Suspensions, Bannings, and Post Deletions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#1
This thread is for posting suspensions, bannings, and post deletions, along with the reasons for them. Please take discussions of these actions to another thread.

The following members are banned from posting in the Skeptiko Show, Consciousness & Science, Extended Consciousness & Spirituality, and Explorers & Implementers forum:

  • Arouet
  • Dakota Rider
  • fls
  • Kay
  • malf
  • Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
  • steve001
 
Last edited:
#2
The following members are banned from posting in the Consciousness & Science and Extended Consciousness & Spirituality forums. They may also be banned from the Explorers & Implementers forums. The reason is that these members are considered to believe in scientific materialism, mind = brain, and to assume that consciousness is an illusion created by biological robots.
  • Arouet
  • Dakota Rider
  • fls
  • Kay
  • malf
  • Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
  • steve001
thx Paul... but let me clarify... and this is hard to do... but the real reason to shift the conversation that these posters generate over to this thread is that it's proven to be disruptive to the conversations most of the rest of the folks on the forum want to have.

I can think of no better example than the thread I started a few days ago: Why We Need Skeptics in the Skeptiko Forum

I started it in the CD forum so I could get the input of y'all and I did. So, rather than re-hash all that was said in that thread I'll just use it as an example of the kind of conversation that needs to stay over here.

but... more to the point... over time I've come to believe that certain posters... no matter how hard they try... always wind up in these same dialogs. that's why I've asked you to move over here. so, it's not belief per se... it's experience.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#3
Uh, folks, this forum is supposed to contain a list of suspensions and bannings, not a discussion of them. I guess that wasn't clear, so I added a couple of sentences to the opening post.

Alex: Could you delete these extra posts, or move them to a new thread perhaps titled "Discussion of Suspensions and Bannings."

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#10
Paul, could you please link to the offending post(s) from now on? Or if that's not possible, provide the thread containing the transgression(s), along with a more thorough description?

If you're just gonna halfass your way through this, best to get somebody more motivated on the job. Maybe you're just getting too old for this line of work.
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#11
Paul, could you please link to the offending post(s) from now on? Or if that's not possible, provide the thread containing the transgression(s), along with a more thorough description?

If you're just gonna halfass your way through this, best to get somebody more motivated on the job. Maybe you're just getting too old for this line of work.
Of course I'm halfassing it, you silly fellow. None of the moderators are willing to do it. All I have to go on is rumor, guesswork, and absence of evidence. As for the offending posts, half the time they are gone.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#12
Of course I'm halfassing it, you clown. None of the moderators are willing to do it. All I have to go on is rumor, guesswork, and absence of evidence. As for the offending posts, half the time they are gone.
Jeez, I thought you were receiving official documents and stuff. My apologies. AP's moderating seems hastily done, disorganized and reckless... But imagine if Larkin was a mod?! That would be insane! He gets pissed at members for not breaking comments down into a sufficient number of paragraphs to his liking. I love the guy, but he's possibly the most easily offended man on earth. Is this a british thing?
 
#16
Jeez, I thought you were receiving official documents and stuff. My apologies. AP's moderating seems hastily done, disorganized and reckless... But imagine if Larkin was a mod?! That would be insane! He gets pissed at members for not breaking comments down into a sufficient number of paragraphs to his liking. I love the guy, but he's possibly the most easily offended man on earth. Is this a british thing?
I wasn't offended: in fact if you'll read what I said, I congratulated the poster for his articulacy. I just found it hard to read for the lack of paragraph spacing, and was very polite, saying that I hoped he didn't mind my mentioning it. Is it an American thing to confuse a polite request with being offended? If I get offended at one thing more than any other, it's people, proponent or sceptic, who don't actually engage and carry on arguing in the same old way about the same old straw men. After a while, I just put them on ignore.

I was actually made a moderator, without my knowledge, near the start of the new forum. Then I noticed someone said that I could ignore people, but they couldn't ignore me. So I asked Alex to remove my moderator privileges, which mean that one can't be ignored. If people want to ignore me, then I want them to be able to.

Sure, if I owned this blog, there'd be a few people who would get permanently banned. But I'm far from being alone about that. You may not know that there was the secret haven on the old forum, and that private conversations go on in this forum where sceptics are lambasted. One thing about me is that I don't really get involved in such discussions: they're pointless. I just keep re-iterating the advice that if someone gets up your nose, you should just put them on ignore and they'll disappear.

As to Andy's style of moderation, well, he doesn't have to moderate at all and it's a pretty thankless task. You are aware that he has a lot on his plate, aren't you? Writing up his thesis and so forth?

Love ya ta bits too, FDR, but on this occasion you're out of line and haven't got your facts straight.
 
#17
I wasn't offended: in fact if you'll read what I said, I congratulated the poster for his articulacy. I just found it hard to read for the lack of paragraph spacing, and was very polite, saying that I hoped he didn't mind my mentioning it. Is it an American thing to confuse a polite request with being offended? If I get offended at one thing more than any other, it's people, proponent or sceptic, who don't actually engage and carry on arguing in the same old way about the same old straw men. After a while, I just put them on ignore.

I was actually made a moderator, without my knowledge, near the start of the new forum. Then I noticed someone said that I could ignore people, but they couldn't ignore me. So I asked Alex to remove my moderator privileges, which mean that one can't be ignored. If people want to ignore me, then I want them to be able to.

Sure, if I owned this blog, there'd be a few people who would get permanently banned. But I'm far from being alone about that. You may not know that there was the secret haven on the old forum, and that private conversations go on in this forum where sceptics are lambasted. One thing about me is that I don't really get involved in such discussions: they're pointless. I just keep re-iterating the advice that if someone gets up your nose, you should just put them on ignore and they'll disappear.

As to Andy's style of moderation, well, he doesn't have to moderate at all and it's a pretty thankless task. You are aware that he has a lot on his plate, aren't you? Writing up his thesis and so forth?

Love ya ta bits too, FDR, but on this occasion you're out of line and haven't got your facts straight.

Okay, I see. Although, I was half joking and therefore, I am not out of line. I knew you were going to read what I'd written... And I was fully joking in reference to AP. I used the word 'reckless'. I think that's a clear demonstration of hyperbole, but maybe I should try and be more explicit somehow.

You do seem to get offended easily. I mean, of course you seem to get offended easily!! But I love it! That's your style. It blends perfectly with your erudition and eloquence. Remember when you took major issue with members disliking your posts in the climate change thread, and it caused you to take a break from the forum? :D I rest my case.
 
#19
Okay, I see. Although, I was half joking and therefore, I am not out of line. I knew you were going to read what I'd written... And I was fully joking in reference to AP. I used the word 'reckless'. I think that's a clear demonstration of hyperbole, but maybe I should try and be more explicit somehow.

You do seem to get offended easily. I mean, of course you seem to get offended easily!! But I love it! That's your style. It blends perfectly with your erudition and eloquence. Remember when you took major issue with members disliking your posts in the climate change thread, and it caused you to take a break from the forum? :D I rest my case.
It's the word offended I object to. I'm not offended by anyone who posts here. I do however get irritated with people sometimes, and I can be very straightforward about that. The reason I took a short break from the forum was on a matter of principle: having the dislike option meant that people could form political cadres: something that already goes on in the climate controversy. Don't engage the arguments, but call people deniers: pure ad hominem, the last resort of the inarticulate. Right from the start I made the decision not to click the dislike option for anyone, not even the most rabid sceptic, and made that known. But people, knowing that, carried on doing it with intention of trying to needle me. Well, they did needle me, but not for the reason they supposed. I wasn't irritated by their dislikes per se, but by the level to which discussion had descended.

If the dislike option had reappeared, I might well not have returned to the forum. The thought of people using the dislike button as a political weapon, by no means only against me, just lowered the tone of the whole thing and took away a large part of the enjoyment. People can call me black and blue and I won't be offended: they may well get as good as they give. But people playing silly games by clicking a button in lieu of speaking their minds is extremely irritating. I mean, you've just slung a brickbat at me and I haven't been offended, have I? Nor have I set you on ignore. You've spoken your mind, and that's okay; and as a matter of fact you've not even irritated me.

Offended, as I understand the word, is what my grannie would have been if someone had showed their backside to her: it would have challenged her dignity. Irritated, on the other hand, is what happens when someone rings my doorbell and then runs away. It's not a question of my dignity, but of their childishness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top