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

[DaveDodo007]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum. After that, the list went something like this:

1. Seth

2. Er, that's it.

(This was before Hugin was banned, FWIW).

Not even those who had brought the whole sob story up in the first place could actually think of anyone, other than Seth, who had presented a right wing persona and then been banned - LET ALONE show that the banning was on account of the politics.

Warren - can you add anyone to that list? If not, you're buying into a load of cobblers I'm afraid. There may have been moderator bias against right wing members, I don't know. But noone was "got rid of" on account of their politics - except possibly Seth, if you don't accept their judgment of trolling.

Just banning one person simply because you disagree with their political opinion is cowardly enough and not something you should be proud of.

[JimC]

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

They must never, ever be adulterated with preservatives or other artificial chemicals.

Simply sauté gently in a little olive oil and crushed garlic, add a splash of white wine and some finely chopped parsley, and you have a delicious entree for any fine dining experience...

[DaveDodo007]

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

They must never, ever be adulterated with preservatives or other artificial chemicals.

Simply sauté gently in a little olive oil and crushed garlic, add a splash of white wine and some finely chopped parsley, and you have a delicious entree for any fine dining experience...

White wine instead of gin, shame on you; tut tut.

[JimC]

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

They must never, ever be adulterated with preservatives or other artificial chemicals.

Simply sauté gently in a little olive oil and crushed garlic, add a splash of white wine and some finely chopped parsley, and you have a delicious entree for any fine dining experience...

White wine instead of gin, shame on you; tut tut.

Cooking purposes only - I would be demolishing a G & T as I watch the bollocks fry...

[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.

Yes, he's been perfectly clear, every post, what he means. No it's not suggesting a conspiracy. It's pointing to the motives of various parties.
I don't see your problem, trying to read stuff into his posts that he didn't say.

I'm not reading anything into his posts. I agree that the big pharma thing isn't technically a conspiracy. It's Samsa that is saying it is a conspiracy. But keep in mind that Samsa's original mention of conspiracy is the one I've pointed out above. Eventually it evolved into the big pharma thing. Whether you refer to it as a conspiracy or not is not the real point, I think. The point Samsa was trying to make was that Metatron thinks big pharma is distorting proper diagnoses. And that's clear from Metatron's later statements.

[pErvinalia]

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.

To me it's pretty obvious that he means teachers and parents - ie, the adults who are responsible for keeping kids under control. They are the ones who suffer when the kids make that job difficult, so they are the ones likely to have a vested interest in making it easier.

How could this lead to over prescription?? Parents and teachers don't prescribe the drugs.

[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.

OK, thanks - I did miss that. I can see how this:

I leave this topic with one thought. For all of Mr.Samsa's bluster, it's very appropriate to note that these psychoactive drugs dispensed to treat this disorder don't do a fucking thing to cure it. Not a fucking thing. The only way is to keep dispensing them.

Now, tell us who this model serves.

could be taken that way.

I note however that it comes AFTER Mr Samsa makes his accusation of the conspiracy theory, and after Metatron had already made his perfectly clear statement about what he saw as the primary motivation for drugging children. So it seems more like an added afterthought - since Samsa had brought up the question of Big Pharma conspiracy, he's basically saying "well, if the shoe fits" - than a statement of his main position on it.

But at least I can see SOME context now for Samsa's "drugging children to make money" thing at the beginning of this thread. It's not as clear cut as I'd thought.

Samsa is basically right, although we can quibble about the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe alleged big pharma kickbacks for over prescribing. That he was right before Metarant admitted it either means Samsa is the man for working it out, or he just got lucky...

[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.

Jesus Christ, talk about bashing each other over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....FFS If someone wants to claim it's all a big pharma conspiracy who the fuck cares? If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

What a bunch of dildos.

Adapt or die, Seth.

[pErvinalia]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Oh.. you weren't joking?

[pErvinalia]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum. After that, the list went something like this:

1. Seth

2. Er, that's it.

(This was before Hugin was banned, FWIW).

Not even those who had brought the whole sob story up in the first place could actually think of anyone, other than Seth, who had presented a right wing persona and then been banned - LET ALONE show that the banning was on account of the politics.

Warren - can you add anyone to that list? If not, you're buying into a load of cobblers I'm afraid. There may have been moderator bias against right wing members, I don't know. But noone was "got rid of" on account of their politics - except possibly Seth, if you don't accept their judgment of trolling.

Just banning one person simply because you disagree with their political opinion is cowardly enough and not something you should be proud of.

He was banned for being a disruptive troll. Which he was. (although, I disagree with permabans).

[Gallstones]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum. After that, the list went something like this:

1. Seth

2. Er, that's it.

(This was before Hugin was banned, FWIW).

Not even those who had brought the whole sob story up in the first place could actually think of anyone, other than Seth, who had presented a right wing persona and then been banned - LET ALONE show that the banning was on account of the politics.

Warren - can you add anyone to that list? If not, you're buying into a load of cobblers I'm afraid. There may have been moderator bias against right wing members, I don't know. But noone was "got rid of" on account of their politics - except possibly Seth, if you don't accept their judgment of trolling.

How many members just conveniently never went back because the environment was so hostile?

[Beatsong]

Who knows? Hard to pin that on the moderators though. If you have a place where an emotive subject like politics is being discussed, and there's a large majority of people from one part of the political spectrum, those from opposing parts are likely to feel the heat just by virtue of numbers.

Then there's the fact that so much right wing orthodoxy is such paper thin childish bullshit. It's always going to end up being torn to shreds on a forum specifically dedicated to examining things rationally and skeptically. If people don't want to have to face up to how silly their beliefs are, they probably shouldn't take them to that kind of forum.

[Beatsong]

Just banning one person simply because you disagree with their political opinion is cowardly enough and not something you should be proud of.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that Seth was banned because of his political opinion. I don't believe he was.

What I was saying was that he was the ONLY member with a strong right wing persona who was banned AT ALL (apart from Tyrannical who was banned for racism). So he's the only one that it would even be THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE to argue was banned for being right wing, if you wanted to argue that such a thing was happening.

To suggest that there was some kind of general and coordination mod-persecution of right wing members, is therefore ridiculous.

[Seth]

Talking of gross hypocrisy, you're still moving the goal posts and still giving a fuck, young jackass.

I didn't move them, you're just too stupid and blind to see where they actually are. Your philosophical myopia is legendary. Unfortunately there's no corrective lenses available for you, so you'll remain stupid and blind.

[Seth]

Seth, of course. When Seth posts, it's all about Seth.

This comment is absolute bullshit and this is what pisses me off. Seth made a comment and he actually made some points. Whether his points were valid or not is another issue, thought if Seth's points are so weak why not destroy them in open debate. It is basically this person has opinions that I don't like and therefore he is wrong. Can't you see how retarded this is and how it will come back and bite you on the arse? If Seth is wrong them show it by dismantling his arguments. Just saying Seth is wrong because his thoughts hurt my fee fees shows you up to be a pathetic loser.

They won't because they can't. They don't have the intellectual horsepower or the self-control, so they hurl poo at the window instead. Typical of Marxist useful idiots.