DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Warren Dew]

Samsa even now does not regard him [Seth] as any more of a troll than Samsa is.

[Fallible]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

Uhm yeah, I was there at the time and I think it was mostly econ41 and me who argued against the ban.

You think wrong, on pretty much all fronts. You weren't there at the time, you resigned soon after Starr became Senior Moderator (she was the first Senior Moderator) in 2010 which was before Seth's ban in 2011, so this isn't surprising.

In fact when the vote came all voted for it except me , and econ abstained.

Obviously by the time he was finally voted off the forum a majority voted for it, that's why he was banned. That's kind of how it works. However you seem to be talking about an entirely different forum at which people voted to ban Seth. You didn't vote either way and you have no knowledge about who else voted, because you weren't there.

In fact there immediately followed a thread informing the membership IIRC. During this time of endless heated discussions I had been receiving a lot of ....assertive PMs pressuring me to vote for the ban, 62 in one day once. Quite frankly I am unable to recall if you were a mod at that time or not. It was early days and Richard Prins and Topsy were senior mods.

No, clearly I wasn't a mod at the time, that's why I can remember that Richard Prins and Topsy were never Senior Moderators since the post was created for Starr. So it was actually Starr who was senior mod at the time Seth was banned - you had already resigned, so you never took part in a vote about his banning. Unsurprising you don't remember if I was a mod or not, since you rather childishly avoided ever communicating with me directly for the entire time you were on the team. I was a mod from the very beginning, and for two and a half years, so yes, I was there at the time. You however were not.

Also, I was able to read every report along with the posts and they were some bogus ones; which, if they'd have been dropped, would have left Seth shy of enough for suspension let alone ban. There was some manipulation of the process for convenience and to appease the rabble.

Yes dear, of course there was. Is there any reason this should be believed given that you would argue till blue in the face that Seth never used the word "pettifoggery" if he asked you to?

Something else, that if you were there and privy you should know. What was THWOTH's stance at the time?

I told you, I was a moderator from the very beginning, I was a moderator when Seth was banned and I was a moderator for two and a half years. I've no idea what the stance was of someone who didn't become a mod until weeks before I left. You're talking about some other situation, not the banning of Seth from ratskep. That's the only explanation I can think of for the pile of balls you just served up.

Here are some dates for you:

Starr becomes Senior mod: April 2010

Gallstones resigns: unclear, but this post is dated November 10, 2010, emphasis mine -

Why I resigned. I had a friend. A best friend whom I loved and whose regard and respect and attention I valued very highly. Too highly perhaps. Ironically my having to apply the law (FUA) and my involvement as an enforcer and advocate of the law was a frequent source of friction and argument with this friend. I felt that if I could remove this one factor it would provide some relief and I would be able to preserve the relationship. So, I resigned to bring peace to the friendship.

Seth banned: February 2011

You're welcome.

[Fallible]

The spirit of Alinsky will descend upon Samsa with great wrath for his heresy.

And all those hundreds of members of ratskep who never even mentioned Seth and to all intents and purposes can be said to have held no opinion on him, no doubt.

I expect that most of these hundreds of members weren't members when Seth was. Certain ones who were mention him still. Not that it matters.

The forum has 6298 members. Even if membership was half that at the time, it's not unreasonable to assume there were hundreds of members around when Seth was there. The majority of the membership gave no opinion on him at all. Occasionally someone will mention his name, as they mention the names of Tyrannical and rainbow. Not that it matters.

[Gallstones]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

Uhm yeah, I was there at the time and I think it was mostly econ41 and me who argued against the ban.

You think wrong, on pretty much all fronts. You weren't there at the time, you resigned soon after Starr became Senior Moderator (she was the first Senior Moderator) in 2010 which was before Seth's ban in 2011, so this isn't surprising.

In fact when the vote came all voted for it except me , and econ abstained.

Obviously by the time he was finally voted off the forum a majority voted for it, that's why he was banned. That's kind of how it works. However you seem to be talking about an entirely different forum at which people voted to ban Seth. You didn't vote either way and you have no knowledge about who else voted, because you weren't there.

In fact there immediately followed a thread informing the membership IIRC. During this time of endless heated discussions I had been receiving a lot of ....assertive PMs pressuring me to vote for the ban, 62 in one day once. Quite frankly I am unable to recall if you were a mod at that time or not. It was early days and Richard Prins and Topsy were senior mods.

No, clearly I wasn't a mod at the time, that's why I can remember that Richard Prins and Topsy were never Senior Moderators since the post was created for Starr. So it was actually Starr who was senior mod at the time Seth was banned - you had already resigned, so you never took part in a vote about his banning. Unsurprising you don't remember if I was a mod or not, since you rather childishly avoided ever communicating with me directly for the entire time you were on the team. I was a mod from the very beginning, and for two and a half years, so yes, I was there at the time. You however were not.

Also, I was able to read every report along with the posts and they were some bogus ones; which, if they'd have been dropped, would have left Seth shy of enough for suspension let alone ban. There was some manipulation of the process for convenience and to appease the rabble.

Yes dear, of course there was. Is there any reason this should be believed given that you would argue till blue in the face that Seth never used the word "pettifoggery" if he asked you to?

Something else, that if you were there and privy you should know. What was THWOTH's stance at the time?

I told you, I was a moderator from the very beginning, I was a moderator when Seth was banned and I was a moderator for two and a half years. I've no idea what the stance was of someone who didn't become a mod until weeks before I left. You're talking about some other situation, not the banning of Seth from ratskep. That's the only explanation I can think of for the pile of balls you just served up.

Here are some dates for you:

Starr becomes Senior mod: April 2010

Gallstones resigns: unclear, but this post is dated November 10, 2010, emphasis mine -

Why I resigned. I had a friend. A best friend whom I loved and whose regard and respect and attention I valued very highly. Too highly perhaps. Ironically my having to apply the law (FUA) and my involvement as an enforcer and advocate of the law was a frequent source of friction and argument with this friend. I felt that if I could remove this one factor it would provide some relief and I would be able to preserve the relationship. So, I resigned to bring peace to the friendship.

Seth banned: February 2011

You're welcome.

No appreciation owed because Seth was banned at RDF first. And when ratskep opened there was some discussion among the then staff whether he and Tyrannical should just be excluded at the outset. If you had been a moderator from the beginning you'd know that. You'd also know that Richard Prinns and Topsy had been taken on from the beginning to act in the leadership role.

Your'e not having been part of the initiation of the animosity means you can't know if there is a pile of balls or just your assumptions about something you might like to have been part of but weren't and are thus ignorant.


Secondly that last quote isn't in reference to Seth.

You're not welcome, but you are a condescending cunt.

[Gallstones]

No, clearly I wasn't a mod at the time,

I told you, I was a moderator from the very beginning,

So which is it?

[Fallible]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

Uhm yeah, I was there at the time and I think it was mostly econ41 and me who argued against the ban.

You think wrong, on pretty much all fronts. You weren't there at the time, you resigned soon after Starr became Senior Moderator (she was the first Senior Moderator) in 2010 which was before Seth's ban in 2011, so this isn't surprising.

In fact when the vote came all voted for it except me , and econ abstained.

Obviously by the time he was finally voted off the forum a majority voted for it, that's why he was banned. That's kind of how it works. However you seem to be talking about an entirely different forum at which people voted to ban Seth. You didn't vote either way and you have no knowledge about who else voted, because you weren't there.

In fact there immediately followed a thread informing the membership IIRC. During this time of endless heated discussions I had been receiving a lot of ....assertive PMs pressuring me to vote for the ban, 62 in one day once. Quite frankly I am unable to recall if you were a mod at that time or not. It was early days and Richard Prins and Topsy were senior mods.

No, clearly I wasn't a mod at the time, that's why I can remember that Richard Prins and Topsy were never Senior Moderators since the post was created for Starr. So it was actually Starr who was senior mod at the time Seth was banned - you had already resigned, so you never took part in a vote about his banning. Unsurprising you don't remember if I was a mod or not, since you rather childishly avoided ever communicating with me directly for the entire time you were on the team. I was a mod from the very beginning, and for two and a half years, so yes, I was there at the time. You however were not.

Also, I was able to read every report along with the posts and they were some bogus ones; which, if they'd have been dropped, would have left Seth shy of enough for suspension let alone ban. There was some manipulation of the process for convenience and to appease the rabble.

Yes dear, of course there was. Is there any reason this should be believed given that you would argue till blue in the face that Seth never used the word "pettifoggery" if he asked you to?

Something else, that if you were there and privy you should know. What was THWOTH's stance at the time?

I told you, I was a moderator from the very beginning, I was a moderator when Seth was banned and I was a moderator for two and a half years. I've no idea what the stance was of someone who didn't become a mod until weeks before I left. You're talking about some other situation, not the banning of Seth from ratskep. That's the only explanation I can think of for the pile of balls you just served up.

Here are some dates for you:

Starr becomes Senior mod: April 2010

Gallstones resigns: unclear, but this post is dated November 10, 2010, emphasis mine -

Why I resigned. I had a friend. A best friend whom I loved and whose regard and respect and attention I valued very highly. Too highly perhaps. Ironically my having to apply the law (FUA) and my involvement as an enforcer and advocate of the law was a frequent source of friction and argument with this friend. I felt that if I could remove this one factor it would provide some relief and I would be able to preserve the relationship. So, I resigned to bring peace to the friendship.

Seth banned: February 2011

You're welcome.

No appreciation owed because Seth was banned at RDF first.

This conversation is about RATSKEP, not RDF. For fuck's sake make sure you actually understand what people are discussing before you try and put others right.

And when ratskep opened there was some discussion among the then staff whether he and Tyrannical should just be excluded at the outset.

Quite fucking obviously not what we're talking about, which is Seth's banning from ratskep.

If you had been a moderator from the beginning you'd know that. You'd also know that Richard Prinns and Topsy had been taken on from the beginning to act in the leadership role.

So let me get this straight - you're actually refuting that I was a moderator since the beginning by using my assumed lack of knowledge about a discussion that no one at all was referring to? Get a fucking grip. I don't give a shit that you don't accept that I was a mod from the beginning, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on anything else so why should that be any different?

Your'e not having been part of the initiation of the animosity means you can't know if there is a pile of balls or just your assumptions about something you might like to have been part of but weren't and are thus ignorant.

You're embarrassing yourself. The subject is Seth's banning from ratskep, not RDF or when some animosity originated. You weren't involved in that process, because you were not a moderator when Seth was banned and can't say what happened. Given this, what you wrote above is demonstrably utter bullshit as a result of you having completely misunderstood what people are discussing. All you're doing now is pretty clumsily attempting to move the goalposts.

Secondly that last quote isn't in reference to Seth.

The important part was the fucking date you posted it, not who it was about, Einstein. You talk about why you resigned months BEFORE Seth was banned - meaning, because you seem to be a bit fucking slow, that you couldn't have been a moderator when he was banned.

You're not welcome, but you are a condescending cunt.

U mad?

[Fallible]

No, clearly I wasn't a mod at the time,

I told you, I was a moderator from the very beginning,

So which is it?

Sarcasm is among the many things that pass you by, apparently.

[Robert_S]

The spirit of Alinsky will descend upon Samsa with great wrath for his heresy.

And all those hundreds of members of ratskep who never even mentioned Seth and to all intents and purposes can be said to have held no opinion on him, no doubt.

Alinski Damn them!


For those who don't know, Alinski is a troll who died 40 years ago but still has Seth in a perpetual butthurt rage. Alinski is also the leader of The Conspiracy as well as secretly being Seth's father.

[Fallible]

[Seabass]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

[Fallible]

Actually, I agree with you on Factman. I think perhaps he should have got more than he did, he was quite consistently abusive to other posters.

[Mr.Samsa]

You do talk some bollocks. Being cautious about drug prescription is anti-science ?
Fucking rubbish.

Being "cautious" about drug prescription does not mean that you argue that it doesn't work, is unneeded, and harmful.

Of course there are side effects and harmful issues with drugs, it's the same for all of them. If I argued that people shouldn't undergo chemotherapy to get rid of their cancer because it'll make them sick then you'd rightly call me a moron.

The problem is that people would still be suffering without medication and metatron has presented no evidence that they're better off without it.

[Mr.Samsa]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

The discussions over banning 914 (and maybe fact man) were probably just as regular as Seth. Seth simply got unlucky when one day there was a technical majority in favor of it and it was far from a unanimous decision.

[JimC]

This is like the current day tiny Communist Party of Russia arguing over whether getting rid of Trotsky was a legitimate move...

[Seth]

Well this is the great thing about Seth's idiotic mega Marxist world (or forum) domination conspiracy theory. You don't even have to know you are a Marxist to be part of the conspiracy!

That's why Marx called your type "useful idiots."