Aron Ra Interview

[Laird]

Lol...

So, it seems you're still not willing to address the basic questions I've been putting to you for several posts now. I'll repeat them just so it's absolutely clear that I've asked them of you and expect a thoughtful answer:

What if you're wrong? What implications would that have for your treatment of Omni and Darren? And on what basis do you assume ("suspect") that you're right? Is that basis good enough to justify the way you've treated Omni and Darren?

[Laird]

IMO from now on only Ninshub should be able to moderate me given your clear bias

There's a difference between bias and the rational exercise of judgement. The latter is necessary as a mod, and is all I've offered in your case - and not even in my capacity as a moderator (if you disagree, then please point to a moderation decision that affects you other than your request, which we thought reasonable, and fulfilled, that Omni's skeptical contributions be confined to a single thread). That a moderator exercises his/her judgement does not, in and of itself, especially as inevitable as it is, make him/her biased.

I'm struggling to find the reasoning/reasonableness in your contributions to this thread.

That said, your idea that I'm angling to have you banned is way off. The idea hadn't even occurred to me. Literally. You're a valued contributor even if you have gone off the conspiratorial deep-end re Omni and Darren.

Given how sensitive you are in non-personal debates, bit surprised to see you try to jump in to the fray. Disappointing to[o], since I just vouched for your identity to Nbtruthman.

But then you did defend me against Darren's stupid claim that I was sending him spam - for which there's a far more likely explanation - so I guess I had to pay back my debt to you anyway. [Assuming he's not still around with one of his sock puppets, and wasn't making this up, someone who's still in contact with him should tell him to double check any bank account or credit card he uses online.]

Though I'd ask you to reflect for a moment...Why do you think Nbtruthman doubted you? Likely because of all the nonsense that has been happening, with "proponents" promoting and defending skeptics while casting doubt on proponents - even insulting Ian Wardell who was AFAIK a member in good standing on Skeptiko and may still be lurking here.

Max warned this would happen, and left because he didn't want to stick around in a place where moderation could be so easily gamed. Shame his warning wasn't properly heeded.

You and Smaw have both misunderstood me badly.  He might want to remove his "like" after this post.  The "Ha!" that I wrote was contempt for smaw's hypocrisy in this case.  Resorting to personal insults and then telling you to be the better man.   I don't specifically agree with you in this but I understand your position in this as I am well acquainted with the experience of being alone in such a debate. (I don't disagree with you either - you are intelligent enough and you obviously have your reasons - it's just not something that I have picked up on myself.)

You and Smaw have both misunderstood me badly.  He might want to remove his "like" after this post.  The "Ha!" that I wrote was contempt for smaw's hypocrisy in this case.  Resorting to personal insults and then telling you to be the better man.   I don't specifically agree with you in this but I understand your position in this as I am well acquainted with the experience of being alone in such a debate. (I don't disagree with you either - you are intelligent enough and you obviously have your reasons - it's just not something that I have picked up on myself.)

Ah, gotcha. Forgive me for misunderstanding.

Ah, gotcha. Forgive me for misunderstanding.

You are forgiven

So, it seems you're still not willing to address the basic questions I've been putting to you for several posts now. I'll repeat them just so it's absolutely clear that I've asked them of you and expect a thoughtful answer:

What if you're wrong? What implications would that have for your treatment of Omni and Darren? And on what basis do you assume ("suspect") that you're right? Is that basis good enough to justify the way you've treated Omni and Darren?

Seems you're unwilling to address my question of whether I can be granted immunity from your moderation given your bias/persecution against me.

Though now that I think about [it], who knows how you might berate poor Ninshub behind the scenes and force him to act out your will?

No, the only fair thing is for any moderation against me to require a vote by the founding members. Additionally I should be includ[ed] in the discussion and given a vote as well.

What could be the argument against such a reasonable request? That if everyone had this kind of special status the forum would quickly lose any hope of maintaining a shred of quality?....hmmmmmmmm.....

edit: For the record I answered your question long ago - if someone acts like a pseudo-skeptic pretending to be a proponent they can hardly be surprised to be treated like one. No one had a case of the vapors whenever I took down Steve001's nonsense, and at least he's honestly presented himself...though I do wonder if he's a proponent in disguise given how bad his arguments are....

As for Darren, he came in spitting insults at me of a deep personal nature - that as a mod you apparently don't mind because it suits your personal moral narrative - then couldn't take the mildest criticism by Mediochre about sensationalizing his interviews but not putting them up in their entirety. An internet tough guy with a digital glass jaw...given the rough and tumble nature of the community going back to the Skeptiko days he just wasn't built for this place.

Also my behavior was simply inline with the way the community has always been, with you being the prime example of that kind of behavior.

Heck, look back to your replies to Paul because you thought he was being dishonest about his argumentation regarding free will...heck you told me you were going to ban him from the free will discussion threads until I advised you that it would only make him the victor if he was prevented by moderation from being allowed to participate.

Seems you're unwilling to address my question of whether I can be granted immunity from your moderation given your bias/persecution against me.

Though now that I think about [it], who knows how you might berate poor Ninshub behind the scenes and force him to act out your will?

No, the only fair thing is for any moderation against me to require a vote by the founding members. Additionally I should be includ[ed] in the discussion and given a vote as well.

What could be the argument against such a reasonable request? That if everyone had this kind of special status the forum would quickly lose any hope of maintaining a shred of quality?....hmmmmmmmm.....

edit: For the record I answered your question long ago - if someone acts like a pseudo-skeptic pretending to be a proponent they can hardly be surprised to be treated like one. No one had a case of the vapors whenever I took down Steve001's nonsense, and at least he's honestly presented himself...though I do wonder if he's a proponent in disguise given how bad his arguments are....

As for Darren, he came in spitting insults at me of a deep personal nature - that as a mod you apparently don't mind because it suits your personal moral narrative - then couldn't take the mildest criticism by Mediochre about sensationalizing his interviews but not putting them up in their entirety. An internet tough guy with a digital glass jaw...given the rough and tumble nature of the community going back to the Skeptiko days he just wasn't built for this place.

Also my behavior was simply inline with the way the community has always been, with you being the prime example of that kind of behavior.

Heck, look back to your replies to Paul because you thought he was being dishonest about his argumentation regarding free will...heck you told me you were going to ban him from the free will discussion threads until I advised you that it would only make him the victor if he was prevented by moderation from being allowed to participate.

You still didn't actually answer his question. What happens if you were wrong about Darren and Omni in which case you've just been a massive dick this whole time to a random enthusiast who took the side of Omni and a dude who's a little stressed out and paranoid so looks for people to reaffirm his position a lot? Saying "well I treat them like it because they deserve it" doesn't much answer that. 

Right now it seems like you're just hurling these weird demands of moderation towards the staff and insults towards Laird to dodge responsibility.

Also can't help it Brian I'm Australian insults get mixed in, Sci is free to be the bigger man than me too, if he likes.

You still didn't actually answer his question. What happens if you were wrong about Darren and Omni in which case you've just been a massive dick this whole time to a random enthusiast who took the side of Omni and a dude who's a little stressed out and paranoid so looks for people to reaffirm his position a lot? Saying "well I treat them like it because they deserve it" doesn't much answer that. 

Right now it seems like you're just hurling these weird demands of moderation towards the staff and insults towards Laird to dodge responsibility.

Also can't help it Brian I'm Australian insults get mixed in, Sci is free to be the bigger man than me too, if he likes.

Why are you even talking to me? I already said your opinion is of zero value to me since I think you're in on whatever gaming of this forum is going on. Go back to defending Novella but attacking Ian Wardell, one of our own community members...though apparently Laird - who AFAIK is sadly still a mod - can't be bothered to do anything about it since he's so busy trying to guilt trip me about "personal" attacks while justifying the personal attacks Darren made against me.

Put "personal" in quotes because "fraud" is the charge and "insecure" was nothing but a summarization of the position given, that Omni could spam this forum with bad pseudoskeptic arguments but couldn't even try to do anything esoteric because he felt the skeptics online would be laughing at him...

And truth is if I'm wrong about you then your treatment of Omni has been far worse than anything I said to him. After all I think he's a fraud, you think he's genuine, and yet among your first posts in this forum was "coincidentally" mocking people who are desperate to believe in the afterlife.

Then you mocked him here ->

Surely you aren't so paranoid Omni that now we're going to be making enemies out of random fuckin strangers on quora who aren't even anyone. What's next, infamous youtube user SpiceMom246 posted these several poorful informed youtube comments?

Again, like, gotta stop looking around man. At least figure out how to deal with these people yourself. Literally all it takes is a youtube search. Eventually your doubt is going to become needlessly contagious to everyone else on here.

That last line, in fact, seems to agree with my position.

your request, which we thought reasonable, and fulfilled, that Omni's skeptical contributions be confined to a single thread

And thank-whatever-God-is for that because when Max first brought up his concerns and CC'd me, your position was that anyone claiming to be a proponent should be allowed to post across the subforums. If you had [gotten] your way there'd be garbage strewn across the subforums meant for proponent discussion.

My guess Ninshub deserves the credit for being the voice of reason there. 

Though, of course, you didn't actually enforce this - though in my discussions with him about how the forum's quality is falling I believe Ninshub would if he could act alone - which is how we got a bunch of new threads with sensationalist titles like "Neuroscientist debunks Neuroscientific Evidence-Irreducible Mind'"....SPOILER though, no one has produced evidence dude is a neuroscientist so I pushed for a thread title change...

And on what basis do you assume ("suspect") that you're right?

By the way, it's crazy you'd ask this after all the discussions that've been had publicly and privately again and again about how the forum is being gamed, where Max even left because he wasn't gonna stick around for this nonsense. I'd have thought "HeheXd1" posting in the NDE subforum after Omni was relegated to posting in a thread in debate would've been enough of a clincher. Someone coming in with a pseudo-skeptic talking point using some old paper (sound familiar?), claiming to also suffer from a fear of death (sound familiar?)...even Smaw shows up yet again when we've dismissed the paper to try and push for the pseudo-skeptic author's argument having some merit...it's so obvious...sigh...

A friend of mine from Atlantic City once said that the reason cons work isn't because the conman is that great of a liar, it's because no one wants to admit they've been conned. Even as the lie gets increasingly implausible the mark just will not accept that they've been suckered.