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

[Seth]

He wasn't banned because of his political opinion. He was banned because he was a troll who deliberately miserpresented the positions of just about everyone who interacted with him.

Which is an utter and complete lie and which you cannot substantiate with evidence. I didn't misrepresent, I dissected, examined and criticized the flaws in logic and reason and opined on the deeper and sometimes unrecognized motives for the statements and claims made.

This of course infuriated people because it was a blow to their egos to have their logic and reasoning errors hung out to dry in front of everyone.

But that's completely within the FUA over there because it's an attack on the argument, not the person. The problem is that people took valid and cutting criticism of their arguments as a personal attack when it wasn't.

[Fallible]

No, you!

[Seth]

They probably would, but unlike you I'm not a poster boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect. That's why it never occurred to me to make the sort of absurd claims about myself that you make about your self.

Well, it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it...

[Strontium Dog]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

914 virtually self-banned himself anyway, by not posting for a year or more.

He's back now, of course, and still treating the forum as if it was his own personal LiveJournal.

I can only guess the mods took pity on Fact-Man because of his age. Remember when he accused someone of making a troll drop and disappearing, when in fact, the OP had made more than 50 posts in the thread? Then criticised me for demonstrating that he was wrong? Of course, the fuckos who like to jump on me if I have an apostrophe out of place were nowhere to be seen when Fact-Man was lying through his teeth.

[Seth]

You worked so hard to stink up the place yet stay just within the rules.

The place stank of hypocrisy, arrogance, hatred and mindless religious belief long before I got there. It stank before it came into being. It stank as the Richard Dawkins fellatio club. That's why I showed up in the first place, the place needed a little airing out and critical examination of it's religious beliefs and dogmas.

You felt so smug when someone lost their shit and the mods had to deal with the fallout, didn't you?

Damned right I did. It was proof absolute that the supposed high-brow rationalism is nothing but a complete sham and a hypocritical circle-jerk of Atheist religious and political doctrine. You had no problem hammering me when I lost my shit, the few times I did so, but you completely ignored all the times I was abused for doing nothing more than challenging people's logic, reason and argumentation. Fuckwit.

You thought your sins would never catch up with you as long as you kept to the letter while profaning the spirit.

"Profaning the spirit." It is to laugh. Ha ha. Is there a more certain and absolute manifestation of the religious intolerance of RatSkep and RDF before it than this one simple statement. What a bunch of pussies.

I think it's funny when you try to defend the poor Christians from us atheists. You ain't nothin' but a Pharisee yourself.

I think it's funny that you couldn't demolish my defenses using reason and logic but had to resort to banning me for "profaning the spirit" of the Atheist religion.

[Seth]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

And they are right, and you are wrong. I was banned because I refused to surrender to the religious dogma of Atheism and Marxism, and you damned well know it.

[Seth]

This is like the current day tiny Communist Party of Russia arguing over whether getting rid of Trotsky was a legitimate move...

Pretty much exactly like that...with significantly less reason involved.

[aspire1670]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

914 virtually self-banned himself anyway, by not posting for a year or more.

He's back now, of course, and still treating the forum as if it was his own personal LiveJournal.

I can only guess the mods took pity on Fact-Man because of his age. Remember when he accused someone of making a troll drop and disappearing, when in fact, the OP had made more than 50 posts in the thread? Then criticised me for demonstrating that he was wrong? Of course, the fuckos who like to jump on me if I have an apostrophe out of place were nowhere to be seen when Fact-Man was lying through his teeth.

Hush, I can hear the playing of the world's tiniest violin.

[Strontium Dog]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

914 virtually self-banned himself anyway, by not posting for a year or more.

He's back now, of course, and still treating the forum as if it was his own personal LiveJournal.

I can only guess the mods took pity on Fact-Man because of his age. Remember when he accused someone of making a troll drop and disappearing, when in fact, the OP had made more than 50 posts in the thread? Then criticised me for demonstrating that he was wrong? Of course, the fuckos who like to jump on me if I have an apostrophe out of place were nowhere to be seen when Fact-Man was lying through his teeth.

Hush, I can hear the playing of the world's tiniest violin.

[pErvinalia]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

Uhm yeah, I was there at the time and I think it was mostly econ41 and me who argued against the ban.

You think wrong, on pretty much all fronts. You weren't there at the time, you resigned soon after Starr became Senior Moderator (she was the first Senior Moderator) in 2010 which was before Seth's ban in 2011, so this isn't surprising.

In fact when the vote came all voted for it except me , and econ abstained.

Obviously by the time he was finally voted off the forum a majority voted for it, that's why he was banned. That's kind of how it works. However you seem to be talking about an entirely different forum at which people voted to ban Seth. You didn't vote either way and you have no knowledge about who else voted, because you weren't there.

In fact there immediately followed a thread informing the membership IIRC. During this time of endless heated discussions I had been receiving a lot of ....assertive PMs pressuring me to vote for the ban, 62 in one day once. Quite frankly I am unable to recall if you were a mod at that time or not. It was early days and Richard Prins and Topsy were senior mods.

No, clearly I wasn't a mod at the time, that's why I can remember that Richard Prins and Topsy were never Senior Moderators since the post was created for Starr. So it was actually Starr who was senior mod at the time Seth was banned - you had already resigned, so you never took part in a vote about his banning. Unsurprising you don't remember if I was a mod or not, since you rather childishly avoided ever communicating with me directly for the entire time you were on the team. I was a mod from the very beginning, and for two and a half years, so yes, I was there at the time. You however were not.

Also, I was able to read every report along with the posts and they were some bogus ones; which, if they'd have been dropped, would have left Seth shy of enough for suspension let alone ban. There was some manipulation of the process for convenience and to appease the rabble.

Yes dear, of course there was. Is there any reason this should be believed given that you would argue till blue in the face that Seth never used the word "pettifoggery" if he asked you to?

Something else, that if you were there and privy you should know. What was THWOTH's stance at the time?

I told you, I was a moderator from the very beginning, I was a moderator when Seth was banned and I was a moderator for two and a half years. I've no idea what the stance was of someone who didn't become a mod until weeks before I left. You're talking about some other situation, not the banning of Seth from ratskep. That's the only explanation I can think of for the pile of balls you just served up.

Here are some dates for you:

Starr becomes Senior mod: April 2010

Gallstones resigns: unclear, but this post is dated November 10, 2010, emphasis mine -

Why I resigned. I had a friend. A best friend whom I loved and whose regard and respect and attention I valued very highly. Too highly perhaps. Ironically my having to apply the law (FUA) and my involvement as an enforcer and advocate of the law was a frequent source of friction and argument with this friend. I felt that if I could remove this one factor it would provide some relief and I would be able to preserve the relationship. So, I resigned to bring peace to the friendship.

Seth banned: February 2011

You're welcome.

I suspect GS is confused with the banning of Seth at RD.net vs ratskep. She's probably thinking of the rd.net event.

[pErvinalia]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

Bollocks. And Both 914 and Factman did start to get hit harder after Seth was turfed.

[aspire1670]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

914 virtually self-banned himself anyway, by not posting for a year or more.

He's back now, of course, and still treating the forum as if it was his own personal LiveJournal.

I can only guess the mods took pity on Fact-Man because of his age. Remember when he accused someone of making a troll drop and disappearing, when in fact, the OP had made more than 50 posts in the thread? Then criticised me for demonstrating that he was wrong? Of course, the fuckos who like to jump on me if I have an apostrophe out of place were nowhere to be seen when Fact-Man was lying through his teeth.

Hush, I can hear the playing of the world's tiniest violin.

You are a rascal, SD.

[Fallible]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

And they are right, and you are wrong. I was banned because I refused to surrender to the religious dogma of Atheism and Marxism, and you damned well know it.

Nope.Troll. 4 years later you're still trolling, like in this post of yours.

[pErvinalia]

I think he actually believes this shit. Not sure how that is possible. But we've seen what teabaggers are capable of.

[Fallible]

I suspect GS is confused with the banning of Seth at RD.net vs ratskep. She's probably thinking of the rd.net event.

Yep. It'll be my fault she came wading in to correct me and fell flat on her face though, it always is.