General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Not the place for this jar and robinrohan.This thread concerns moderation.

This exchange we're having is fascinating. You really don't see what you're doing. 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.You haven't been able to stay consistent concerning the one simple statement made in Holmes' first post.Look at what you've claimed I misunderstand. Misunderstanding #1-3:
In Message 272
As you can see, I did understand that you meant implied and not that anyone spoke the specific words.In Message 277
Again, I still understood that you meant implied.In Message 279
As you can see I have not asserted that you claimed that Holmes claimed that someone actually wrote those specific words in a post.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. Yes I did check out the links and they carry the tone of doom and gloom. Yes I did read from the beginning of the thread and the posts carried the tone of doom and gloom. Like Message 22Now when you take into account that Holmes said it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole and a hyperbole is is a figure of speech consisting of an etreme exaggeration not meant to be taken literally; I see no implication towards anyones post, but towards the overall topic of the thread and the links in the OP.Since Holmes said: I'd urge restraint and progressive measurse to try and reduce human impact on the environment,...; the "sky is burning" comment says to me that scaring people into knee jerk reactions isn't going to solve the global warming problem.Misunderstanding #4
This is one of those areas I think you two were talking around each other.
Message 49
Message 52
Holmes said he didn't see that any of the effects would be as catastrophic as many portray and you essentially agree, by saying that rising sea levels and the flooding of cities doesn't seem to be unreasonably catastropic etc. So why did it matter what catastrophic claims he was thinking of. He didn't say any authority has made claims of "burning skies", which I think you lost the hyperbole point there.Message 49 Message 52 Now see I haven't found that Holmes said any of what you stated or implied them.In Messages 55 and 60, you seem to forget that this topic concerns the links provided in the OP, which has the feeling of doom and gloom or catastropic. Message 62 Even you lost track of what you were arguing about. You were challenging unimportant comments. I don't see that Holmes asserted anything concerning you and a apocalytic stance. The way you were arguing though gave you an apocalytic tone.Frankly I think you both were on the same side but different levels.

quote:

---

But can we at least drop the pretense that you've done any sort of due diligence here?

---

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.If I had agreed with you, you probably would have felt I read everything, but since I don't agree with you I obviously didn't put enough effort into it.My conclusions from Message 272 still stands. I see no misconduct on the part of Holmes in the "An Inconvenient Truth" thread.

As jar noted, I wasn't an admin at the time. By the time I was an admin, Purple had already taken it in tow. If it makes you feel better, it was that particular thread (and my whining about it to anyone who would sit still long enough) that caused my recent change in status. So I guess I owe you (and holmes and mangy) either thanks or curses depending on how things work out.So, provisionally, thank you. And remember - "Big Brother is watching" .

Well, you've stated that you didn't read the whole thread in depth. Has that changed? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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?

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.

quote:

---

Well, you've stated that you didn't read the whole thread in depth. Has that changed?

---

Now see, that statement would have carried more credibility if you had provided my actual statement to go along with it. But then I don't see that I made that statement when I gave my conclusions.

quote:

---

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?

---

Message 46 by Holmes (and contains the sky burning comment) was a response to Msg 35 by RAZD which was a response to Msg 6 by nemesis juggernaut which was a general posting.Msg 54 by RAZD was a response to Msg 46 by Holmes.
Msg 56 by Holmes was a response to Msg 54 by RAZD.In Msg 56 Holmes made this comment. I don't feel that the later apocalyptic comments to you are related to his comment about the sky burning. The above comment to RAZD shows that he did have the media on his mind also. So there is evidence that the comment was not necessarily referring to any participants in the thread.I feel his later apocalyptic comments to you stemmed from what you posted (NY being saved at the lat minute) and the tone in which you posted. Plus you had some very confusing comments that made it difficult to understand what you were arguing.

quote:

---

Holmes misrepresenting his opponents over and over and over again. I was pretty sure I had made that clear.

---

Yes you did and I didn't see that he misrepresented you in this thread any more than you misrepresented him.

quote:

---

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:

​

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.)

---

That was not one of your complaints. Please don't add.Remember, we were still discussing the "sky burning" comment and you said I misunderstood the following. I did not see that Holmes had pegged your stance as apocalyptic and therefore I don't see that the "sky burning" comment implied that you or anyone else in the thread had said that "the sky was burning". I really feel that the statement referred to media hype even on my first read through.

quote:

---

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.

---

No I'm not saying that Holmes was talking about sources saying the sky was burning. I read it as a reference to media hype. That doesn't mean the media used those words, but given that "the sky is burning" and "global warming" are used together; the media probably has at some point. IMO, he is just saying that hype isn't going to solve the problem.We aren't really getting anywhere, you've just decided to try and make me look inept. I see no reason to change my conclusions. I still see no violations worth action. My investigation is concluded and this is the end of this discussion.

Jar:You are an angry third world mind and have succeeded in driving me away. Unlike Faith, who swallows her pride by putting up with a "closet" atheist like yourself, I could care less about your "debate" board, you need me more than I need you, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have frustrated you with arguments that you cannot answer (= the real reason why you censor). The objective thing to do would be to create a spin-off topic like IIDB does, but your agenda is to muzzle creationists and not court falsification. You are a dinosaur impeding debate.Except for Brian (who never runs from a debate), and NosyNed who I kinda like, this board has changed and is beneath my time.Ray

This makes me feel pretty bad actually. Yes I think you should be an admin, but as I said earlier (and contrary to your claim above) you sure didn't say anything to me.I believe I have always valued your input, and I thought we had a good relationship, so I was sort of surprised that you got angry enough to go to anyone else without putting in a comment to me in the thread.You don't have to reply to this, but I guess I'm asking that in the future you give me a chance by simply pointing out an error at the time, rather than letting it boil over.Anyhow, congrats on the admin thing.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Why don't you feel that? Of course they're related. Why wouldn't they be related? He certainly didn't make it explicit that they were directed only to "media hype" or some such nonsense, so why isn't it a valid interpretation to apply them to the people he was replying to? I'm sorry? The complaint that Holmes accused me of unreasonable "visions of the apocalypse" was certainly a part of message 75. I'm not adding anything; you're the one who asserted that Holmes had not accused me of apocalyptic visions immediately after quoting Holmes accusing me of apocalyptic visions. I'm simply pointing out that deeply puzzling inconsistency.Like I've said before your responses are baffling. Are two people writing your posts, or something? I can't make heads or tails of the fact that you deny Holmes saying things immediately adjacent to quotes of him directly saying those things. Can you provide an explanation for your behavior? Well, ok, you didn't see it then. I can accept that. As I said there's a considerable degree of context to sort through. Now that you've quoted him pegging my stance in exactly that manner, do you see it now? What media, specifically? Which media, who said that the sky was burning, was quoted by RAZD or by any other participant in that discussion? If none, what media source did Holmes imply he was talking about, specifically, and what citation did he provide to substantiate that allegation?Exactly what constitutes a misrepresentation to you? I'm operating under the idea that any time a person directly states, implies, or even responds to an argument as though their opponent made statements that they did not make, that's a misrepresentation. What exactly does it mean to you? The same thing, or something different? What's the possible relevance of that remark, though, unless he's implying that his opponents are hyping the issue? I mean, am I just supposed to interpret every remark by Holmes as a non sequiter, completely absent of any context? Why would I interpret statements by Holmes, in a reply to me or another person, not as remarks about my statements or the statements of that person, but as completely unrelated, tangental, non sequiters on the subject of media hype, which hitherto had not been the subject of discussion? Maybe instead of cryptic accusations and just-so stories, you can answer a few questions in conclusion.Did Holmes, at any point in that thread, intentionally or unintentionally, directly state that his opponent or their sources said something they did not say?Did Holmes, at any point in that thread, intentionally or unintentionally, imply that his opponent or their sources said something they did not say?Did Holmes, at any point in that thread, intentionally or unintentionally, respond as though an opponent or their sources said something they did not say?If you conclude, as I do, that the answer to any or all of those questions is "yes", then the issue of whether or not they're offenses or just mistakes hinges on Holmes' intent. And how would we judge his intent? His protestations that they were mistakes are hardly indicative; someone who had been doing it on purpose would say the same thing.Wouldn't the fact that he does it over and over and over again, even after having it pointed out, imply that these aren't mistakes but conscious efforts to distort? Doesn't the fact that many of his opponents recognize these as conscious efforts to distort imply that they very well might be? How else might we determine his intent in these "miscommunications"? I don't see that his denials tell us much, and I don't see how tortuous reinterpretation of remarks out of context, as you've been doing, constitute some kind of defense.

jesus f***king christ crash. just shut the hell up. The last month on this board has consisted of you and Holmes bashing your heads against the damn walls. quit it already, I'm sick of this "crusade" you have here, and I'm sure others are too. sheez.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Oh, I'm sorry, friend. I didn't realize that somebody was twisting your arm, forcing you to read all this crap.Oh? What's that? They aren't? How about you simply don't read the messages you're not interested in? Pardon me oh so much for hindering your enjoyment of thrilling moderation errata, but maybe, just maybe, there are threads on this board that aren't for the express purpose of providing you with engaging reading.In fact, there's been two dozen active threads, very interesting ones, besides the 2-3 where Holmes and I were grappling, and now there's just this single thread where these issues are under discussion. So what, exactly, is your problem? Broken mouse finger?

He's got a point there, kuresu. A few weeks ago, I still found crashfrog's and holme's exchanges with each other to be amusing. I don't anymore and haven't read a single one of these posts for a week now.

I;m just sick and tired of his crusade-I quit reading the fistfight between the two a while back, and here he is, still pushing the damn issue, and to boot, trashing adminPD. I say--to crash--get off the fucking high horse, the soap box, the stump, whatever the hell your standing on. I mean come on, how long can you hold a fuckin grudge?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Can't Percy organise an 'ignore' button, where people can ignore the posts of the members they wish to?I frequent a football forum and we have that facility, and a damn handy one it is too!Brian.

To tell you the truth, I kinda understand where crash is coming from. Between having to choose to read between either long posts of crash or of holmes, I'd choose crash's anyday.Holmes seems to put too much effort in trying to mimic the writing style of german philosophers and dances (naked) around the points that he seems to want to not make. Crash, on the other hand, goes right to the point.The exchanges between crash can best be summarized as:Crash: ok, answer me this much. Do you agree that 2+2=4?Holmes: While it is clear that the summation of two numbers can best be represented by a number that equals the summation of those two numbers, many mathematicians throughout the ages have come up with various ways to mathematically model what we see as inherent physical properties in nature. In fact, for centuries the Ancient greeks used what we now know as the Pythagorian theorem to build their great monuments, some of which can still be seen throughout Greece. Proof of such a theorem, while can be very obvious to a person that has taken geometry and algebra in high school, eluded the Greeks until it was written out by the Ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras. And probably like many other Ancient Greek men, Pythagoras probably had sexual relationships with young boys. In fact, we must recognize that young people who are under the legal age can and do have sex and there seems to be no indication that such activity necessarily leads to psychological disorders.Crash: Holmes, I asked a simple question and you refused to answer me. You can fuck off, Holmes.Holmes: The answer is right there in front of your eyes, yet you wish to ignore it. You asked me what I thought about mathematical models and I answered it promptly. The classical civilizations were able to use what we now regard as simple mathematical concepts to build great structures. Their civilizations lasted far longer than any modern nation today. And as such, many of them embraced sexuality among what we consider to be children. Their societies were stable for a very long time. We, then, must consider that children can and do have sex.Crash: Whatever! Just get off your superior condescending tone and answer the question the directly. Is 2+2=4? If you continue to purposely misread what I say, then you can fuck off.Holmes: It is my understanding that many ancient civilizations developed very complex mathematics, which can be demonstrated by the myriads of ancient wonders that are still standing today. And as such, these ancient cultures also shared somewhat similar views on sex, especially with children. Girls were often married off at very early age.Crash: Grr.... fuck off, holmes!Edited by gasby, : No reason given.