Toto

Who was right? Certainly not the Christians who assumed that SWL had been banned for his conduct. Nobody guessed the real reason.

But it looks like SWL will arise from the "dead" in (perhaps) three days. I see a new myth arising.

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

You're welcome.

I personally oppose banning anyone for virtually any reason (death threats, maybe). Although I disagree with much of what he says, SecWebLurker has as much a right to post here as anyone, and I think most posters, both theists and non-theists, agree.

rodahi

For an authoritative answer to the question of whether SecWebLurker was or wasn't banned, and why, click on the following link (which will take you to the Feedback forum).

Take Me There

Don

-----------
Moderator, Feedback and Feedback Discussion
-----------

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

I asserted that he had banned, not that he had been banned for content. I explicitly requested information about WHY he had been banned, and trusted Rodahi to investigate the banning and get back to us.

Bede: "I don't know what is going on here but if SecWebLurker has indeed been banned
he should be reinstated forewith with an apology from whoever is responsible.

It may just be a technical error but if not, anyone who actually reads Earl's overlong and repetitve posts should be given a medal, not condemned."

Layman: "Why was SecWebLurker banned?"

Layman: "Is there anything you could do to check on this?

I truly appreciate your response Rodahi."

Layman: "None of these alone, perhaps, would establish that he has been banned. But, since you apparently have the ability to verify whether or not he has been banned, I think it is worth checking out."

Layman: "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."

Layman: "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."

What I did not do is ridicule the very idea that he had even been banned in the first place.

I respectfully request that you cease and desist from associating my phrase with the petulant sky-being on whose behalf you act, notwithstanding a complete and utter lack of information indicating its existence.

To Mars:

Bill has answered your question in the thread Banning of SecWebLurker in the Feedback Forum.

Bede,

How would you know if my posts were repetitive unless you read them? And who forced you to read them? One reason why my posts in the debate with Secweblurker became so long is because SWL thinks that replying "point by point" means breaking a post up sentence by sentence and posting an arsenal of mini replies. This left with me with a host of points to respond to. Anyway, whereas my posts obviously were very long, I don't think they were repetitive. On the contrary, I discussed a number of different arguments in each reply, and the debate shifted focus a few times.

But perhaps I should come up with a medal or some other reward for those who read my teachings. Perhaps that way I'll gather a massive following, become deified and start a new religion. I guess, though, that's already been done.


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

Typical theist. Leaves no room for:

a. sincerely held yet mistaken belief on the part of SWL;

b. honest error on the part of the report, or reporting agency

c. self-inflicted problem that SWL blames on others

No wonder you people believe in fairy tales.

And, in the end, the appropriately skeptical rational individuals were correct. There's a lesson there for those who aren't blinded by their preconceptions.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 13, 2001).]

Bede

Omne,

Read the thread before spouting off. My first post said:

E: How would you know if my posts were repetitive unless you read them? And who forced you to read them? One reason why my posts in the debate with Secweblurker became so long is because SWL thinks that replying "point by point" means breaking a post up sentence by sentence and posting an arsenal of mini replies. This left with me with a host of points to respond to. Anyway, whereas my posts obviously were very long, I don't think they were repetitive. On the contrary, I discussed a number of different arguments in each reply, and the debate shifted focus a few times.

Sec: While we're commenting on the nature of others' responses.

From my perspective, your posts were not just long, but UNNECESSARILLY long, because you often repeat the same argument over and over again WITHOUT interacting with previous rebuttals, and you have a tendancy to unnecessarilly restate your point(s) like you're writing a formal conclusion to a persuasive essay. I also feel that any time you deviate from the standard (and IMO weak) skeptical arguments such as those offered in books by the Jesus Seminar and the independent works of Crossan, your arguments are so long, so speculative, and so misguided that you must have the entire crew of Keebler elves working in the fudge-factory day and night.

So, in conclusion, I feel that you, Earl, repeat yourself unnecessarilly when you restate arguments that have been rebutted in previous posts without interacting with these rebuttals, often conclude with unnecessary summary statements in which you reiterate the various arguments you've made in the current post, and are way too hard on the elves.

[Notice the above paragraph in bold is completely unnecessary]

I personally respond to posts point-by-point because its easier to respond AS I'm reading someone's post, than to read it through once, then go back and summarize the points and respond to them. Plus, its extremely easy to miss a point here or there when you do the latter.

SecWebLurker