FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2001, 01:05 PM   #21
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Yeah, wouldn't want to act on any information. I mean, what if the American public had taken those rumours of attrocities in Nazi Germany seriously. Thank God they remained "appropriately skeptical."</font>
It is disrespectful of people who actually died in the holocaust to be comparing that event to the possibility that SWL has been banned.

There is no need to jump to conclusions. There are a number of scenarios that fit the evidence:

SWL could be lying or playing a prank.

Bede could be misreading SWL's email.

SWL could be mistaken.

The administrators thought that SWL had threatened physical violence against someone or otherwise misbehaved.

No one is likely to die while we wait for the evidence.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-12-2001, 01:15 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
It is disrespectful of people who actually died in the holocaust to be comparing that event to the possibility that SWL has been banned.

There is no need to jump to conclusions. There are a number of scenarios that fit the evidence:

SWL could be lying or playing a prank.

Bede could be misreading SWL's email.

SWL could be mistaken.

The administrators thought that SWL had threatened physical violence against someone or otherwise misbehaved.

No one is likely to die while we wait for the evidence.
</font>
I in no way equate being banned from a website with the holocaust. But I do think that the point is fairly made: using the excuse of remaining "appropriately skeptical" when there is credible evidence that something inappropriate occurred is a copout.

Of course, since this may have only happened to a theist, perhaps the skeptical indifference is justified. Perhaps one should only remain "appropriately skeptical" when it is happening to a viewpoint you disfavor. The American public seemed to hold this view before WW II.

That being said, Rodahi indicated that he would look into it and I am confident that he will. I am willing to wait for him to check it out. What I was responding to, however, were immediate assumptions that our concern over this issue was silly or indicative of naivity.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 01:40 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But I do think that the point is fairly made: using the excuse of remaining "appropriately skeptical" when there is credible evidence that something inappropriate occurred is a copout. </font>
What credible evidence? We have Mars's assertion and Bede's hearsay. That's it. And there is no credible evidence to indicate why SWL would have been banned.

Oh, I forgot. A claim is considered persuasive evidence if it accords with one's prejudice.

If disagreement with non-theism were grounds for banishment, there are a lot of people here who would have been gone a loooooong time ago.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. The absolute worst that the administration of II can do is to banned you from IIDB. That's not exactly exile to the gulag.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 01:48 PM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SingleDad:
What credible evidence? We have Mars's assertion and Bede's hearsay. That's it. And there is no credible evidence to indicate why SWL would have been banned.

Oh, I forgot. A claim is considered persuasive evidence if it accords with one's prejudice.

If disagreement with non-theism were grounds for banishment, there are a lot of people here who would have been gone a loooooong time ago.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. The absolute worst that the administration of II can do is to banned you from IIDB. That's not exactly exile to the gulag.
</font>
Ah. I see. We can't believe that SWL was banned unless he tells us so himself? Of course, if he is banned he can't quite do that can he?

And to be clear, I am willing to await for further evience on the issue. Rodahi is acting in his role as moderator to look into this. I appreciate his efforts and am withholding judgment until he gets back to us.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 03:01 PM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SingleDad:
What credible evidence? We have Mars's assertion and Bede's hearsay. That's it. And there is no credible evidence to indicate why SWL would have been banned.

Oh, I forgot. A claim is considered persuasive evidence if it accords with one's prejudice.

If disagreement with non-theism were grounds for banishment, there are a lot of people here who would have been gone a loooooong time ago.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. The absolute worst that the administration of II can do is to banned you from IIDB. That's not exactly exile to the gulag.
</font>
SecWebLurker (whom I have on ICQ and have spoken to almost every day online for the last 2 and a half years)told me that he was banned. He tried to post a message and a screen showed up saying that he was banned. I asked him if he was sure, and he said he was definitely banned. Honestly, how could I know he was banned unless he actually told me?

I guess I could tell him to take a screenshot of the 'banned' screen and send it to us? Unless he's been removed by now...
 
Old 04-12-2001, 03:05 PM   #26
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Bill has just posted in the Feedback forum that SWL shares an ISP address with a hacker who is trying to shut down this forum. SWL is the victim of collateral damage in fighting the hacker. He should be able to get back on once the problem has passed.

SWL has not posted his email address. Perhaps you could let him know.

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/001298.html

Toto is offline  
Old 04-12-2001, 03:08 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
A perverse thought has entered my fertile imagination. This is all a plot. Mars is really SWL, claiming that SWL has been "crucified". In 3 days, SWL will rise!

Nah, that would be too sick.
</font>
Naah. Our IPs would show that we're from different parts of the country.

 
Old 04-12-2001, 03:11 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Bill has just posted in the Feedback forum that SWL shares an ISP address with a hacker who is trying to shut down this forum. SWL is the victim of collateral damage in fighting the hacker. He should be able to get back on once the problem has passed.
</font>
Gosh, can't you Christians go five minutes without being crucified for the iniquities of others?

 
Old 04-12-2001, 03:25 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Bill has just posted in the Feedback forum that SWL shares an ISP address with a hacker who is trying to shut down this forum. SWL is the victim of collateral damage in fighting the hacker. He should be able to get back on once the problem has passed.

SWL has not posted his email address. Perhaps you could let him know.

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/001298.html

</font>
This is consistent with what the Administrator (Bill) emailed me a couple of hours ago. I have attempted to provide the reasons why SecWebLurker has not been able to post several times, but my own ISP has been having major problems. I get knocked off after a few seconds. Anyway, SWL should be posting again soon.

rodahi

 
Old 04-12-2001, 03:29 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mars:
Gosh, can't you Christians go five minutes without being crucified for the iniquities of others?
</font>
And isn't it amazing how lucky they are. Even though their questions were based only on "prejudices," a lack of "credible evidence" and "ridiculous nonsense," those lucky bastards were right. Thank God the rest of us were "appropriately skeptical."

In all seriousness, however:

Thank you for checking it out Rodahi. And for getting back to us.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 12, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:47 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.