Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 31 of 860 (681289)
11-24-2012 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
11-24-2012 10:42 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
I go with 2 or 3.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 11:23 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 860 (681290)
11-24-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
11-24-2012 10:42 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Since I don't see a resolution coming soon, I'd say 2 as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 33 of 860 (681291)
11-24-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 10:22 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
have the messages posted by any other EvC member at completely unrelated websites resulted in a massive hacking attempt against EvC, simply because I post here?
WTF?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 10:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 11:19 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 34 of 860 (681292)
11-24-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Admin
11-24-2012 10:42 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
In other words, you're using your well known propensity for intensely pissing people off as evidence of a conspiratorial vendetta.
Well, hold on. I never said anything about a conspiracy. I don't think people are collaborating against me, I don't think that there is "behind the scenes" plotting going on on or anything like that.
I'm just saying that there's something about my posts - even my completely legitimate, rational, dispassionate ones! - that trigger a disproportionate emotional response in people. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Like, let's use the example of the hackers I seem to have pissed off; as it happens, I know exactly what I said that pissed them off. All I said was that I don't think women should be raped. The guy who showed up and hacked your website wasn't even the guy I was saying it to.
I can't help it if my words have a magic power to drive people to emotional distraction. All I ask is that I not be the only one in the conversation who is subject to the Forum Guidelines.
What I do see is that you are taking up my time with, however significant and important they seem to you, frivolous issues.
Well, look, Percy. I didn't ask you to insert yourself into that thread. I didn't ask you to say that you'd take a look as posts came in to see if I would be misrepresented. I didn't ask you to say that saying that you were going to do so was actually a joke. I didn't ask you to say a "moderator was now on duty" and then decide that actually moderating an issue in progress would be a waste of your time.
I've not asked you to do anything you've done in this thread or the other. Everything I've done has been at your request, so how on Earth are you getting the idea that I'm taking up your time? Honestly, all you had to do was say "misrepresentation in this thread is not something that the moderators are concerned about" and that'd be it. I can't take any more of your time than you're prepared to give me. Say your piece, I'll say mine, and we'll be done. We'd have been done, except that you decided to attribute to me a position I don't actually hold. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'll try to be clearer in the future, consider yourself fully informed about my actual position, now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 11-24-2012 10:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 11:23 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 35 of 860 (681293)
11-24-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theodoric
11-24-2012 11:00 AM


The Hack, a brief history
WTF?
It was just something that happened back in 2010:
We're Back!
Message 14:
quote:
Hi Crash,
Just a quick off-topic note to tell you to be careful out there. You evidently pissed off some hackers in a discussion about rape, and last week they successfully hacked into EvC Forum for your password. Hopefully you're not using the same password at wherever this discussion was.
--Percy
Message 1
quote:
The hackers were able to break in because dBoard software had no security features whatsoever. Making the software secure was on my list of things to do before taking the software commercial, but I hadn't gotten to it yet.
So the hackers broke in and gave me a crash course on site security. Thanks to the hackers (and I mean that sincerely - they found security holes I never would have thought to plug), this site's software is now very secure, but unfortunately Politicus Maximus was a casualty. The site still exists, but I disabled it because it has the same insecure version of the software that caused so many security problems here at EvC Forum.
One could reasonably argue that the odds that hackers are going to take any interest in Politicus Maximus is miniscule, but the same was true of EvC Forum. The only reason they came here was because Crashfrog had pissed them off debating abortion at some other site, and so they poked around the web for other websites Crash was using, found this one, broke in, stole his password, discovered he was using a different password at the other site, and so they decided to have some fun here.
All of this was the result of a single post I had made - not one in a series, just a single one-off comment on a thread at one of the Gawker websites, Jezebel I think - saying that women shouldn't get raped.
That was it. I just don't understand how it can be denied that even my reasonable, non-controversial posts cause some kind of dissociation rage in a certain small percentage of susceptible readers.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2012 11:00 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 860 (681294)
11-24-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
From my point of view the problem we had was that your argument ("Jesus wasn't called Jesus Christ therefore he didn't exist") was batshit raving crazy and no sane person could possibly accept it. Any idea that I disagreed with it because you were making it is equally divorced from reality.
So I guess you need to improve your own evaluation of what is going wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 11:13 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 11:25 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 37 of 860 (681295)
11-24-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nwr
11-24-2012 10:53 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Agreed, 2 or 3 is fine; if summation is offered I'll probably only quote my Message 373 which sums up my positions in that thread, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 11-24-2012 10:53 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 38 of 860 (681296)
11-24-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
11-24-2012 11:23 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
From my point of view the problem we had was that your argument ("Jesus wasn't called Jesus Christ therefore he didn't exist")
But that wasn't my argument. That's a position you're attributing to me - perhaps unintentionally! - that I didn't espouse or actually hold. And I told you as much. Several times.
I have to attribute the fact that you didn't listen to a personal, emotional response. Because you did get quite emotional, at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 11:55 AM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 860 (681297)
11-24-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 11:25 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Well, Crash at the very least you made the argument that it was somehow significant to the idea of Jesus not existing. And that IS batshit crazy.
e.g.
Message 165
When "historical Jesus" proponents actually get around to describing who Jesus Christ actually was, they invariably produce an individual who wasn't named either Jesus or Christ. And the reason I say "wasn't executed by Romans" is because he doesn't seem to have been executed by Romans...
or Message 223
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
And I hope I don't need to go into the silliness of your "doesn't seem to have been executed by Romans" argument.
Transliterations and translations are inevitable when you take words from one language to another with a different script. You HAVE to do one or the other. To assign any special significance to them is just silly.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 11:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 12:11 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 40 of 860 (681298)
11-24-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
11-24-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Well, Crash at the very least you made the argument that it was somehow significant to the idea of Jesus not existing. And that IS batshit crazy.
This is the wrong thread to re-litigate (unfortunately there's no open historical Jesus thread to move this to) but this would seem to be your admission that you were wrong. As your quotes show:
quote:
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
Right, and that was the argument that I was making - when you assert, as the source of a series of stories about a mythological figure a historical figure who bears no significant similarity to the mythological one, it's insufficient to simply say that the historical figure is the source of the mythological one.
You have to explain why we should believe that the one is the source of the other, when the one doesn't seem to be the source of any of the meaningful characteristics of the other. As I said repeatedly in that thread, and as you repeatedly ignored, asserting that a figure
quote:
who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later
is the source of a myth about a figure named Jesus Christ who did miracles, was a carpenter, gave the Sermon on the Mount, magnified the fishes and loaves, was executed by the Romans, and rose from his grave three days later is absolutely every bit as absurd as saying that the historical basis for Santa Claus is a guy named Lou who lives in Brooklyn, doesn't know anything about making toys, and isn't especially fond of children.
It would have been a much more interesting discussion if you had actually ever addressed that argument, which I made a dozen times, rather than forcing me to rebut time after time your inaccurate insistence that I was making an argument that the historical Jesus couldn't have been the historical Jesus unless his name was Jesus.
Please, PaulK, let's not drive this any further off-topic. If you have a reply to this post, please open a "historical Jesus" thread to do so.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 11:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 12:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 860 (681299)
11-24-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 12:11 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
quote:
Right, and that was the argument that I was making - when you assert, as the source of a series of stories about a mythological figure a historical figure who bears no significant similarity to the mythological one, it's insufficient to simply say that the historical figure is the source of the mythological one.
Thank you for confirming my point. Because listing a similarity as a lack of similarity makes no sense whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 12:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 12:36 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 43 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 12:55 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 42 of 860 (681302)
11-24-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
11-24-2012 12:22 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Because listing a similarity as a lack of similarity makes no sense whatever.
I don't understand, I guess. Could you start another thread and expand this sentence? It doesn't make any sense to me because I didn't "list a similarity as a lack of similarity" What does that even mean? I'd like you to have the chance to explain but it shouldn't be in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 12:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 43 of 860 (681307)
11-24-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
11-24-2012 12:22 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
But crash is right that this is not the place for this discussion. Though if you want to have it, there's always the PNT procedure.
As for the matter at hand. I don't think any form of actionable misrepresentation is taking place that I have seen. It seems to me that what's happening in general is that people are trying to show what they feel are flaws in crash's argument by showing were they feel it breaks down.
If they are wrong about where crash's argument breaks down, that isn't misrepresentation. For example let's take Message 402, which is claimed to be a misrepresentation. Looking at the post as a whole, it seems hooah's understanding of crash's position came from Message 325 where crashfrog responded to an example that hooah had constructed where black people had privilege and were discriminating based on race which crashfrog said wasn't racist.
He was saying this runs in contrast to crashfrog's stated position that a situation like that where ' where the black man had more racial privilege than the white person, that would be racism.'
Personally, I think that crashfrog misunderstood hooah. Either because in hooah's example wasn't sufficiently clear or some failing of crashfrog's or both, it doesn't really matter.
Hooah was trying to point out what he felt was the difference in the ideals crashfrog was espousing and the way crashfrog was applying them to examples being raised. That seems a legitimate debate course to take, even if we want to criticize hooah's execution of it.
I've held off from commenting previously because crashfrog isn't exactly a fan of my moderator actions/comments. However, he did ask for another moderator to take a look at the situation. If crashfrog has a preferred moderator he'd like to take a look, he should probably PM that person.
Though I would say one further thing, as related to the topic the discussion may well be, it seems to have become something of a topic in its own right and maybe someone wants to try making a new topic dedicated to it...though if it brews more bad blood that might not be the wisest course of action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2012 12:22 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 1:07 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 44 of 860 (681308)
11-24-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AdminModulous
11-24-2012 12:55 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
It seems to me that what's happening in general is that people are trying to show what they feel are flaws in crash's argument by showing were they feel it breaks down.
Well, ok, but the argument they show breaking down has to be my argument, or else isn't it a form of misrepresentation?
Actually, that's something I'd like a moderator ruling on, since none of you have said one way or the other. If I respond to an argument my opponent didn't make, but I do so in a way that I'm implying like he made it, or at the very least I'm acting like he made it, is that a form of misrepresentation?
Intentional or otherwise, just for the record - would that be a form of misrepresentation?
crashfrog responded to an example that hooah had constructed where black people had privilege and were discriminating based on race which crashfrog said wasn't racist.
This is inaccurate. Hooah did not construct an example where "black people had privilege." So he could not have been responding to my response to an example that wasn't given.
Personally, I think that crashfrog misunderstood hooah.
Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? Did I misunderstand him when he called my statements lies in that message? Did I misunderstand him when he attributed to me the position
quote:
merely having a certain skin color does... in all scenarios, grant universal privilege
or was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me? That doesn't seem to be the case, because I did ask him if he was attributing that position to me (this was in Message 408) and he, in Message 410, confirms that he was. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand (or, perhaps, misrepresent) Hooah's post, here?
That seems a legitimate debate course to take, even if we want to criticize hooah's execution of it.
Has anybody criticized Hooah's execution of it? The only one anyone seems to want to criticize is me. Once again, Mod, I'm forced to conclude that you're doing a great job of moderating an internet board - just, by any indication, a completely different one than EvC.
However, he did ask for another moderator to take a look at the situation.
I appreciate your look, but you don't seem to be done, yet. Is it your contention that every one of the seven examples I've given so far has just been a "misunderstanding"? Are you sure that's the case? Before you arrive at that conclusion, could you please look at each one, and consider them as a pattern and not merely individual isolated cases each to consider in the light of the maximally generous interpretation for my opponents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 12:55 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 11-24-2012 2:22 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 860 (681311)
11-24-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
11-24-2012 12:36 PM


Re: Moderator attention in that thread
Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 12:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2012 1:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024