Reasons for banning individuals

#61
Nono, we have many, many beautiful sunny weekends here in Australia, and we are totally on top of the skeptics too. ;-)

But seriously, I suspect that the "not acting quickly enough" was a combination of resenting (or merely pushing back against) bippy123's prior advertising of the fact that "a skeptic is on the way!" (and that he was relying by implication on us guys to demolish that skeptic) as well as a general tendency amongst Skeptiko regulars to assume good faith (as you seem to imply). My position probably comes from assuming that bippy123's perspective based on his prior interaction with these folks was accurate. Is that biased? Potentially, yes, but it's a bias I'm willing to correct if it can be shown to be inaccurate.
I looked at that thread and decided it wasn't worth my time because it was obviously going to end up deleted. The idea of inviting people into a forum for some kind of a show down seemed really childish. If Bob can't defend his opinions elsewhere, why should we police the internet for him? I don't find it all that entertaining to have to go back to arguments that have been done to death (pardon the pun) around here multiple times, particularly with individuals who clearly haven't read the literature and who can't seem to write coherent posts. Bob can learn about the research. He can ask questions. I'm happy to share information and interesting links with those who ask. If he wants to take that information to go back and fight with others on twitter, that's up to him. But expecting us to gang up on people he's invited to the forum seems inappropriate to me. His decision to leave the forum in a huff seems equally inappropriate. If he's really interested in these topics, he should stick around.
 
Last edited:
#63
Bob seems to be acting as reactionary as Henson and his kin... I see no point in keeping him around if his idea is that we should 'evangelize' random people. These are ideologues and they are not interested in "learning" anything, they surely came here with the idea that they could quote a few lines from the Skeptic's Dictionary and wipe the floor with us.
 
#66
Bob seems to be acting as reactionary as Henson and his kin... I see no point in keeping him around if his idea is that we should 'evangelize' random people. These are ideologues and they are not interested in "learning" anything, they surely came here with the idea that they could quote a few lines from the Skeptic's Dictionary and wipe the floor with us.
Well I think anyone is free to invite others to come here, but them it is up to them to behave properly.

Nobody can really be evangelised here, but they can be introduced a whole variety of information that is usually suppressed or distorted. It doesn't require a huge effort from Laird or I to click the 'Ban' button!

David
 
Last edited:
#67
Well I think anyone is free to invite others to come here, but them it is up to them to behave properly.

Nobody can really be evangelised here, but they can be introduced a whole variety of information that is usually suppressed or distorted. It doesn't require a huge effort from Laird or I to click the 'Ban' button!

David
Take a gander at his Twitter account, it's obvious from it that he was expecting us to trample this guy and became infuriated when we did not just burn him in a stake. Also, notice the childish exchanges in there and tell me if there is a remote chance that any of the involved could become a substantial contributor.
 
#68
"All trouble is the result of soreheads"
The novelist John Gardner.

At this rate I'll find myself bannished. To a long dead quote thread in other stuff,that no one has seen in years.
 
B

Backup Liker 2 the Backup

#69
"All trouble is the result of soreheads"
The novelist John Gardner.

At this rate I'll find myself bannished. To a long dead quote thread in other stuff,that no one has seen in years.
Anyone quoting Gardner is welcome.
 
#71
Take a gander at his Twitter account, it's obvious from it that he was expecting us to trample this guy and became infuriated when we did not just burn him in a stake. Also, notice the childish exchanges in there and tell me if there is a remote chance that any of the involved could become a substantial contributor.
I don't use Facebook or Twitter, but if he decides to return and doesn't behave well, Laird or I will deal with that.

David
 
#73
I don't use Facebook or Twitter, but if he decides to return and doesn't behave well, Laird or I will deal with that.

David
This is probably a good time to mention that we seem to be losing members, and it's not because they are really inactive or "busy". I saw tim over at Ben William's page this week (when was the last time that he posted here?) and in this post over at Dean Radin's FB page (it's public so you don't need to have an account to see it, AFAIK) another one jumps the ship to Michael Prescott's forum: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10210270343128569&id=1040495800

Now, there's the possibility that they just got tired of the loop of Christian + Conspiracy podcasts that have been produced for, what, a year now? But the circular arguments in the forum may also be taking it's toll.
 
#74
This is probably a good time to mention that we seem to be losing members, and it's not because they are really inactive or "busy". I saw tim over at Ben William's page this week (when was the last time that he posted here?) and in this post over at Dean Radin's FB page (it's public so you don't need to have an account to see it, AFAIK) another one jumps the ship to Michael Prescott's forum: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10210270343128569&id=1040495800

Now, there's the possibility that they just got tired of the loop of Christian + Conspiracy podcasts that have been produced for, what, a year now? But the circular arguments in the forum may also be taking it's toll.
It is hard to say, I know that Tim took offence because I asked him to tone down his rhetoric a bit - only in the mildest of ways.

@Alex However, I do agree that Alex might try and focus the podcasts a bit more. Maybe he should be more willing to shelve a podcast if after recording it, it turns out to be rather dull.

Maybe some people like regular huge explosions of flaming and insults. If so, I plead guilty for having done my best to stop that sort of thing!

There is a fair stream of new members joining us, and of course Tim is still free to start posting again - as is Lone Shaman - perhaps my favourite poster!

David
 
#75
It is hard to say, I know that Tim took offence because I asked him to tone down his rhetoric a bit - only in the mildest of ways.

@Alex However, I do agree that Alex might try and focus the podcasts a bit more. Maybe he should be more willing to shelve a podcast if after recording it, it turns out to be rather dull.

Maybe some people like regular huge explosions of flaming and insults. If so, I plead guilty for having done my best to stop that sort of thing!

There is a fair stream of new members joining us, and of course Tim is still free to start posting again - as is Lone Shaman - perhaps my favourite poster!

David

@David Bailey


I happened to look in on the forum today, (which I still occasionally do) and I saw that you mentioned me so it's only right that I state this. Unfortunately, what you've written there is simply not correct but I can't be bothered trying to explain the facts of what occurred and why. In a nutshell, I personally find your 'moderation' to be arbitrary, inconsistent and overbearing.

You've got a good intellect, that has to be acknowledged but as a moderator there's something missing IMHO. As I mentioned to you months ago, you seem to want to 'rule the roost' in the manner of a school prefect, singling me out for special attention for reasons best known to yourself. Over forty years ago, I might have put up with that (for a while) but at my age, I don't need it, thank you. Then again, if you're genuinely doing your best then 'que sera' and of course someone has to do the job. So, no I won't be back but just to reiterate, no hard feelings from me, such is life.

My best regards to Alex and the other members ( Malf !... you've got till 2020 my friend)
 
#77
@David Bailey


I happened to look in on the forum today, (which I still occasionally do) and I saw that you mentioned me so it's only right that I state this. Unfortunately, what you've written there is simply not correct but I can't be bothered trying to explain the facts of what occurred and why. In a nutshell, I personally find your 'moderation' to be arbitrary, inconsistent and overbearing.

You've got a good intellect, that has to be acknowledged but as a moderator there's something missing IMHO. As I mentioned to you months ago, you seem to want to 'rule the roost' in the manner of a school prefect, singling me out for special attention for reasons best known to yourself. Over forty years ago, I might have put up with that (for a while) but at my age, I don't need it, thank you. Then again, if you're genuinely doing your best then 'que sera' and of course someone has to do the job. So, no I won't be back but just to reiterate, no hard feelings from me, such is life.

My best regards to Alex and the other members ( Malf !... you've got till 2020 my friend)
Hey Tim!
 
#80
I'd rather give Tim more rope to express his POV than see him go. He puts effort into corroborating things instead of quoting the opinion of some third party. I now see that his case is more like Gabriel's, which is a shame.
 
Top