you. I will take that into advisement.
On another note, I have not been a big fan of the {post new topic} concept, as I felt it did stifle some of the more spontaneous
give and take elements of the debate, forcing members to either (1) post off topic on another thread or (2) wait until a new thread is approved (and then the other person has moved on to other topics or lost interest).
I want to commend Adminnemooseus on instigating this (I believe it was his idea) policy, as I have changed my mind about the net benefit of this policy.
It certainly stops new members from spamming the board with a large number of topics that are generally "understellar" in their quality, and which are each then left undefended by the original author as he proceeds to post other similar pieces.
Thank you.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2