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

[Mr.Samsa]

Of course there wasn't, which is why they couldn't find any evidence.

And no, I've told you a thousand times that aliens aren't an explanation, no matter how hard you believe.

Why, Mr.Samsa, I declare. There was an ineluctable fragrance of sockpuppetry fairly reeking in your denials of it, given your dedication to denying the validity of data which conflicts with your belief.

In some circles, this sort of response is laid on 'cognitive dissonance', which is mumbo jumbo psychobabble; in other circles, it may be laid on 'the Dunning-Kruger effect', which isn't, as it's supported by some data. Here, of course, I'm referring to your self-assessment of your cleverness in concealing the sockpuppetry so that you contend there's no evidence of it.

I'll grant you that this approach is a cut above crowing about it on another website, like some folks we know.

You present a lot of babble just to say: "there is no evidence for what I'm claiming".

Of course there wasn't, which is why they couldn't find any evidence.

And no, I've told you a thousand times that aliens aren't an explanation, no matter how hard you believe.

Why, Mr.Samsa, I declare. There was an ineluctable fragrance ofsockpuppetry fairly reeking in your denials of it, given your dedication to denying the validity of data which conflicts with your belief.

In some circles, this sort of response is laid on 'cognitive dissonance', which is mumbo jumbo psychobabble; in other circles, it may be laid on 'the Dunning-Kruger effect', which isn't, as it's supported by some data. Here, of course, I'm referring to your self-assessment of your cleverness in concealing the sockpuppetry so that you contend there's no evidence of it.

I'll grant you that this approach is a cut above crowing about it on another website, like some folks we know.has used a sock puppet.

Hope this helps with your English language studies.

That's an excellent translation. I like how I point out that there's no evidence for what he's claiming and he responds by (amongst other spoon bending) simply restating his claim.

And, for me at least, of claiming over and over that there must be some secret rule change that altered business from how we all used to do it - when, in fact, nothing changed, it's just that you and your compatriots lost an argument over policy and left in a huff, and are now trying to convince everyone that a cabal has determined to ruin the forum it it wasn't for you plucky kids and your loyal dog exposing them for the mask-wearing incompetents they must be. [emphasis added]

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2000967

The way I read that comment was that Weaver was referring to a recent discussion over whether advisories were "sanctions". Somebody had referred to an advisory as a sanction in a feedback thread and the typical derailers came along to debate fiercely that the incorrect terminology was used. They were shown up when all available sources found that practically every mod and mod comment on the issue agreed that they were routinely viewed as sanctions by mods - including a quote from Weaver himself explicitly making that statement about a month prior to the riveting semantic debate.

If he's claiming that there was a mod exodus due to losing an argument over policy then I too am interested in hearing what that debate was, as it must have occurred after I had left. It seems unlikely though as talks of leaving amongst a number of mods was occurring well before I left.

[Fallible]

And, for me at least, of claiming over and over that there must be some secret rule change that altered business from how we all used to do it - when, in fact, nothing changed, it's just that you and your compatriots lost an argument over policy and left in a huff, and are now trying to convince everyone that a cabal has determined to ruin the forum it it wasn't for you plucky kids and your loyal dog exposing them for the mask-wearing incompetents they must be. [emphasis added]

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2000967

Ah. Well, the simple explanation is either he's fibbing, or he's forgotten what actually happened. As I may have mentioned before, some moderators wanted to moderate according to what felt right to them rather than what the FUA said, and some other moderators disagreed that this should happen. The mods who wanted to moderate based on feelings would from time to time bring this suggestion up to the rest of us in disguise ("we should be setting an example to people and providing more of a service to the membership by guiding and teaching them about how they should be expressing themselves, letting people know when they are beginning to post in certain ways which might lead to confrontation") and after a few pages of back-and-forth where it transpired the only argument they possessed in favour of this change turned out to be "because I wanna", they would give up temporarily until the issue was raised again, and everyone just carried on as before.

However over time, those mods who favoured the more "intuitive" approach to modding began to insinuate this style into their moderation, slipping things past the usual vetting process, until eventually they were simply ignoring any and all attempts by others to ensure they stuck to implementing the FUA. I don't speak for any other ex-mod here (some left because they had lost the motivation to moderate or because they lacked time), but that is exactly the reason why I left. So many of the moderators who were responsible for keeping our rather more emotional compatriots in check had lost interest or left for various reasons that I quickly realised there was no point having a moderator there who no one even acknowledged was speaking. This mass exodus left the team with a surplus of moderators who act on what feels right, and this is the result. The newer mods have been taught by them, and so the newer mods are not to blame. That's what Weaver means - he so wanted the policy to change that in his head, it did actually change. Which in a way I suppose it did, just not in a way that it was actually written down anywhere or agreed upon honestly. How ironic then that people like Cito de Penie and HomerJay drone on so monotonously about people like me and stijn and our "fee fees" when it was people attempting to base moderation decisions on fee fees that led to me leaving in the first place. Although I, stijn and Samsa have been by far the most "whiney" about this, there were several more of us on the team who tried in vain to stop the introduction of moderation by fee fees, including Mazille, Spinozasgalt, reddix, HughMcB and, strange to look back and think this now, kiore.

Again speaking only for myself, that's why I go on and on so much. Not only is moderation continuing to be undertaken based on fee fees, but those who think people shouldn't have a keen interest in certain things they have put a lot of their time into - because it amounts to "trolling" and "whining" and "hurt fee fees" - try and argue it's OK for the moderators to use their fee fees all the time because they work for free.

[Beatsong]

Honest question: Are you defending The_matatron because you feel he is being misrepresented as I have no clue what this is about.

That wasn't particularly my intention. For a start there's nothing here to defend him against, and even if there were I'm sure he's perfectly capable of defending himself. I don't even particularly agree with his position in that thread vis a vis ADHD.

I was only pointing out that Mr Samsa was indeed misrepresenting him. Blatently and unquestionably so.

You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.

It didn't happen. Samsa just made it up.

The reason I mentioned it at all is there is some discussion in the manosphere about normal boys behaviour being considered 'bad' and ADHD which needs treatment with drugs, this would fit in with my worry about the feminist indoctrination of primary education, well fuck that as feminism and SJW (liberal progressives) influence on all education at every level of academia. If this is true then I might have to change my opinion of a Nazi mod at ratskep and that would never do.

That may be Metatron's view, I don't know. He didn't say anything about feminism or liberalism in the thread. All he said was that he thinks there's a spectrum of behaviour from "normal" to what we call hyperactive; he disagrees with the categorisation and stigmatisation of kids at one end of that spectrum as "ADHD"'; he disagrees with giving those kids drugs to control their behaviour; and he thinks the motivation for doing that comes from a desire to keep them quiet and under control.

I got that from reading his posts. Cos I can read.

[Beatsong]

You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.

Finding the thread is a bigger hassle than finding the page. How about a link?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 44590.html

[Beatsong]

You can't be banned for misrepresentation even though there was none (which is why Beatsong can't find a single instance of it).

Oh man. How fucking hard is it to admit that you made a mistake. And how much of a fool do you want to make of yourself to avoid such a simple remedy?

Let's make this EVEN easier for you. Here is EVERY SINGLE POST Metatron made in the first three pages of the thread:

I have one cryptic thing to say about that: Ivarch.

[quote="The_Metatron";p="1966710"][quote="Cito di Pense";p="1966546"]Whatever disorder you have (and everybody has one!) reading the health pages of a major newspaper will eventually make it worse. For real insight into the human condition, read National Enquirer.[/quote]
..while watching Cops.[/quote]

What is it, some ten or eleven percent of American students are drugged with amphetamines in order to modify their behavior in school?

Ten percent? Are we really expected to believe that so many little humans are so fucked up they required drugging in order to fit in at school?

I am not about to buy that crap. If the only way to make schools work is to drug a tenth of the students, the goddamned schools need to change how they operate.

Yes, sure. "Ability to function" where? "Distress" from whom?

"Treatment". Give a kid speed and you will change his behavior. That much is pretty fucking obvious. If a tenth of humanity needs drugging to change their behavior, the expected behavior is unreasonable.

Yeah, sure.

Thirty minutes equals three ten chunks. Or, break it up any other way. If one finds themselves unable to do certain tasks that require such lengthy uninterrupted attention, that one might want to find other things they can do. Curiously, what the fuck did so many people with this "disorder" do a hundred years ago? A thousand years ago? At some point, such a disability would become a survival factor and would have been strongly selected against. Or, is this some new thing? If it is so disabling, how did it survive natural selection?

You do like to equate psychiatric disorders with physical ailments, I know. I don't hold with that universally, either. Untreated, hyperactive Johnny isn't going to die from hyperactivity. Untreated, cancer Sue probably will.

Regarding your chemophobia crack, you can stow that shit, too. You can call it what you like, substitute the word methylphenidate or psychostimulant if you feel the need.

No matter how you try to cloak this, you are advocating nothing more than changing a child's behavior with drugs. Oh, sure, it's all sorted out in DSM IV. You say the usage rates are 6 percent, but under-medicated, so should be higher than that. How much higher?

My considered judgment is that kids behavior falls on a spectrum, and the distribution of that spectrum of behavior probably follows the standard bell curve pretty closely. It's becoming more and more obvious to me that the desire is to modify the behavior of the outliers to make them act more like the masses. Easier to handle, that way. Less work.

[quote="The_Metatron";p="1967647"]Yeah, horrible. Johnny's acting up at school. Drug him.

I wonder what is your clever explanation for the roughly 3db difference between Illinois and Iowa, Ohio, and Kentucky in this image from the CDC?



What's different? The kids? Or, the expectations of the behavior? Or, maybe people care half as much in Illinois. What's going on in Alaska and Hawaii?[/quote]


And here's what you said in response:


[quote="Mr.Samsa";p="1968332"][quote="Cito di Pense";p="1968327"]You fucking referered to Metatron's disagreement with your soundbites as a 'conspiracy theory', and you're bitching to me about a lack of productive discussion?

[/quote]

Finally you seem to be on-topic here. "Soundbites" to Metatron's disagreement? He appealed to chemophobia and "think of the children" emotional reasoning, and I responded with substantial rebuttals. When he had no other argument he relied on the idea that there is a conspiracy of clinicians drugging children to line their pockets - that is a conspiracy theory.[/quote]


Now can you show us what words in Metatron's posts above mean "there is a conspiracy of clinicians drugging children to line their pockets"? Or can you admit that you read something into them that isn't there? Or would you rather just make yourself out to be even more pathetically dishonest than you already are?


While we're waiting, excuse me while I go find a plate for your arse...


Oh, that's right. Metatron took the last one.

[Hermit]

[Metatron] disagrees with the categorisation and stigmatisation of kids at one end of that spectrum as "ADHD"'; he disagrees with giving those kids drugs to control their behaviour; and he thinks the motivation for doing that comes from a desire to keep them quiet and under control.

Is he an armchair parent? I never had any children with ADHD myself, but my daughter has a son who has. Children can be a handful to raise, but the ones in the "normal" range of behaviour are a doddle in comparison to him. Without his morning dose of Ritalin he'd be in detention in or suspended from school a lot more often than he is with it. Without medication he is also even more disruptive to ordinary social intercourse not immediately concerning him between any people he encounters, be they classmates, family, friends or anyone else.

Oh, and I find it amusing that "Metatron" has more than a passing resemblance to the sort of name big pharma might give to a drug. Do you have a problem connecting with reality? Take 5mg of Metatron three times a day to solve chronic disassociation and resultant delusions. Metatron brings people who are off the planet back to earth. Metatron can cure 95% of people suffering from Acute Delusional Hallucination Disorder.

[pErvinalia]

This is an interesting metatron-debate. Beatsong is correct that Metatron didn't say what Samsa is claiming he did. The real question is what is the reason that Metatron believes is behind this argued overdosing. Maybe he's gone the big pharma thing before, I don't know. Or perhaps he is suggesting it is like over prescription of antibiotics. It's not about money, it's about getting annoying patients out of the office.

[aspire1670]

You can't be banned for misrepresentation even though there was none (which is why Beatsong can't find a single instance of it).

Oh man. How fucking hard is it to admit that you made a mistake. And how much of a fool do you want to make of yourself to avoid such a simple remedy?

Let's make this EVEN easier for you. Here is EVERY SINGLE POST Metatron made in the first three pages of the thread:

Do yourself a favour and read all the other pages for comprehension. I would hand the Metatron his arse on a plate but you've got your nose stuck firmly between his buttocks. Hope this helps.

[aspire1670]

This is an interesting metatron-debate. Beatsong is correct that Metatron didn't say what Samsa is claiming he did. The real question is what is the reason that Metatron believes is behind this argued overdosing. Maybe he's gone the big pharma thing before, I don't know. Or perhaps he is suggesting it is like over prescription of antibiotics. It's not about money, it's about getting annoying patients out of the office.

He didn't say it in as many words but if you read carefuuly all his comments he clearly implies that chidren are being needlessly drugged, presumably for the benefit of Big Pharma. Indeed, in one post he asks Samsa what's in it for him. The Metatron never grew up and doesn't understand how the internet works. This is why he throws tantrums and abuses everyone who doesn't agree with him.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I just started to read that thread from page 1, but started to glaze over by the end of page 2. But I do remember him making that comment when I originally read the thread while it was evolving. It's clear that Metatron reckons there's overdosing. He did offer a conpiratorial excuse about an unspoken 'they' wanting to mold problem children into the norm so they are easier for society to handle. I'd love to know who his unspoken 'they' are supposed to be. If he believes a kooky theory like that, then it's not in the slightest strange that he could believe a far more likely distortion of medical ethics - i.e. the influence of money from Big Pharma on diagnoses.

[pErvinalia]

Yep, i just found it. This post - http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... l#p1968568 makes it entirely clear that he thinks it's a big pharma con job. Samsa is right, Beatsong.

[pErvinalia]

I see Stijn has banned himself.

[mistermack]

I don't agree. It's perfectly easy to say ''there is a conspiracy to line the pockets of pharma'' if that's what you mean.
I think if you don't say it, it's not what you mean. It's perfectly reasonable to comment on prevailing attitudes, procedures and prejudices, without some unspoken meaning that there must be a conspiracy.
It's also relevant to point out the profits that come from certain drugs, without alleging a conspiracy.
That's just pointing to one element of motive.
If pharma are making money, and want to sell their drugs, that's not a conspiracy. It's what they do, day in, day out. For good drugs and not so good. It's not a conspiracy, It's their job.

You lot are behaving like conspiracy theory conspiracy theorists.
Seeing stuff that isn't there. If that metratron guy wanted to say there is a conspiracy, he can just say ''there is a conspiracy''.

It's dead easy.

[pErvinalia]

He's promoted a conspiracy theory (that drugging kids is done to make them easier for society to handle), and he's alleged that big pharma kickbacks are distorting diagnoses. Whether you technically call the latter a conspiracy theory or not, he's done both.

[Beatsong]

[Metatron] disagrees with the categorisation and stigmatisation of kids at one end of that spectrum as "ADHD"'; he disagrees with giving those kids drugs to control their behaviour; and he thinks the motivation for doing that comes from a desire to keep them quiet and under control.

Is he an armchair parent? I never had any children with ADHD myself, but my daughter has a son who has. Children can be a handful to raise, but the ones in the "normal" range of behaviour are a doddle in comparison to him. Without his morning dose of Ritalin he'd be in detention in or suspended from school a lot more often than he is with it. Without medication he is also even more disruptive to ordinary social intercourse not immediately concerning him between any people he encounters, be they classmates, family, friends or anyone else.

I'm pretty sure from previous conversations that he's an actual parent - though not, AFAIK, of any children with ADHD-like disorders.

I also know a child like that. She's always been referred to as having ADHD although according to recent diagnosis she has"DAMP" (whatever the fuck that is). But then she's also spent her entire life being completely ignored by her parents and stuck in front of a TV to keep her out of the way, so I have some difficulty disentangling nature from nurture there.

She's a completely different beast on ritalin and off it, though.