Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[pErvinalia]

Link to that? Not that i'd ever doubt your word.

[pErvinalia]

@Paula, I've just seen where the confusion is about the Scot Dutchy and KennyC thing. I wrote: " If you want to wind up a Scot Dutchy or a KennyC, then continue on your merry way". Replace "wind" with "end".

[Bella Fortuna]

I have no clue what any of this nonsense is about, and care even less, but just wanted to barge in to say PAULA IS THE BEST! Hope we can meet up again some day.


As you were...

[pErvinalia]

This nonsense is the most important stuff in the universe!

[Paula1]

I have no clue what any of this nonsense is about, and care even less, but just wanted to barge in to say PAULA IS THE BEST! Hope we can meet up again some day.


As you were...

I you Bells

[Paula1]

I'm watching the latest Jamest fumbled attack on materialism at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... 44189.html. There'll be some choice cito vs jamest/mr.samsa action in that!

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

I report every rule break I see, 99% of them go unactioned.

Incidentally, for the most part, the stuff I report is stuff I've previously been warned for: incitement to break the FUA; misrepresenting another member; off-topic posting; quote-mining. So I know it should be acted upon - if there was the slightest pretension to consistency, of course.

aspire1670 got an advisory - an advisory - for creating a sockpuppet account to troll me.

Of course, his sock was called aspire1671; he cunningly evaded their sophisticated anti-sockpuppet measures by altering a single digit in his username. I guess you should have thought of that one, Samsa.

They've given up all pretence to rationalism over there; the final straw was when they permabanned that self-declared paedophile just for being a self-declared paedophile.

Really? It was just because he was a self-declared paedophile was it? There were no inappropriate jokes about other member's kids? There was no abuse apologetics?

Come on SD, don't you join in the whine-fest

[Strontium Dog]

Link to that? Not that i'd ever doubt your word.

Why would I give a literal shit what you think about anything?

Really? It was just because he was a self-declared paedophile was it? There were no inappropriate jokes about other member's kids? There was no abuse apologetics?

Come on SD, don't you join in the whine-fest

Don't confuse post-hoc rationalisations for reasons.

There is a clear pathway for problem members involving escalating warnings and suspensions.

There was nothing to justify the step from zero to permaban.

[Paula1]

Link to that? Not that i'd ever doubt your word.

Why would I give a literal shit what you think about anything?

Really? It was just because he was a self-declared paedophile was it? There were no inappropriate jokes about other member's kids? There was no abuse apologetics?

Come on SD, don't you join in the whine-fest

Don't confuse post-hoc rationalisations for reasons.

There is a clear pathway for problem members involving escalating warnings and suspensions.

There was nothing to justify the step from zero to permaban.

Meh, it was done to death on RatSkep, he wasn't that important to me I'd fall out with you over it

[Beatsong]

It's a phenomenon of power. Even when that power is as pathetic as lording it over anonymous internet users. The fact that reasonable people turn into officious douchebags when give a bit of power is not in the least surprising. What's most annoying about the whole phenomenon is the wannabe sycophants who slobber all over their dear leaders and will countenance no accusations of wrong doing against their lords.

Do people do that? Who?

I only see people who complain (like you), and people who either don't give a fuck or just like to take the piss out of the people who complain (like me )

[Beatsong]

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

Careful there.

Ratskep already has a Director In Charge Of Paranoia and Self Pity. He's been in the post for some years, and isn't likely to take a challenge lying down.

Things could get bloody.

[Beatsong]

They've given up all pretence to rationalism over there; the final straw was when they permabanned that self-declared paedophile just for being a self-declared paedophile.

Yeah, that was crap. I thought it was a real loss to the site of a difficult subject worth pursuing and a person in a position to offer an unusual angle on it. Some people were bang against him though - and to be fair, he did say a couple of stupid things that crossed the line and made it easier for them to object.

I can't help believing, though, that the way they did that had more to do with fear of legal consequences than what they did or didn't want on the site.

Link to that? Not that i'd ever doubt your word.

Not sure if a link to some of the earlier posts is still possible, but they deleted huge numbers of his posts (and I think whole threads) when they banned him. Which is another reason I suspect it was largely a legal thing.

[Surendra Darathy]

This thread looks like loads of fun. So much butthurt in such a small space. But I guess that's in the very fundamental nature of butthurt.

[Mr.Samsa]

Do you have any idea of what a tit you're making of yourself Samsa?

No one, apart from rEv, and he has his own sore arse, actually gives a fuck.

You, by all accounts, used to be quite a sound bloke. You're now acting like a petulant child who's absolutely crap at accepting he's being an arse. It's only the internet, get the fuck over yourself.

How am I being a tit? I respond respectfully to other people on the forum and I put time into making substantive posts - in response I get more personal attacks and off-topic inflammatory marks from shitheads like you who have no interest in discussing the topic but instead just want to attack me.

I'm being an arse? Take a look in the mirror. Do you remember when you joined in with the others to argue that I was being "difficult" because I wouldn't accept that every journalist who writes for The Guardian was a feminist? That's what an arse looks like.

Can you clarify this bit for me rEv

No offence, Paula, but I haven't seen you produce one rational counter argument to any of these contentious topics. If you want to wind up a Scot Dutchy or a KennyC, then continue on your merry way.

Which contentious topics?

Have a look at that feminism/evo psych thread where you dropped in to make off-topic inflammatory remarks about me. What points did you make at all on the topic of feminism, evo psych, or the interaction of the two? Precisely zero.

What contentious topics? The ones Samsa gets in eternal arguments with other people in.

The only arguments I've had with Samsa are when he, and others, start spouting shite about feminism and what it's like to be a 'woman'. You can disregard my opinions in this regard in the very same way as Samsa does, it doesn't mean my opinions aren't valid though. Have you read some of the shit from the feminism threads and the A+ thread? I consistently said 'Don't speak for me, just because I have a vagina I don't necessarily share your view'.

Ah yes, the problem clearly was that I was trying to speak for all women and ignoring your view. Not that that ever happened, and the closest thing would have been where I pointed out that just because you don't find something personally problematic to you it doesn't mean that other women don't like it.

What is irrational or sniping about that?

What about when you and some of the other mods harassed me for months on the thread and in PMs by accusing me of being mentally ill? That was pretty shit, I thought.

Samsa doesn't like people disagreeing with him,

Bullshit and you know it. You're clutching at straws here.

fuck, I even stuck up for him when the twats on A+ were treating him like shit, but even that was wrong. He treated me with nothing but contempt from our first real interaction. I have no idea why. He'd tell you it was because I was wrong.

Not quite, Paula, it's more because you and others were engaging in quite abusive behavior towards me and then when I made the mildest of possible comments towards you (that you were "intentionally being ignorant" of a particular topic, where you were claiming a woman shouldn't have felt intimidated by a guy following her because you wouldn't have) you flew off the handle at me, despite there being no personal attack or breaking of the rules with that comment.

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

I report every rule break I see, 99% of them go unactioned.

Incidentally, for the most part, the stuff I report is stuff I've previously been warned for: incitement to break the FUA; misrepresenting another member; off-topic posting; quote-mining. So I know it should be acted upon - if there was the slightest pretension to consistency, of course.

I've reported people that have used the exact same wording as me and had the report closed. All of my more recent warnings were for comments that I literally copied and pasted from comments like Cali's but I still get warnings for them.

aspire1670 got an advisory - an advisory - for creating a sockpuppet account to troll me.

Of course, his sock was called aspire1671; he cunningly evaded their sophisticated anti-sockpuppet measures by altering a single digit in his username. I guess you should have thought of that one, Samsa.

Damn, that does sound like a much better way to do it. I created a complex online alternate persona, jumping over hurdles by hiring a woman to pretend to be my girlfriend in Skype chats with other mods, created new email accounts, passwords, even posted from an IP address on the other side of my city, and yet all I needed to do was come up with "Mr.Samsa1". Fuck it.

They've given up all pretence to rationalism over there; the final straw was when they permabanned that self-declared paedophile just for being a self-declared paedophile.

... When you say pedophile do you mean simply has the attraction to kids or was an actual child molester? I suppose I could understand banning in the latter case (although it would need to be clarified what kinds of illegal history is and is not allowed) but if the former then that's just ridiculous.

I love how the broken rules are piling up against me and yet the mods do nothing.

Careful there.

Ratskep already has a Director In Charge Of Paranoia and Self Pity. He's been in the post for some years, and isn't likely to take a challenge lying down.

Things could get bloody.

No need for paranoia, it's simply true. The feminism/evo psych thread is a good example, where 4 independent people told me that even though they were friends with Paula they had to report her posts because they clearly crossed the line and couldn't understand why they were closed. It seems like the mods got sick of having to keep closing the report so just locked the thread.

It was funny to see Paula try to accuse me of reporting her posts in that thread as every time she did, I'd check my inbox and I'd have another comment saying: "What the fuck is wrong with Paula in that thread?!".

[Surendra Darathy]

How am I being a tit? I respond respectfully to other people on the forum and I put time into making substantive posts...

Yeah, your animated gifs render you a model of decorum.

[Mr.Samsa]

How am I being a tit? I respond respectfully to other people on the forum and I put time into making substantive posts...

Yeah, your animated gifs render you a model of decorum.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that gifs were somehow inherently offensive or disrespectful. I missed that memo. But it's okay to use emoticons, right?