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

[Surendra Darathy]

You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

To do that, you have to believe you're owed something by a website you need have paid nothing to join.

[Fallible]

Samsa: what were you suspended for this time?

For "review of probationary membership". Um...OK then...

Yeah, I saw that in the temp suspension thread, but it tells us nothing. So I was more interested in what situation led to Samsa's temp suspension. But his reply is equally informative. You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

Reading between the lines, "review of probationary membership" says to me "discussing if he gets to stay a member". As to what prompted it, I can only assume it was his interactions with The_Metatron and Cito, or a combination of that with him starting a second feedback thread on the same topic when the first one was locked with a number of users still unclear on what the mod position was. Or they've just pegged him as a troll and this "review" is not directly relevant to anything he did immediately before the suspension - there is precedent for those viewed as trolls being banned without a specific incident being the culprit, but the posting pattern of the individual. But as you say, it could be made a lot clearer.

[pErvinalia]

So what are you doing here then?

I'm a member of this site, rEv. Is that plain enough for ya?

Too plain, I think. You only comment here when your fee fees are getting hurt. You are trying to win back your honour from us scandalous jizz-mongers who would deign to point out that you post salad in place of erudite commentary.

The only man who can write 5 paragraphs and essentially say nothing.

I see you have a long list of authors upon whose style you condescend to comment. There's just no pleasing some people, they of such elevated sensibilities.

I see you still can't use the quote function properly. Too many glasses of cooking sherry tonight, perhaps?

[Fallible]

You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

To do that, you have to believe you're owed something by a website you need have paid nothing to join.

Only if you're of such limited intellectual capacity that you can only countenance a single reason for one holding such an opinion.

[Surendra Darathy]

Too many glasses of cooking sherry tonight, perhaps?

What make you suppose that it's night-time in my part of the world, honey? Too many glasses of cooking sherry? Or just the same old simple provincialism I've seen from you time and again?

[Mr.Samsa]

Samsa: what were you suspended for this time?

For "review of probationary membership". Um...OK then...

Yeah, I saw that in the temp suspension thread, but it tells us nothing. So I was more interested in what situation led to Samsa's temp suspension. But his reply is equally informative. You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

Yeah it's all pretty weird. The only thing I could think of was either the debatable "revealing of PM contents" in the feedback thread (which I fixed within minutes), or the "inflammatory posting" in the ADHD thread where I suggested that Metatron supported an anti-science position because of his lack of knowledge of how science works, or potentially "misrepresentation" as I described his Big Pharma theory of drugging children as the "aliens theory".

If they think I've broken the rules then I don't see what the issue is with just giving me a warning (and thus month suspension due to my 'probationary status' - though I hope the last 48hrs is deducted from it otherwise that's pretty shitty). If they think they have a case that I'm a "troll", which is fucking ridiculous, then there's no point in suspending me for 48hrs or referring to my probationary status, as a troll is a troll regardless of whether they're on probation or not.

They'll have an extremely hard time demonstrating that I'm a "troll" though (if that's what they're trying to do), given that by far my contribution to the forum consists of constructive posts and I even dedicate a lot of my time to the feedback section trying to improve the functioning of the site. They also need near-unanimous agreement for the decision to go ahead and I don't think all of the mods would be petty enough to twist the rules to suit their personal desires.

So who knows what the fuck is going on.

[Fallible]

Too many glasses of cooking sherry tonight, perhaps?

What make you suppose that it's night-time in my part of the world, honey? Too many glasses of cooking sherry? Or just the same old simple provincialism I've seen from you time and again?

How did provincialism make you fuck up the quote function?

[Surendra Darathy]

Samsa: what were you suspended for this time?

For "review of probationary membership". Um...OK then...

Yeah, I saw that in the temp suspension thread, but it tells us nothing. So I was more interested in what situation led to Samsa's temp suspension. But his reply is equally informative. You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

Reading between the lines, "review of probationary membership" says to me "discussing if he gets to stay a member". As to what prompted it, I can only assume it was his interactions with The_Metatron and Cito, or a combination of that with him starting a second feedback thread on the same topic when the first one was locked with a number of users still unclear on what the mod position was. Or they've just pegged him as a troll and this "review" is not directly relevant to anything he did immediately before the suspension - there is precedent for those viewed as trolls being banned without a specific incident being the culprit, but the posting pattern of the individual. But as you say, it could be made a lot clearer.

Do you really think that a reference to someone's 'probationary membership' does not include considering all the reasons why that membership is probationary in the first place. Of course, you can assume your conclusion, namely, that every charge against poor ol' Samsa is trumped up nonsense, regardless of what lies there staring back at you from the pages of that forum. The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one. Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

[Mr.Samsa]

The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one. Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

I think you're clutching at straws if you're trying to label me as "emotionally volatile".. Unless having laughing fits at your incoherent nonsense is "emotionally volatile", and then yeah, sure.

[Surendra Darathy]

The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one. Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

I think you're clutching at straws if you're trying to label me as "emotionally volatile".. Unless having laughing fits at your incoherent nonsense is "emotionally volatile", and then yeah, sure.

That's part of it, of course, Samsa. But I see you're not denying the bits about attacking people instead of ideas. QED. Should you survive your judicial review, I hope you'll take that forward in interacting with me over there. The more personal attacks you make, the better. Sooner or later, it will add up.

[Mr.Samsa]

That's part of it, of course, Samsa. But I see you're not denying the bits about attacking people instead of ideas. QED. Should you survive your judicial review, I hope you'll take that forward in interacting with me over there. The more personal attacks you make, the better. Sooner or later, it will add up.

I did address that - I referred to your ideas as nonsense. The idea that I attack people instead of ideas on ratskep is absurd and you can't find any evidence to support you there.

As for "interacting with you in the future", do you really think your trolling should be tolerated and your bullshit not called out? You know I was interested in how many times you used the words "spoon" and "bend" in your posts, and you had done it over 300 times. That's like once every 3-4 days. And you think you're not a troll and that you're somebody who deserves to be spoken to like a real boy? Jesus christ.

[pErvinalia]

Too many glasses of cooking sherry tonight, perhaps?

What make you suppose that it's night-time in my part of the world, honey? Too many glasses of cooking sherry? Or just the same old simple provincialism I've seen from you time and again?

It's always night somewhere in the world, Surrender. You should stick to wibble. Attempting rational argumentation doesn't suit you...

[Hermit]

I saw that in the temp suspension thread

Ratskep has a classification called temp suspension? Are the the people who came up with this tautology unaware that suspensions are temporary by definition, or is their objective to raise the rules to ever greater heights of Byzantine complexity and Kafkaesque absurdity?

Oh, and hello Cito. I was hoping not to get reacquainted with your tortuously expressed verbosity signifying nothing since I had the misfortune to encounter some of them at, I think it was TR, but since you have decided to spread your public wanking to this forum once again, enjoy yourself. No harm done. Your jizz will dry up soon enough, and people will step over it without fearing the soles of their shoes will spread it all over the place.

[aspire1670]

Samsa: what were you suspended for this time?

For "review of probationary membership". Um...OK then...

Yeah, I saw that in the temp suspension thread, but it tells us nothing. So I was more interested in what situation led to Samsa's temp suspension. But his reply is equally informative. You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

Reading between the lines, "review of probationary membership" says to me "discussing if he gets to stay a member". As to what prompted it, I can only assume it was his interactions with The_Metatron and Cito, or a combination of that with him starting a second feedback thread on the same topic when the first one was locked with a number of users still unclear on what the mod position was. Or they've just pegged him as a troll and this "review" is not directly relevant to anything he did immediately before the suspension - there is precedent for those viewed as trolls being banned without a specific incident being the culprit, but the posting pattern of the individual. But as you say, it could be made a lot clearer.

If one examines the reasons why a membership is probationary one is faced with a choice: either accept subcultural discourse or conclude that probation serves to marginalize the Other. The capitalist paradigm of consensus holds that the collective is intrinsically unattainable, but only if the premise of cultural postmaterial theory is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that reality is a product of the masses. It could be said that an abundance of probationary sublimations concerning the common ground between reality and class exist.

[pErvinalia]

The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one. Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

I think you're clutching at straws if you're trying to label me as "emotionally volatile".. Unless having laughing fits at your incoherent nonsense is "emotionally volatile", and then yeah, sure.

That's part of it, of course, Samsa. But I see you're not denying the bits about attacking people instead of ideas. QED. Should you survive your judicial review, I hope you'll take that forward in interacting with me over there. The more personal attacks you make, the better. Sooner or later, it will add up.

Seriously, heal thyself, wibblician! Your posts are almost always directed at the person, not at the content. This is easy to determine, as your standard MO is to ignore the crux of a post and pick an inconsequential part of the post and use it in an attempt to make the poster look stupid. Seriously, you'd have to be an even bigger nong than you already are if you think most people can't see through your trolling. Presumably the mods are in awe of your shiny baubles, but given their competence, that's not something to be too proud of.