Mod+ Is Bro really Alex's evil twin?

K9!

New
1896815_666560020072725_2042763867_n.jpg



Well. the thread started off innocently enough....
 
Last edited:
tbh K9, Paul does put up with as much as he gives out here - which I would say is kind of medium level yelling matches but nothing that offensive. IMO he hasn't written anything here so egregious he deserves the big ban. He's just doing what Skeptic fundamentalist believers do you know? I mean I think Alex provides a bit of leniency on both sides of the fence - which frankly, has probably saved the bacon of some of us on the "proponent" side. It's probably the only way there can be any kind of continuing discussions at all (well ... if you can call them discussions, but that's a debate for another thread).

Now if you want to talk about some of the other underhanded crap Skeptics are up to ... like on Wikipedia. Those pieces of **** should be sued for defamatory libel and put behind bars.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Paul posted profanity in my thread knowing I'd find it offensive. It was clearly meant to provoke complaints on my part and test the moderators. That is why skeptics should not post outside of CD. They are not here to contribute to the forum. They are here to drive away proponents. Most of us rarely post outside of private conversations. That's very much the aim of people like Paul.

I've asked the moderators to delete the thread. It's been ruined by skeptics as much of this forum has.

It does seem like one of their agendas is to simply drive away proponents. But most of their discussions (I believe) are limited to only one subset of the forums right? i.e "Critical Discussion Among Proponents and Skeptics" ... Although Critical might be up for grabs.

I kind of waver between accepting the guy (for having a differing viewpoint) and despising him for obvious dishonest intellectual activity. And I agree with Szechuan, he's like a three year old that repeats the same questions - and it does make you wonder if he does it on purpose or if it's just his fundamentalistic Skeptic outlook. He's not stupid though - but he is arrogant.

So I don't know. Ultimately it's up to Alex of course. But really, you have no hope at all of having any kind of reasonable discussion on any of the Skeptic websites. They ridicule you, laugh at you, present their bogus rationalities, and then you're banned (I've heard.) I've never been stupid enough to venture onto another Skeptic website for any length of time.

So I guess I'm somewhat on the fence with this. I think Alex has divided the forum territory up a bit. And he does keep the Skeptics off of the threads discussing his shows, which is a wise move on his part. So - if they keep to the sub-thread, and are not too nutzoid - or start threatening people etc. I suppose they provide some amount of entertainment.

And like I mentioned before - he does kind of put up with a lot of crap from proponents as well. So much so, I'm often surprised he continues to stick around. I've dished it out to the guy. Pointed out to him what he is doing in no uncertain terms.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
The moderators generally take a dim view of threads about other forum members.

Ban K9!
Now malf is a different story. He has been a little bit more trollish than Paul. He seems like a more juvenile Skeptical version of Paul. His arguments and tactics more transparent. He loves to put in his Skeptic abuse at the tail end of a discussion. Kind of like a two-bit bully on the playground.

But he is right - I believe you're not suppose to create a thread with a topic of some other poster. But then again, it is a rather interesting topic.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
OS has always been open to all.

What on earth does mod+ mean on a thread like this anyway?
 
Paul posted profanity in my thread knowing I'd find it offensive. It was clearly meant to provoke complaints on my part and test the moderators. That is why skeptics should not post outside of CD. They are not here to contribute to the forum. They are here to drive away proponents. Most of us rarely post outside of private conversations. That's very much the aim of people like Paul.
Sorry, I didn't realize you'd find it offensive, since people use the word occasionally in regular posts. I deleted that graphic.

~~ Paul
 
Well at least the Wiki "skeptics" can't do much substantial damage to the entry on Bible prophecy. There's one thing at least they blows their crappy stance out of the water for good.
 
Sorry, I didn't realize you'd find it offensive, since people use the word occasionally in regular posts. I deleted that graphic.

~~ Paul
Thanks Paul. I would have deleted it at K9's request but I'm having some technical difficulties with permissions that still need to be sorted out by Alex. Would you please remove the Carl Sagan joke and the Harry Potter one as well? Alex has given me all the capabilities necessary, but they're not showing up on my screen. Until this gets fixed, I'm going to rely on the honor system, so I really appreciate your proactive stance. Also this is a MOD+ thread. You already understand that this means no materialism. I think we should also interpret this as everything is to be in good taste.

For everyone who reads this, my personal acceptance of humor is quite broad and I tend to let stuff that might offend others just blow by me. I would say that on this forum though it might be in everyone's best interest for all of us to avoid jokes that explicitly make fun of psychics, proponents and skeptics unless there is a thread made explicitly for that purpose where everyone has a go at each other's humor.
 
Thanks Paul. I would have deleted it at K9's request but I'm having some technical difficulties with permissions that still need to be sorted out by Alex. Would you please remove the Carl Sagan joke and the Harry Potter one as well? Alex has given me all the capabilities necessary, but they're not showing up on my screen. Until this gets fixed, I'm going to rely on the honor system, so I really appreciate your proactive stance. Also this is a MOD+ thread. You already understand that this means no materialism.
No, I didn't understand that. The first two graphics are about dogs and toilets. I had no idea what Mod+ meant. Anyhoo, I deleted the entire post.

~~ Paul
 
T
Paul, remove the profanity from your post. This thread is mod+. I don't see how that language is appropriate for the forum even without a mod+.
As described, Mod+ has nothing to do with profanity. It's there to prevent the usual materialist naysayer argments in a thread.
 
No, I didn't understand that. The first two graphics are about dogs and toilets. I had no idea what Mod+ meant. Anyhoo, I deleted the entire post.

~~ Paul
Thanks again for your understanding. And yes, MOD+ does preclude discussions including the materialist and even the skeptical viewpoint. Some discussions, especially experience related, need to be free of criticism for posters to feel comfortable. And there are other situations where discussions must necessarily take place with non materialist assumptions in place.
 
As described, Mod+ has nothing to do with profanity. It's there to prevent the usual materialist naysayer argments in a thread.
The meaning of Mod+ depends entirely on the person starting the thread, and that person is supposed to explain it in the opening post. If I start a Mod+ thread, I can assure you it does not mean "no materialist naysayers."

If we want a flag that means exactly "no materialist naysayers," it should be 'Skeptic-' or some such.

~~ Paul
 
Thanks again for your understanding. And yes, MOD+ does preclude discussions including the materialist and even the skeptical viewpoint. Some discussions, especially experience related, need to be free of criticism for posters to feel comfortable. And there are other situations where discussions must necessarily take place with non materialist assumptions in place.
That was not the original intent of the Mod+ tag. It is a generic tag whose meaning has to be specified by the person starting the thread.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/what-does-mod-mean.1266/

~~ Paul
 
That was not the original intent of the Mod+ tag. It is a generic tag whose meaning has to be specified by the person starting the thread.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/what-does-mod-mean.1266/

~~ Paul

What I described was my understanding of MOD+ and of many others as well. I would recommend that you assume that those assumptions are in place unless the OP explicitly says otherwise. If you are in doubt, you can always ask the OP nicely in the thread. That person and that person alone gets to decide who is on their thread. I don't think I would allow this on the Critical Discussions Subform though, out of respect to the skeptics.

Basically, it acts the same way Haven did in the old forum.
 
Back
Top