The Good Place

Ah, no - it simply seems I expressed gladness to the wrong person for setting the record straight.

To be honest, I'm regretting relaxing my "Ignore" filter because, yet again, I got drawn-in when I should have - well - ignored. If I stay around it will have to be Double-Strength-Ignore from now on.

Odd how that doesn't seem to tally with this post from a certain "Darat" who, according to the designation below the username, was an Administrator / JREF Forum Liason. This is Darat's post from 3rd. May 2011 at 5:30 AM in response to fls who signed as "Linda".


I can post the message you wrote to which the above was a reply, if you like. Or you can stick with your current claim to "Poster Child" status. I don't really give a damn.

First, that was not a ban - it was a brief suspension which was discovered to be unwarranted.

Second, if you have the whole thread to read, you can see that that brief incident was a silly misunderstanding, during a discussion over whether or not Darat was a bit of an ass with respect to moderation (with respect to another member). Darat misunderstood something I wrote, and jumped the gun to suspend me. Once I clarified, it was overturned. Weirdly, it turned out to be an example which contradicted the moderators' previous claim (that I did not need to worry about running afoul of moderation, given that I didn't engage in problematic behavior). 

There had a been a discussion earlier in the thread about giving false information when signing up for the forum, as one of the reasons a member could be banned. At that time, I asked for clarification because I had given the wrong answer to the question "first name?" when signing up. I gave the name I go by, rather than my first name, thinking that it would be confusing to sign my posts with a name which was different from that given on the membership agreement. Darat (if I recall correctly - this was years ago) confirmed that that substitution was fine. Later in the thread, the topic of bannable offenses came up again and I used that example to show that there were caveats to the claim that false information on the membership agreement would get you banned. I said something like, "for example, even though I gave 'false' information on the membership agreement, I am not in danger of being banned for it." I don't know why Darat didn't think I was referring to the "first name/name you go by" thing.

Linda

First, that was not a ban - it was a brief suspension which was discovered to be unwarranted.

Second, if you have the whole thread to read, you can see that that brief incident was a silly misunderstanding, during a discussion over whether or not Darat was a bit of an ass with respect to moderation (with respect to another member). Darat misunderstood something I wrote, and jumped the gun to suspend me. Once I clarified, it was overturned. Weirdly, it turned out to be an example which contradicted the moderators' previous claim (that I did not need to worry about running afoul of moderation, given that I didn't engage in problematic behavior). 

There had a been a discussion earlier in the thread about giving false information when signing up for the forum, as one of the reasons a member could be banned. At that time, I asked for clarification because I had given the wrong answer to the question "first name?" when signing up. I gave the name I go by, rather than my first name, thinking that it would be confusing to sign my posts with a name which was different from that given on the membership agreement. Darat (if I recall correctly - this was years ago) confirmed that that substitution was fine. Later in the thread, the topic of bannable offenses came up again and I used that example to show that there were caveats to the claim that false information on the membership agreement would get you banned. I said something like, "for example, even though I gave 'false' information on the membership agreement, I am not in danger of being banned for it." I don't know why Darat didn't think I was referring to the "first name/name you go by" thing.

Linda

At Skeptiko it was often called a temporary ban. JREF called it a suspension. Semantics. Anyhow, this post is the last I will post on this because I am not getting into one of your interminable games of last.

Darat wasn't the only one so your claim to being the poster child is still far from credible (only someone with an ego of Trumpian proportions would even make that claim about themselves). Here's another post from the same thread from someone with the username, "remirol", designated "Senior Wrangler". Clearly remirol had precisely the same impression of you that most at Skeptiko had so this should look familiar to those who have been around that long.

ETA: Regardless, the behavior in this thread is near-identical to the behavior in the other thread that I'm referring to -- refusal to speak clearly unless asked 'yes or no' questions, hiding behind semantics, and in general spending a great deal of time obfuscating, being disingenuous, and trying to play 'gotcha' -- none of which are 'honest' means of communication.

That was in response to someone called Francesca who suggested:

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It is because the "correct required information" can still be false information.

I don't think it's about skepticism or doubt. There are proponents here who exhibit skepticism about Uri Geller, for example, and don't get any grief for it. I think it's about what we first talked about - whether or not we accept the characterization that evidence (in the scientific sense) or debate favors the proponent position.

Linda 

 When one questions the evidence as we do that is equivalent to doubting the evidence.

At Skeptiko it was often called a temporary ban. JREF called it a suspension. Semantics. Anyhow, this post is the last I will post on this because I am not getting into one of your interminable games of last.

Darat wasn't the only one so your claim to being the poster child is still far from credible (only someone with an ego of Trumpian proportions would even make that claim about themselves).

I said it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as it came up on the JREF forum when I was complaining about the moderation of someone else, and that response was intended to show that I shouldn't complain because it wasn't likely to happen to me. I rolled my eyes at it, since it missed the point. Regardless, it remains that I didn't run into any of the problems that were a regular occurrence on Skeptiko (and here, I suspect) where other posters asked for me to be suspended, banned or censored. And until that final thread where I and others complained about the moderation (which in retrospect was still fabulous compared to the moderation on Skeptiko and here), and a few of the moderators did not respond well to the criticism, I hadn't run afoul of any moderation. Even if what you meant by "banned" was that temporary suspension, it wasn't a temp ban because anyone had a problem with my behavior or found me intolerable. Just Darat's misunderstanding of something I said.

I'm not saying that I got along with everyone. There were a few people I got into heated arguments with on a few topics - just look at some old circumcision threads, for example. But they tended to be the posters which most other forum members argued with, as well. The member who I was standing up for in that thread was one of them.    

Here's another post from the same thread from someone with the username, "remirol", designated "Senior Wrangler". Clearly remirol had precisely the same impression of you that most at Skeptiko had so this should look familiar to those who have been around that long.

LOL. I don't remember that from remirol, and I don't know what thread they are referring to. Was that about me? 
Paul said there was an out-pouring of support for me after I left, too, although I didn't go back to look at the forum. Anyways, this isn't about whether you can find posters that didn't like me at the JREF forum. It would be weird (and a bit suspicious) to be universally liked. It's about whether I ran into the same kind of problems there as I ran into here, and was banned from the forum (even temporarily) because I was generally found to be intolerable. Neither of those things were even remotely the case.
Linda

ETA: I looked at the JREF thread again to refresh my memory, and some things I said above were incorrect. I'm just going to correct them in this post, because I don't want to derail the thread by making new post.

It wasn't Darat who had been an ass or caused problems - it was a couple of the other mods. I probably conflated the two because Darat was known for being a dick and this complaint was regularly levied against him. But he wasn't the dick in this case. It had been remirol who was the main dick in this case, which I forgot. Which is even weirder because it was remirol's behavior (plus those two mods) which was the final straw which led me to leave the JREF forum. You'd think their name would have been seared into my brain.

There was a small group of people on the JREF forum who, whenever a mod/moderation action was criticized, would circle the wagons and jump on any complainers. They were jokingly called "modettes" by the rest of us. A thread was started (not by me), complaining about the banning of another member. I participated in that thread because I was familiar with the case. As a result, remirol took their turn as modette and attacked me. It ended up an argument about the false claims remirol directed my way, instead of a discussion of the moderation issues. I tried to bring the discussion back to the moderation issues, but was unsuccessful. So the quote kamarling posted wasn't an indication of how I was viewed, but one of remirol's specious attacks.

What Kamarling wants to call a "temporary ban" wasn't even a suspension. When I tried to call it a suspension, the admin was quick to point out that it wasn't a suspension, because it wasn't punitive. It was an administrative action for bookkeeping purposes.

This must be a new low in pure spin without a smidgen of merit.

1. Please re-read the Uri Geller thread. I don't need to do so in order to recollect numerous mentions, by proponents, of Geller being a showman and probably a liar and a cheat. All that was suggested was there there might have been times when he displayed genuine abilities too.

2. I have said, and am sure other proponents would concur, that Carl Sagan was a huge positive influence. For me, his Cosmos series provided a great encouragement to learn more about cosmology in particular and science in general. I bought a book written by him (The Dragons of Eden) and was disappointed to find him pushing his ideological materialism in a popular science book - something he refrained from doing in his TV show. I have said all this previously on this forum.

3. Krauss (I notice you still can't even get his name right) is the very epitome of the kind of dick that Phil Plait was talking about. I don't want to detail the allegations against him but any google search for "Lawrence Krauss controversy" will furnish you with ample reading material from other skeptics as would the opinions of the leading female skeptic, Rebecca Watson.

4. "Forums like this are the cyber equivalent to brick and mortar places of worship" ... really? Coming from you that is so very rich. Have you no concept of irony? 

5. Historically, Skeptiko was very lenient when it came to moderation and reasons were always given for banning. Fls was repeatedly banned, usually temporarily until they just got fed up and banned her permanently. David B heralded a less tolerant attitude to moderation which resulted in many proponents leaving and some of us agreeing to create this forum, again with relaxed moderation. Let us not forget that fls was also banned from the JREF forum - a skeptics talking shop - so it is not only proponents who find her intolerable. Yet she - and you - are still here. Still crying crocodile tears about what a nasty bunch we are just because you have doubts. Again: really? I mean, REALLY? 

6. Finally, scepticism is not an ideology. It is not synonymous with atheism or materialism. It is about weighing the evidence and pointing out possible inconsistencies. For the most part, Malf does that. Chris - who you would probably include in your pejorative term "believers" is often sceptical. So is Max. Most of the so-called proponents here have expressed some scepticism and disagreement when you consider subjects case by case. Again: doubt is not a synonym for denial. Indeed, the only person here that I can think of who is fanatically obdurate is you, Steve.

Malf just quips now.  Bart, Paul rarely participate. Arouet has been absent for months. Dakotarider I think got fed up long ago. Except for this recent run I've limited my participation. Chris would never get a pejorative from me. Your right, doubt is not a cinnamon for denial. And you don't comprehended in the least why that physics forum thought you a troll. Or do you?

 When one questions the evidence as we do that is equivalent to doubting the evidence.

On the surface, it looks like that should be the case. But some of the posters here are critical of some individual studies, but they are given a free pass, because they also yield to the overall characterization that evidence or debate favors the proponent position.

Linda

just look at some old circumcision threads,

  Sorry, that is just so funny

On the surface, it looks like that should be the case. But some of the posters here are critical of some individual studies, but they are given a free pass, because they also yield to the overall characterization that evidence or debate favors the proponent position.

Linda

They always have the wind in their sails.

I don't want to put words in the mouth of Silence (wow, that's an odd phrase to write) but I don't think Silence was making the point that this should be a proponent-only forum. Indeed Silence anticipates your point by saying "it would be refreshing to have an actual counter viewpoint poster here beyond Steve".

Correct Kam and thanks for the clarification.

More succinctly, I wish we had more actual skeptics and fewer idealogues (scientific materialists or otherwise for that matter, but my focus was on the former in this thread).