keyser_soze

It's not like anybody there DOESN'T know by now...I wouldn't sweat it Jimmy...crap happens. You are not accountable for all atheists. You are accountable for yourself only! And if they can't take a joke, then like the line from travolta..."fuck em"

yxboom

pz: It is called "jest" and if you are not familiar with me I mean civilly as self-respecting adults.

Duvenoy: I appreciate your honesty and have found legitimacy to your complaints. I believe I had made a step towards ending the childish games by putting the science section into heavy moderation especially in the area of name-calling (which was across the board to all users). However still there are some here which I have seen complain that it is all a guise to further protect certain individuals. As I don't have hardly any acquaintance with those whom they are claiming protection namely Socrates, who I have but maybe 2 or 3 posts in the same threads as he, I find that allegation rather ill-founded and ridiculous. Continuing, it also showed very poorly to the characters of those who continued to there actions in a poor manner as if this decision was made by the mods and humorous to thwart rather than realizing this was implemented by myself who those who are familiar with me know I have no participation in the sciences except writing up the guidelines and feel I can be honest in my analysis.

I will surely mourn you and your fishes lot.

Jimmy: And you wonder why you guys run over here as martyrs. All though I am a fan of clever and wit a deliberate breaking of our rules should be mentioned here. Not only did you break a rule (which I implemented before Socrates or Holding became participants) but you furthered that infraction with another when a moderator edited your sig you went back and re-edited it which all though entertaining speaks volumes of the lack of respect which is coming from some of you here. Some here are patting others on the back for deliberate misconduct. I find this very shallow to say the least.

If your biggest complaint is a lack of consistency with posting ethics why is it you resort to inconsistency to prove a point? Wouldn't that negate the integrity of yourself if not additionally your claim in the eyes of onlooker such as myself?

If your cause is noble why act in a manner that is cross to that end? It is sad situation when new rules have to be implemented and new "fool proof" hacks need to be installed because the users "with the noble cause" can't be trusted. I have had a couple of discussions with you and have never felt an anymosity towards your difference of opinion so you know I am saying this as subjectively as I can, in saying I would have expected bigger of you.

To say we are taking advantage is also disheartening in that you deliberately break 2 rules and I stand as the reason you are not put on suspension (which I might add is NOT banning. After all from the number of boards many of you have been bannd from should know the difference between a being banned and suspended).

As I stated I am available for contact. If you honestly feel that an infraction was committed and the Report button is ineffective, I can be contacted via email or private message. I extend this courtesy to any user who can maintain civility and have integrity who is treated poorly.

Jimmy Higgins

Well, I don't see myself or anyone here as a martyr.
I have noted this in the other thread in this section titled ~"Behavior of Infidels at TWeb"
I wouldn't say shallow. I still think it was clever. In the other thread, I do admit it is wrong.
I was fed up. None of the moderators did anything about some posters not even dealing properly with issues, resorting to degradation of education as their only proof that I was wrong.
Yeah it does. That's why I usually don't resort to such fooliness.
[quote]I have had a couple of discussions with you and have never felt an anymosity towards your difference of opinion so you know I am saying this as subjectively as I can, in saying I would have expected bigger of you. {/quote]And I had a large discussion with Captain Orche on Election 2000, sparred with Jinx on just about everything, and in the beginning discussed with jpholding, all without any sort of poor demeanor. This should be telling you that perhaps I have a point. If I got along with these people I thought were wrong, why was there civility?
I am in suspension. I posted an apology in the Janitor's Closet that hasn't made it up.
I was banned from the Baptist Board because my discussion of Election 2000 was too intelligent for them. The thread is now in the archive so it can't be read by non-members, but I was tossed because of no bad behavior on my part. I was banned from the temporary ICR webboard because, well that board was for discussion not debate. I moderate on a christian webboard along with a YEC and OEC. So from my experience, I'm not the problem here. I slipped, well I wouldn't say slipped, but I vented.
Yeah, but the problem is that at the very core, it isn't the insults, it isn't the name calling, it isn't the trash talking of Socrates, it is his complete crassness and unprofessionality when dealing with science issues. There was hardly an issue I raised that he wouldn't just post an AIG link to in order to explain the issue, although he had a much more difficult time doing that with me because I brought up issues AIG hadn't dealt with yet. That Socrates wasn't required to discuss civilly and professionally is our greatest problem, or atleast I should say my greatest problem. I PM'd Dee Dee numerous times, but she wouldn't deal with the issue, believing that it was justified actions by Socrates. I did everything I could when being civil. In fact, virtually all comments of mine that were moderated were not done so because of insults! Can the same be said of Socrates?

yxboom

Jimmy: I had noticed that you were put in suspension so I retract my earlier statement. I read your apology post in the Janitor's Closet and have elected to remove you from suspension in good faith.

Not all my comments were directed toward you specifically those things about being banned. We do suspend posts and from reading the thread on II about their position on banning I can't see how some of the claims made on this thread have any clout. But that is really besides the point which I don't care to further address. Again I extend the courtesy to be contacted via email or PM about these matters.

Kevbo

yxboom: Maybe you can recommend a little change to whoever writes the rules there:

- A person should not review his own work or argue about himself in the third person under a pseudonym.

If that rule was in place, I don't think that any of this bickering would have started.

Sauron

Good idea, Kevbo.

But they won't be able to implement such a rule without offending one of their celebrities, so it has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented.

yxboom

First off such a request is completely inane to say the least. If Sauron wants to change his screen name to George W. Bush and insist he is replying from Air Force One, I am not going to censor Sauron from participating because he chooses to write under the screen name George W. Bush and insist he is replying from Air Force One.

If your whole problem is about a person using a screen name and typing in the third person than you have bigger problems than you are letting on being involved in an internet community. After all is your birth name Sauron, will you prove this with a driver's license, is the Ring an honest image representation of who you are or did you lie to the whole internet community about who you really are and look like?

Kevbo, I stated before and I do again, I will entertain and offer any discussion in PM regarding VALID and LEGITAMATE concerns. Worrying about someone who uses an internet screen name to post on an internet board is assinine in the highest degree.

Valentine Pontifex

Sauron using the pen name "George W. Bush" is not what we are taking about.

Lets give a nice example of what we are taking about. Lets say the George W. Bush (the real G. W. B. who is currently president of the United States) sent a letter to the New York Times signed as "Joe Smith of Poughkeepsie" which he praised Bush as the greatest president in history. If this is discovered we have a major scandal and rightfully so. Now say if "Joe Smith" wrote about a completely non-political letter with no political overtones or conflict of interest. It might be considered strange that he felt the need to use a pen name, but it would hardly make anyone mad.

It is not unethical to use pen names per se. But is unethical to use pen names to endorse your own work. It gives the false impression of an independent assessment.

If someone intentionally gives the false impression whether or not they have said anything that is actually false, they are still guilty of deception.

And if there is a conflict of interest, we do have the moral right to know.

Finally, I will remind you that it was not anyone here that gave away Sarfati, it was Sarfati himself. By having the same opinions as Sarfati, using the same vocabulary as Sarfati, the same crude nastiness as Sarfati, the same pet peives as Sarfati, and the same biography as Sarfati it was only a matter of time before someone noticed. One would have to be a dozen times more careful than he has been to have posted so much without it being all but certain that someone would catch on. Indeed it is almost impossible not to give away evidence of our identity if one writes extensively in front of people familiar with what we write.
(Indeed this sort of problem of writing on the nets was discussed before the nets became that big in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game.)

Jimmy Higgins

YXBOOM, would you swear on Christ that Socrates is not Sarfati?

Kevbo

Like V.P. said, yxboom, I don't care if someone makes up a pseudonym or talks in the third person about that pseudonym, I have a problem with people like Sarfati going on about their own works under an alias and being protected for doing so. That's the real issue as I see it. Since it seems that Sarfati and others are not ethical enough to refrain from abusing this protection, I made that suggestion as a way to close a loophole in the rules at TheologyWeb.

I don't think that referring someone to one's own work with a link or reference is a problem. However, it is absurd that someone like Sarfati is discussing his real identity under a pseudonym and expecting to be protected while doing so.