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

[mistermack]

I didn't think the faster-than-wind thing worked, when I found the thread, but I got it after the first reply.

I posted that it would be impossible for it to start, the pitch of the blades is the wrong way.
But as soon as someone said that it often needed a push, I could see it working once in motion.

And actually, it CAN self start, because pure drag on the framework and static blades is often enough to give it the first push forward. Once rolling, I had no problem that it could speed up and go faster than the wind.

It was a fun argument. I don't think I was on Ratscep though. I can't remember ever joining that.

[DaveDodo007]

Jeez, stop derailing this thread, you lot!

Can we get back to sledging the mods at ratskep now??

I like the fact that rationalia is showing it can debate contentious issues whitout overbearing mods ruining the discussion and more voices (the ones who have been banned at ratskep) can join in which makes it a more lively discussion. This more than anything will show that the heavy modding at ratskep is antithetical to open debate a lot more that calling the mods over there silly names.

[Warren Dew]

[c-tag][/c-tag]

My central point was that you have indeed misrepresented Metatron. In the three pages of posts preceding your interpretation of what he said, he never once mentioned conspiracy or even profit motive, nor did he even allude to either. I don't appreciate how you keep sidestepping the issue of your misrepresentation.

You're forgetting that if Mr Samsa says those three pages don't exist, then they don't. And if he says they say something that isn't there, they do.

He has magical powers like that.

Seems like he thinks so, anyway.

In a way your misrepresentation, real or imagined, is just another aspect of what I think is wrong with the way ratskep is run. Someone gets suspended, and may ultimately get permabanned for persistently misrepresenting what someone else has said? Fark. Next thing moderators may as well suspend, then ban people because they disagree with their views. Oh, wait...

Who has been banned because the moderators disagreed with their views?

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

[Beatsong]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

There are a number of problems there. The main one being that the moderators are not a single monolithic entity that thinks with one mind about all matters. They are a group of people who have various different views about various different subjects. Another is that the fact of someone being banned who happens to disagree with the views of some moderators, does not prove that they were banned for that reason. If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that. And that charge can't seriously be contested.

But to answer your question: presuming you are characterising the moderators as liberal and leftish in their prevailing views, the most obvious example of someone of the same persuasion being banned is good old rEv. Another would be Exi5tentialist.

[Mr.Samsa]

My central point was that you have indeed misrepresented Metatron. In the three pages of posts preceding your interpretation of what he said, he never once mentioned conspiracy or even profit motive, nor did he even allude to either. I don't appreciate how you keep sidestepping the issue of your misrepresentation.

You're forgetting that if Mr Samsa says those three pages don't exist, then they don't. And if he says they say something that isn't there, they do.

He has magical powers like that.

Seems like he thinks so, anyway.

So he says, without evidence, reason or support. It's almost as if you need magical powers to make such a claim given that it's not founded in any real or natural world.

[Seth]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

There are a number of problems there. The main one being that the moderators are not a single monolithic entity that thinks with one mind about all matters. They are a group of people who have various different views about various different subjects. Another is that the fact of someone being banned who happens to disagree with the views of some moderators, does not prove that they were banned for that reason. If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that. And that charge can't seriously be contested.

But to answer your question: presuming you are characterising the moderators as liberal and leftish in their prevailing views, the most obvious example of someone of the same persuasion being banned is good old rEv. Another would be Exi5tentialist.

Because one or two Marxist useful idiots are purged from the Party because they annoy the Marxist elite does not disprove the allegation that other members of the forum holding opinions opposed to the prevailing Marxist religious dogma have been banned because of the political undesirability of their participation.

That's going to remain true no matter how many times you deny it because it is true.

[Seth]

What I find highly amusing is that refugees from RatSkep have to come here in order to air grievances and discuss an issue of moderation because if they try to do it there, they get banned.

That speaks volumes about the lack of moral character and intellectual rigor at RatSkep, which cannot in fact brook any dissent or opposing opinions to it's religious doctrines of Marxism.

[Hermit]

That's going to remain true no matter how many times you deny it because it is true.

More evidence, as if it was needed, for just what a genius you are.

[pErvinalia]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

There are a number of problems there. The main one being that the moderators are not a single monolithic entity that thinks with one mind about all matters. They are a group of people who have various different views about various different subjects. Another is that the fact of someone being banned who happens to disagree with the views of some moderators, does not prove that they were banned for that reason. If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that. And that charge can't seriously be contested.

But to answer your question: presuming you are characterising the moderators as liberal and leftish in their prevailing views, the most obvious example of someone of the same persuasion being banned is good old rEv. Another would be Exi5tentialist.

Because one or two Marxist useful idiots are purged from the Party because they annoy the Marxist elite does not disprove the allegation that other members of the forum holding opinions opposed to the prevailing Marxist religious dogma have been banned because of the political undesirability of their participation.

That's going to remain true no matter how many times you deny it because it is true.

You're a nutbag!

[Seth]

That's going to remain true no matter how many times you deny it because it is true.

More evidence, as if it was needed, for just what a genius you are.

See? The truth hurts you so badly that you can do nothing but Alinsky your intellectual betters.

[JimC]

"It's true because it's true because it's true..."

On the other side of politics, I think we have useless idiots...

[Robert_S]

That's going to remain true no matter how many times you deny it because it is true.

More evidence, as if it was needed, for just what a genius you are.

See? The truth hurts you so badly that you can do nothing but Alinsky your intellectual betters.

Don't take your daddy's name in vain Seth. Join him, overthrow the emperor, and rule the galaxy as father and son.

[pErvinalia]

Lol, KennyC trolling his own thread. Idiot. - http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 45338.html

[JimC]

They've killed Kenny?!!!!

[pErvinalia]

Unfortunately not...