Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[pErvinalia]

DD fingered rEvolutionist...

I haz been raped??

[JimC]

DD fingered rEvolutionist...

I haz been raped??

And you loved every second of it!

[pErvinalia]

I'm calling FTB!!

[pErvinalia]

You cunts! How could so many people think that I would be that shit??? Fuckers. At least Bill knows me well enough.

It's obviously a Christian troll. I never had much to do with debunking religionists, so I couldn't say who it is. But it's clearly someone who's been done over by Hack and Cali before. If I had to guess on who it would be via who I know, I would say either Hugin (because of the pathetic whiney style), or Seth coz he loves stirring up atheist/theist shit.

[Scott1328]

You cunts! How could so many people think that I would be that shit??? Fuckers. At least Bill knows me well enough.

It's obviously a Christian troll. I never had much to do with debunking religionists, so I couldn't say who it is. But it's clearly someone who's been done over by Hack and Cali before. If I had to guess on who it would be via who I know, I would say either Hugin (because of the pathetic whiney style), or Seth coz he loves stirring up atheist/theist shit.

Well, you did say you were going to do that very thing and pin it on some one else...

[surreptitious57]

I love the way how Samsa has all the evidence at his disposal to prove his case. He seems to be unaware of the fact that there will be variation of interpretation as
regards the FUA because that is just human nature. For no matter how watertight a particular rule is there is always going to be that. No system is perfect because
it is designed by imperfect beings so has imperfection in it by default. Beatsong was absolutely right to explain the basics to him : namely that it is not that difficult
to stay within the FUA. I manage it without even having to try and so does the vast majority of the forum as well. When I provided evidence of provocation on his part
towards Scarlett instead of accepting responsibility for it he chose to move the goal posts. He specifically referred to her behaviour as shitty and so I said that this was evidence of intent to inflame which is against the FUA. But instead of accepting responsibility for this he completely denied it by invoking mock surprise instead. When
you have a situation like this it is obvious that there is ulterior motive at work. It should also be pointed out that Scarlett and Samsa have a history because of their very
different views on feminism. But the irony of someone demanding accountability when he will not accept it for himself appears to be completely lost on him. And he can
do better that now. As I said before : he is an intelligent man and this is not rocket science

Now while I may take issue with anyone and on anything over at Rat Skep I do not do so for any other reason other than I believe them to be wrong. I do not do group think and so my motivation cannot be questioned. I am only interested in ideas not individuals. However that does not stop me from recognising the worth of someones contribution to the forum. And so while I fundamentally disagree with Samsa here and question his modus operandi I can see also that he is one of the best members we have and it would be a terrible blow to Rat Skep now were he to leave. That is a decision ultimately for him so just saying

I do not really have a problem with the moderation there. I manage to keep within the rules ninety nine per cent of the time and cannot see why others cannot do the same. However the nature of Rat Skep is that she has a tendency to attract the highly opinionated and when you have enough of them one should not be too surprised
to see sparks fly. It is fun sometimes to watch the latest mega drama unfold but it can get a bit predictable after a while. But so be it. I hope we can actually attract more diversity and those that are already there manage to stay and try not to get too intense now up because their rather subjective way of looking at things may be seriously compromising their judgement. Anyway that is my two cents for what it is worth. Time to return to the mothership. But I shall be back later to read Samsas inevitable response to this post if I have nothing better to do ha ha ha

[FBM]

DD fingered rEvolutionist...

I haz been raped??

You were asking for it. You always are.

[surreptitious57]

SORRY FOR THINKING THAT IT WAS YOU REV BUT AS
YOU KNOW BY NOW YOU ARE THE OBVIOUS SUSPECT
FOR THS SORT OF THING SO NO HARD FEELINGS MAN

[Mr.Samsa]

I love the way how Samsa has all the evidence at his disposal to prove his case.

What are you talking about? I asked the mods what part of my long post was against the rules because I didn't know how it violated the rules. They locked the thread and told me that they'll put through an appeal for me, which is unhelpful as I don't understand what I'm appealing since I don't know what I said that was against the rules.

I didn't need to "prove" anything as I wasn't claiming anything.

He seems to be unaware of the fact that there will be variation of interpretation as
regards the FUA because that is just human nature. For no matter how watertight a particular rule is there is always going to be that. No system is perfect because
it is designed by imperfect beings so has imperfection in it by default.

Nobody is asking for perfection but just because something is imperfect doesn't mean we have to accept those imperfections and never question them. The massive flaws with the inflammatory rule have been raised constantly by multiple people and the mods refuse to even discuss it.

Beatsong was absolutely right to explain the basics to him : namely that it is not that difficult
to stay within the FUA. I manage it without even having to try and so does the vast majority of the forum as well.

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly. Supposedly I was sanctioned for saying that I hadn't seen Scarlett post anything of substance to the forum and I quoted Cali making the exact same remark to another user. I'm sanctioned and he isn't.

Plus, you haven't stayed within the rules. You committed a personal attack in the locked thread where you referred to people who try to improve the forum as the "awkward squad". I'd get suspended if I said that.

When I provided evidence of provocation on his part
towards Scarlett instead of accepting responsibility for it he chose to move the goal posts.

I didn't "move the goalposts" (I don't think you understand what that term means), I showed you why your explanation cannot be true assuming consistency on the part of the mods.

He specifically referred to her behaviour as shitty and so I said that this was evidence of intent to inflame which is against the FUA. But instead of accepting responsibility for this he completely denied it by invoking mock surprise instead.

No "mock" surprise, just genuine surprise that someone could be stupid enough to think that attacking someone's behavior is against the rules, or is done as an "attempt to inflame".

When
you have a situation like this it is obvious that there is ulterior motive at work.

Yes, to improve the forum. We've gone over this and you said you give me your full support.

It should also be pointed out that Scarlett and Samsa have a history because of their very
different views on feminism.

We have history because she is a horrible person who harassed me for months. Her opinion on feminism is irrelevant.

But the irony of someone demanding accountability when he will not accept it for himself appears to be completely lost on him. And he can
do better that now. As I said before : he is an intelligent man and this is not rocket science

If it's not rocket science then it'll be easy for you to present a single coherent argument or some evidence to support your position. This isn't rocket science, present your evidence or shut the fuck up.

Now while I may take issue with anyone and on anything over at Rat Skep I do not do so for any other reason other than I believe them to be wrong. I do not do group think and so my motivation cannot be questioned.

Are you serious? You're the biggest fanboy on the forum. Your irrational defence of anything the mods do must even be grating on the mods themselves.

I am only interested in ideas not individuals.

But you also believe that ideas cannot be questioned (i.e. we can't refer to other people's behavior as shitty).

However that does not stop me from recognising the worth of someones contribution to the forum. And so while I fundamentally disagree with Samsa here and question his modus operandi I can see also that he is one of the best members we have and it would be a terrible blow to Rat Skep now were he to leave.

You keep accusing me of ulterior motives so how about you stop being so coy and raise your concerns.

That is a decision ultimately for him so just saying

It's also up to the mods because they keep sanctioning me for things they can't even explain themselves.

I do not really have a problem with the moderation there. I manage to keep within the rules ninety nine per cent of the time and cannot see why others cannot do the same. However the nature of Rat Skep is that she has a tendency to attract the highly opinionated and when you have enough of them one should not be too surprised
to see sparks fly.

The reason why you don't have much trouble is that you haven't been identified as a "troll" by the mods so most of your infractions (like the one I mention above) will be overlooked.

It is fun sometimes to watch the latest mega drama unfold but it can get a bit predictable after a while. But so be it. I hope we can actually attract more diversity and those that are already there manage to stay and try not to get too intense now up because their rather subjective way of looking at things may be seriously compromising their judgement. Anyway that is my two cents for what it is worth. Time to return to the mothership. But I shall be back later to read Samsas inevitable response to this post if I have nothing better to do ha ha ha

How about instead of "enjoying the drama" you actually attempt to contribute something positive to the forum and help improve the way it functions, like I do?

[pErvinalia]

You cunts! How could so many people think that I would be that shit??? Fuckers. At least Bill knows me well enough.

It's obviously a Christian troll. I never had much to do with debunking religionists, so I couldn't say who it is. But it's clearly someone who's been done over by Hack and Cali before. If I had to guess on who it would be via who I know, I would say either Hugin (because of the pathetic whiney style), or Seth coz he loves stirring up atheist/theist shit.

Well, you did say you were going to do that very thing and pin it on some one else...

I can't win! I'd like to think my trolling level is a little bit higher than that clown.

[pErvinalia]

DD fingered rEvolutionist...

I haz been raped??

You were asking for it. You always are.

STOP RAPING ME WITH YOUR WORDS!!1

[pErvinalia]

SORRY FOR THINKING THAT IT WAS YOU REV BUT AS
YOU KNOW BY NOW YOU ARE THE OBVIOUS SUSPECT
FOR THS SORT OF THING SO NO HARD FEELINGS MAN

[surreptitious57]

How about instead of enjoying the drama you actually attempt to contribute something positive to the forum and help improve the way it functions like I do ?

I keep within the FUA the vast majority of the time. I have received one advisory and that is it. I disagreed with it and referenced my objection and then I let it
be. You in contrast have been suspended multiple times and have a tendency to question every decision against you ad nauseum. So now then who do you think is contributing more positively to the forum ? When you have been sanctioned for something you have done all you have to do is not repeat it. All the nonsense about
the mods not telling you is completely irrelevant. A mod note tells you why you have been sanctioned anyway. The mods are not responsible for your actions. If you
have broken the FUA then you accept responsibility for that and not shift the blame onto them instead. Of course they are not perfect but nor are you so by the laws
of averages then you must be guilty of at least some of the violations for which you were sanctioned. Accept responsibility and learn from your mistakes and move on instead of endless bickering about why you were sanctioned in the first place. Which takes place after the sanction has been fully served and so is a complete waste of time and energy. As they can not be reversed even if they are subsequently found to have been wrongly implemented. And just because a mod suggests that you start a thread in feedback does not mean you have to. You could ignore them and just move on regardless

If you suggest an improvement to the FUA and I agree with it I shall unconditionally support it. But I am not helping you in your private war with the mods now as that is something you have to fight all on your own. But if you can manage to pull yourself away from that for just a second and then propose a positive amendment to the FUA I will support it. But that does not translate as : surreptitious said he will help me so whatever I say he has to agree with. No no no. And so when you go back now think about what I have said and then see what you can come up with. But it must be completely divorced from any ongoing dispute you are currently involved in. So do not keep on saying that I will not support you now because that is demonstrably false. So there you are now. I have made my position on these matters crystal clear. You may respond if you want to but I would prefer it if you just reflected on what I am saying here as I have nothing more to add

[pErvinalia]

I think one of the problems is that once you start falling foul of the mods on a more regular basis, that then works against you in future interactions. So when they decide whether something is worth an advisory or warning, they'll take into account that you've had plenty of advice before. So one has to really consciously step back from debating as vigorously (or perhaps "aggressively" is a better word) or they'll just keep getting pinged.

edit: Just to clarify a bit further... The example Samsa gave of him and Cali saying the same thing. One gets sanction and the other doesn't. The only reason Samsa got sanctioned is because of his past record of infringements. So it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy in some regards, unless you take a big step backwards and basically let other people walk all over you.

[Hermit]

What a smug, condescending sermon, surreptitious57.

Also, it's a bit difficult to recognise one's mistake and accept responsibility for it when the alleged mistake consists of a copy-paste job of something someone else has posted for which you were sanctioned while the originator was not. In that kind of situation I don't see how the moderator can possibly explain it to Mr Samsa either unless they rationalise their action in terms of "different context", a rather subjective tool.