Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 304 (320556)
06-11-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by iano
06-11-2006 3:09 PM


Re: Request Percys comment on PEH thread closure
In inviting John A. Davison, Percy is acknowledging that the soundness or otherwise of Johns ideas has YET to be decided.
There's an "or" in there that maybe you didn't notice. Percy may merely be saying that the semi-meiotic hypothesis is simply unusual.
For that matter, to say that it is controversial hardly means that we don't know that it's wrong. Disproven ideas are often controversial - often more so for being unsupported or even contradicted. Wrong ideas are very compelling.
Moroever, the very nature of the forum itself - participation by invitation only - would seem to indicate that the "Showcase" threads are not for the purpose of submitting ideas to challenge and open debate, but rather, as a kind of museum - a nature preserve, perhaps - for cranks and pseudoscience.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by iano, posted 06-11-2006 3:09 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 06-11-2006 3:17 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2006 3:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 304 (342638)
08-23-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Trump won
08-23-2006 1:01 AM


Message 185 and her posts following deserve a suspension or reprimanding of some sort.
Message 185 of hers is clearly a response to your insults and insinuations, which you went back and deleted. Maybe you think that unrings the bell, but clearly you didn't do it fast enough. She has a right to reply to the statements that you wrote.
Honestly? I wouldn't expect the admins to be too extremely receptive to a complaint of "she hit me back." Particularly in a post where you continue to insult her. "Comprehension problems?" Please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Trump won, posted 08-23-2006 1:01 AM Trump won has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 255 of 304 (349758)
09-17-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by AdminNWR
09-15-2006 8:52 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
I guess I don't understand what's going on.
Anyone who attempts to engage Holmes finds themselves immediately sucked off-topic, having to defend themselves and the record against a ridiculously multiplying series of Holmes' dishonest distortions of their position. It happens to me, it happens to Schraf, it happens to FliesOnly. It's impossible, by Holmes' choice, to discuss any topic with him but this.
quote:
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Yet, the response of the admins, rather than investigate the problem, is assume that all participants are equally guilty and threaten closures and suspensions. Why is that?
Look, maybe the three of us are the crazy ones. Can I get some kind of indication that the admins have actually gone through and investigated the recent past of what I believe to be a genuine problem poster, and simply not found the consistent history of distortions and misrepresentations that, to my reading, are all but impossible to miss?
Or, as I suspect, do the admins find the minutae of such conversations far too boring to bother to get involved in, and they're just taking the easy way out? I guess for NWR that's true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by AdminNWR, posted 09-15-2006 8:52 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 10:58 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 257 of 304 (349763)
09-17-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by AdminPD
09-17-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 10:58 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 11:41 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 272 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 12:56 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 259 of 304 (349777)
09-17-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by AdminPD
09-17-2006 11:41 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Take whatever time you need. And consider examining other threads, like the abortion threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 11:41 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 3:56 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 263 of 304 (349819)
09-17-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Silent H
09-17-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
quote:
People reading along can (or have already since we discussed much of it previously) come to their own conclusion about who is saying what about whom.
In fact, that's exactly what I'd like the admins to do. Read the post, and determine if your actions as detailed in it merit action. Clearly the admins, some of them at least, have determined that the rest of us are not allowed to discuss those actions. Consequently the admins have, in my opinion, a duty to at least investigate that behavior if they're not going to allow the rest of us to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Silent H, posted 09-17-2006 5:01 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by AdminModulous, posted 09-17-2006 6:02 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 264 of 304 (349820)
09-17-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AdminPD
09-17-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
There are two "An Inconvenient Truth" threads.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Either Holmes' constant distortions and misrepresentations are against the rules and disrupt discussion, or they aren't. What does it matter where he's doing that, as long as we're not talking about a Showcase thread?
I don't have the expertise to know who is correct and who isn't.
Read the post. Either it's an accurate catalogue of Holmes' bad behavior, or it isn't. Look up the posts if you wish, to see if I'm taking him out of context or some other shenanigans.
I don't see what the issue is, I guess. This is the General moderation thread.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 3:56 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AdminPD, posted 09-17-2006 7:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 266 of 304 (349832)
09-17-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by AdminModulous
09-17-2006 6:02 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
In the end I ended up just thinking Why don't you BOTH SHUT UP?.
Well, shit buddy, I don't see how any of that matters. There's a responsibility commensurate with your position and it doesn't end when the posts get boring.
That's how Holmes has gotten away with it for so long, like I said, Absolutely nobody is sufficiently interested enough to actually read his posts, so he can post whatever he likes as long as its in the middle of one of his extended tomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by AdminModulous, posted 09-17-2006 6:02 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2006 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 269 by AdminModulous, posted 09-17-2006 7:21 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 273 of 304 (350043)
09-18-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Quetzal
09-17-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
You've all been around more than long enough to know that tu quoque is neither a valid defense nor a valid form of argument.
Which is why I haven't employed it. I'm not excusing my behavior; I don't believe I've done anything that needs to be excused. Pointing out how Holmes continually distorts my meaning is not an infraction.
The discussion was not off-topic. When Holmes distorted the topic the topic became his distortions.
"Be careful what you wish for" is not a bad adage for you in this instance: if it'd been me, you'd all have been gone.
Well, it is you. Remember? You're an admin? And you weren't involved in the discussion, as far as I remember. I'm not baiting you to ban me, I'm just curious what stayed your hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2006 7:05 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AdminJar, posted 09-18-2006 4:53 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 288 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2006 5:20 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 275 of 304 (350048)
09-18-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by AdminPD
09-18-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Did you even read the post? I clearly cited each accusation with examples. Most of your reasoning doesn't make any sense:
Plus I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had.
You say this a lot, but it's not true - I responded as though he had. Nobody else was taking part in the discussion, so the fact that nobody else came out and said that they interpreted it that way is irrelevant.
and this?
You are assuming it is obvious. I have no way of knowing if it was obvious or not.
Well, maybe you could use your own judgement?
And here, just as an example of how you weren't apparently paying attention:
From what I read, you said the CO2 levels weren’t on it.
I gave the context that showed this wasn't true. Did you read it? The context of the discussion was a graph that didn't have the current atmospheric CO2 levels on it. Obviously, when I said "the CO2 levels", I wasn't referring to all historic CO2 levels, but the ones that we were talking about in context - the current ones. Which aren't on the graph.
You really need to do a better job of seeing through Holmes' subtle distortions of my posts. Go back to my original posts, not how he's quoted them, or what he's implied that I've said.
Miscommunication, yes, but no misconduct.
What, over and over again? How does that happen so repeatedly and predictably to so many people without being deliberate? I'm rarely misunderstood by anybody else, so I'm pretty sure it isn't me.
You simply need to look harder. Look, there's a lot to cover, I know. Holmes' posts are long and the discussions get technical and in-depth. But nobody said being an admin would be easy or fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 12:56 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 7:46 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 304 (350050)
09-18-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by AdminJar
09-18-2006 4:53 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Sorry, didn't realize that was a new thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by AdminJar, posted 09-18-2006 4:53 PM AdminJar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 304 (350164)
09-19-2006 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by AdminPD
09-18-2006 7:46 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
To show me that you had responded to that comment as though he had implied that opponents in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning, you should have provided the link to the message and your quote.
It was message 75. You quoted it!
Nobody else participated in that discussion, so what's the relevance of nobody else replying to those statements?
I'm sorry but I simply don't understand. It seems like you're bending over backwards to avoid the obvious, here. It's not just me that recognizes Holmes' techniques of distortion.
So if you wish to continue, then be specific
I was specific, in message 75, which I linked. I substantiated my assertions with direct quotes from Holmes and context, where necessary. If you read all that but still determined that Holmes didn't say what I said he said, what else could I possibly show you? If you're determined to parse every quote in the tortured interpretation that most suits Holmes, then it's fairly obvious that you aren't appreciating the larger context of the entirety of his recent activity.
Yes, I'm asking you to read the entirety of our boring exchanges across several different threads. I'm sure it's going to be quite slow going for you, but keep in mind that I did it, plus I wrote all that, too. Or else simply tell me that you're not interested in doing that; that you don't feel you're obligated to take that kind of investigative approach. I can accept that and if that's the position of the admins, then I'll drop it. I don't intend to post to Holmes anymore (although I've said that before and I'm not good at keeping that promise.)
Just understand that that's how Holmes gets away with it - his exchanges so quickly devolve into boring errata about what was said, when, that he's able to operate under the cover of admin disinterest. Who wants to read a debate about what words mean? It's the only thing worse than actually taking part in such a debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 7:46 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 5:44 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 304 (350300)
09-19-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by AdminPD
09-19-2006 5:44 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Just to correct a few more of your misunderstandings.
The "sky is burning" comment was in Holmes' Message 46 which was a response to RAZD, not you. Why would you feel his comment concerned you?
1) If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I didn't accuse Holmes of saying that I said it. Only that he has implied that one of us said it. But nobody did.
2) As stated in the thread, RAZD's post is largely a reference to one of my own.
3) RAZD didn't say "the sky is burning", either. Nobody said that, but Holmes said that it had been said. That's a distortion.
4) In subsequent posts, Holmes repeatedly asserted that I was offering "apocalyptic visions", even though I had done no such thing. Thus, it was obvious that he was implying that I was one of the persons he intended to imply had said that "the sky was burning", even though nobody had said such a thing, except for Holmes.
In what message did you respond to that (sky burning) comment as though he had implied that opponents/Crash in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning? Please provide quote and link.
Message 75, already linked. You read it, apparently. What's the problem here?
Provide quotes and links.
Provided in message 75, which you apparently read. There's no links, but there are quotes. You seemed to find the quotes with no difficulty, even if you didn't do much to investigate their context. How can I possibly link a context to you?
No I won't be reading across several threads. Not so much disinterest as lack of time and the nature of your response to me here. You're being vague and inconsistent.
Not so. There's nothing vague about message 75. You simply haven't adequately responded to it. Reading statements and then simply saying "I don't see how he implied that" is not a response. It's a dodge, because you don't know enough about the thread yet to credibly speak about what Holmes clearly implied at the time.
But, you're not interested in investigating the context in which my interpretation becomes the obvious one. Well, that's fair. How can I possibly respond to that, except to remind you once again that this sort of admin disinterest is exactly what allows Holmes to pull threads off their topics?
You don't seem willing to clearly show me what you think I've missed in the subject thread.
What you've missed is the context. How can I link context? How can I provide context in a few small quotes? By definition, those quotes would be out of context.
You need to read the whole thread, top to bottom, or at least beginning with RAZD's post to which Holmes replied, to see the context in which my statements about Holmes are justified. But you're not willing to do that. That's fine, I can't force you to do it. But can we at least drop the pretense that you've done any sort of due diligence here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 5:44 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 3:19 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 289 of 304 (350432)
09-19-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by AdminPD
09-19-2006 3:19 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
You seem to feel that since I don't agree with you I obviously didn't read the thread or didn't read it closely.
Well, you've stated that you didn't read the whole thread in depth. Has that changed?
But you still have not clarified why you feel his statements had anything to do with anything you had said, as opposed to, the tone of the thread or the links in the OP themselves.
I didn't say that they necessarily had anything to do with what I said. But it's clear from the context, and later, from when Holmes accuses me - me, personally, not any of my sources - of offering "apocalyptic visions" that Holmes clearly meant that we, not any other sources or links, were the ones asserting "the sky is burning", even though absolutely none of us asserted such a ridiculous thing.
There's no evidence in the thread that he was talking about anybody but his direct opponents - us, who were engaged in the discussion, and then later me, more directly. You're simply inventing an interpretation that unjustly favors Holmes. Can you show me any evidence that he was referring to anyone other than those of us participating in the thread, other than a desire to grant Holmes the most charitable interpretation so as to avoid having to take action against him?
I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. But I deserve a greater rebuttal for my evidence than simply your desire to grant Holmes the benefit of as many doubts as possible. I'm not accusing you of being on his side, or not being fair. Holmes should get the benefit of the doubt. But my interpretations of his remarks were valid, and he did not dispute them. He didn't dispute any of it, except to wave a hand and assert his innocence. But none of my claims he directly challenged. I think that says something.
You were challenging unimportant comments.
I was challenging inaccurate representations of my remarks. That's what we're talking about, remember? Holmes misrepresenting his opponents over and over and over again. I was pretty sure I had made that clear.
I don't see that Holmes asserted anything concerning you and a apocalytic stance.
This is what I find so completely unbelievable. You quote from Holmes the direct statements where he does just that, and then you say you don't see it! I mean, here's the statement that you quoted:
quote:
Your hyperbolic rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature.
And you say you don't see where he's accusing me of having hyperbolic, apocalyptic rhetoric? Who did you think he meant by the second-person possessive? Santa Claus? (Hint: you can check the message itself and see who he was replying to.)
What am I supposed to conclude from that? You have serious vision problems? I'm trying really hard to be charitable, here, but when you quote something and then say you don't see what you quoted, what am I supposed to think, except that you're not taking me at all seriously?
I see no misconduct on the part of Holmes in the "An Inconvenient Truth" thread.
Naturally - you're inventing non-existent context, in this case a non-existent context that Holmes was talking about sources saying the sky was burning - although none of the sources make that claim - and not any of his opponents.
If you look at the context that actually exists, the context where Holmes repeatedly states that I'm using "apocalyptic" language, you see that clearly he meant to portray his opponents as unreasonable fearmongers spinning tall tales of man's inevitable destruction, even though absolutely noone in the thread - or even in any of the sources or links - made such a claim.
Your accusations concerning me in this thread that I have not done my best to comprehend what was written strengthens my feelings that your emotions are guiding what you see in the posts.
Can you tell me what else I should think, when you quote Holmes saying something, and then tell me that you don't see where he said that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 3:19 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 11:12 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 290 of 304 (350434)
09-19-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Quetzal
09-19-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
As jar noted, I wasn't an admin at the time.
I want to apologize for my tone, earlier. I saw a post by "AdminQuetzal" immediately before I read your remark, and thought to myself "you know, I thought that Q was an admin."
Obviously I was mistaken. Clearly I must chalk it up to the fact that you definately should be an admin, and clearly I recognized subconsciously that it was something that should have been done long ago.
Anyway, congrats, and good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2006 5:20 PM Quetzal has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024