Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 12-29-2002, 11:59 AM

Hi Sabine & Amie

Just a thought for your consideration. This forum was renamed to include "Secular Activism." Radorth has been given the equal opportunity to use it for Christian Activism...or hadn't you noticed? Additionally, this is the Secular Web, not the Christian Web. Personally, I almost always welcome thoughtful religionists to contribute their viewpoints. However, I do not abide Christian propaganda. That is just one of Radorth's reasons for posting in the manner that he does. If you believe that he has valid and verifiable points, then by all means come to his support. Let's hear them.

Sabine Grant · 12-29-2002, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Hi Sabine - Fred (and others) have accused Radorth of dishonesty. Not personal dishonesty, but providing dishonest arguments and quoting Christian authors who dishonestly invent material to show that the founders of this country were Christians. That's what this debate is about, and there is no other way of resolving it than putting all of the issues on the table.

Rad is also accused of being a troll - of saying things just to incite a reaction. We feel that he is putting on a performance here, not trying to engage in real dialogue. He has admitted as much.

Rad has not provided an email address or any other way to contact him.

Is your sympathy for him just based on your sympathy for underdogs in general, or is there some specific instance where you think he has been treated unfairly?

I simply disagree with publicaly holding court to judge anyone. I have exchanged once a PM with Rad.... he is contactable.

Read back... he is also called a liar. Told about his " lack of integrity ". The intent is clear... to denounce or pertain to denounce the character of a real person on a public forum ( more than 300 viewings so far). And Toto you mean to tell me that you have absolutly no problems with that method? the thread does not even belong here.
Is anyone hesitant to move it to eslwhere where Pitshade who does have a problem with such methods would probably shut it down? may I ask?
Why is this thread still in Separation of Church and State? why are you as a moderator keeping it under a thread where you happen to moderate? why not entrusting the moderator of the actual thread where it belongs to deal with it?

Or are we dealing with " time to do the dirty laundry and right now right here! "

Honesty Toto Please!

PS : I expect the best from you.... you are stuck !

Toto · 12-29-2002, 12:54 PM

Hi Sabine, I am stuck with this thread. (I posted in the Moderator's secret forum asking for help and got nothing.) I already shut down one thread that I thought had been opened just to bash Radorth (and got some objections.) The opening post from Fred was perhaps overly combative, but it does raise real issues, and those issues relate to the political struggle around separation of church and state.

No one is accusing Rad of not paying his bills, cheating on his obligations, or personal dishonesty. I assume that he is personably honorable and a good human (based on little real evidence for or against, but I assume it.) The only focus is the material that he has posted on these boards. I see no evidence that he would respond to a personal note. He has chosen this strategy deliberately.

How else can one discuss the use of lies as a political propaganda tool? I know that you and the Christian ladies would like everything to be sweetness and light, with only the best motives on everyone's part. But that's not the real world.

If you think that Fred F is not pursuing the most effective tactic in making his case, you may tell that to him, and he might decide to edit his post.

Okay, I just went back and read the OP.

Fred accuses Rad of: being a troll (which he as admitted in so many words); dishonesty; 'playing dirty pool'; quoting others out of context; employing logical fallacies, then accusing his opponents of those fallacies; failing to respond to critics when his fallacies or errors are demonstrated. These accusations all relate to debates on this forum, not Rad's personal integrity.

Then Fred includes one sentence about rubbing Rad's nose in it. Is this the sentence that sets you off? Is it the reference to merde or the implied canine comparison?

Fred has indicated he is working on a long document which he will post in a week or two. I suggest that you wait to see the evidence.

ybnormal · 12-29-2002, 01:17 PM

I have no doubt that Toto gave some very hard consideration as to what to do about this thread. This is but one thread where my good friend Rad has been profusely begged by Toto and many, many others, to provide even minimal references and/or sources to his quotes... this has become a game with him, openly refusing to follow the Moderators pleas to follow the most basic standards of fairness regarding forum rules, not to mention Rad's own cult's Golden Rule.

After months of pleadings, about 2 hours ago, on this thread Toto posted the following...

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Rad:

First a little housekeeping. When you quote someone, could you attach their name to the quote? It makes things easier to follow.

Also, give some indication of what you are quoting by setting the quoted matter off in some way. vBB gives you a number of choices - not just bold, as Buffman and others do, but color . Would you object if I edited your posts to clarify that, especially where you have quoted most of Bobbie Kirkhart's speech? I don't want someone else quoting Kirkhart and thinking they are quoting you. IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT I WILL DO IT LATER TODAY.

I find it more than interesting that there are some who have ignored this most frustrating, and often purposeful behavior in thread after thread, only to speak up now, some even admitting they have not read the other threads in question.

Regarding the "Secular Activism" part of this forum, Buffman spoke for me quite well, and to you folks with his...

However, I do not abide Christian propaganda. That is just one of Radorth's reasons for posting in the manner that he does.

But more importantly and more to the point here, he challenged...

If you believe that he has valid and verifiable points, then by all means come to his support. Let's hear them.

If any of you guys are able to do that, then you will have better succeeded in making a case against this particular thread.

Peace!

Sabine Grant · 12-29-2002, 07:53 PM

Hello all again ! Let me express again my position in clearer terms.

This is NOT about Radorf or anyone in particular. This is about the level of accountability we have the minute any of us posts in a public forum accusations and assertions that demean the character of any individual. Some 400 people have read this thread.

Again expressing " I disagree with the style and method of this particular participant " is acceptable. Charging the participant with arguments which DEPICT his character in a negative manner is IMO not acceptable.

Confrontation is supposed to be constructive. The initiator of the thread presented his case in this thread with the excuse that radorf might learn from that. I disagree. That is not the way to help anyone face their errors.

Oh and it is time to get off the " Christian ladies " syndrom mentionned by a few.

I proved that Radorf can be addressed separatly by the initiator. The excuses given to my suggestion are not valid ( is not it a requirement to provide a valid e-mail addy from now on on the new format?). He can also be addressed to by PM.

I expressed here what would be my personal choice if I had any issues with a participant I evaluate to be demonstrating non constructive manners in a consistant way. I am also aware of my personal accountability in pertaining to make accusations of any sort pertaining to the character of ANYONE publicly.

That is my position and I stand on it. Carry on with your personal method and choice but be aware that there is still a minority which disagrees.

Vive la Difference!

ybnormal · 12-29-2002, 08:21 PM

I personally think you have a small point, altho you could at least read one of his posts, if for no other reason than to learn his name.

Toto · 12-29-2002, 08:21 PM

Sabine - you have still not told me exactly what you object to in the OP. I saw a challenge to Radorth's arguments and posting, not to his "character" in general.

I also notice that Radorth did not seem to be intimidated by the OP, or object to it.

I have discovered that I can PM Radorth, which I did.

In retrospect, I might have asked Fred F. to tone some of his language down, for PR purposes. But I'm not sure of how useful that would be now.

Buffman · 12-29-2002, 08:43 PM

Sabine

This is about the level of accountability we have the minute any of us posts in a public forum accusations and assertions that demean the character of any individual. Some 400 people have read this thread.

I doubt that anyone will challenge your right to disagree. Personally I welcome your opinions.

However, do you disagree when President Bush publicly calls Saddam Hussein an evil man, a liar and murderer? Hundreds-of-millions of people hear him do that almost every time he speaks. Why do you suppose he says the things he does?

I agree with you. Defamation of character is serious business. Normally for libel or slander to be actionable, it must be untrue. However, what good would free speech be if we were unable to say, or write, things about others that we know to be true?

If you have read all of Radorth's posts in these various forums since the very first ones and are convinced that he has never knowingly prevaricated or equivocated for the purpose of promoting Christian propaganda, then you have a strong position;
but a position with which I do not agree.

Yellum Notnef · 12-29-2002, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant

Oh and it is time to get off the " Christian ladies " syndrom mentionned by a few.

What syndrome?
I`m just calling it like I see it and if theres any syndrome to be found around here lately it`s a rash of "please don`t pick on Christianity because I`m Christian and I`m a nice person."

Other than that you have nothing to be upset about with this thread since nobody here is dragging any of Radorths personal dirty laundry out for public ridicule.
The only issue on the table here is Rads intellectual integrity which he has shamelessly put on public display time after time.

Radorth · 12-29-2002, 10:46 PM

Quote:

((((((( Fenton)))))) oh poor thing... we neglicted you! let me go get Amie !

LOLLOLLOL!

Well one man, (who wisely noted how bad this is for Secweb), and two women figured out what's going on here. I always thought the latter were a vast improvement over the hairy mammals. Being a designer myself, I know you can improve on anything. Compare Fenton Mulley and Amie for example. Who would you rather have write your epitaph?

Quote:

Rad is also accused of being a troll - of saying things just to incite a reaction.

Heh. And I'm the only one, right?

Yeah, and there's no ad hom going on here right? Everybody here thinks I'm really a good honest guy, who is only dishonest about politics and religion. It's not trolling as much as mirroring. You misquoted me AGAIN Toto. The fact is, some of you here are very easily offended, and the only kinds of Christians you can handle are the one's like Amie and Sabine who take great pains not to offend you. I don't. I'm not justifying my style, but I after being called everything from jackass to &^%$ head to green &^%$, I rest pretty well. And I'm sorry, but this thread has proved my point, that we are all much alike.

You guys want to have a civil discussion?

Anytime. If you get off your own holy soapboxes, you might see a miraculous change in Rad.

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-29-2002, 11:59 AM	#31
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Hi Sabine & Amie Just a thought for your consideration. This forum was renamed to include "Secular Activism." Radorth has been given the equal opportunity to use it for Christian Activism...or hadn't you noticed? Additionally, this is the Secular Web, not the Christian Web. Personally, I almost always welcome thoughtful religionists to contribute their viewpoints. However, I do not abide Christian propaganda. That is just one of Radorth's reasons for posting in the manner that he does. If you believe that he has valid and verifiable points, then by all means come to his support. Let's hear them.

12-29-2002, 12:54 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Sabine, I am stuck with this thread. (I posted in the Moderator's secret forum asking for help and got nothing.) I already shut down one thread that I thought had been opened just to bash Radorth (and got some objections.) The opening post from Fred was perhaps overly combative, but it does raise real issues, and those issues relate to the political struggle around separation of church and state. No one is accusing Rad of not paying his bills, cheating on his obligations, or personal dishonesty. I assume that he is personably honorable and a good human (based on little real evidence for or against, but I assume it.) The only focus is the material that he has posted on these boards. I see no evidence that he would respond to a personal note. He has chosen this strategy deliberately. How else can one discuss the use of lies as a political propaganda tool? I know that you and the Christian ladies would like everything to be sweetness and light, with only the best motives on everyone's part. But that's not the real world. If you think that Fred F is not pursuing the most effective tactic in making his case, you may tell that to him, and he might decide to edit his post. Okay, I just went back and read the OP. Fred accuses Rad of: being a troll (which he as admitted in so many words); dishonesty; 'playing dirty pool'; quoting others out of context; employing logical fallacies, then accusing his opponents of those fallacies; failing to respond to critics when his fallacies or errors are demonstrated. These accusations all relate to debates on this forum, not Rad's personal integrity. Then Fred includes one sentence about rubbing Rad's nose in it. Is this the sentence that sets you off? Is it the reference to merde or the implied canine comparison? Fred has indicated he is working on a long document which he will post in a week or two. I suggest that you wait to see the evidence.

12-29-2002, 07:53 PM	#35
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Hello all again ! Let me express again my position in clearer terms. This is NOT about Radorf or anyone in particular. This is about the level of accountability we have the minute any of us posts in a public forum accusations and assertions that demean the character of any individual. Some 400 people have read this thread. Again expressing " I disagree with the style and method of this particular participant " is acceptable. Charging the participant with arguments which DEPICT his character in a negative manner is IMO not acceptable. Confrontation is supposed to be constructive. The initiator of the thread presented his case in this thread with the excuse that radorf might learn from that. I disagree. That is not the way to help anyone face their errors. Oh and it is time to get off the " Christian ladies " syndrom mentionned by a few. I proved that Radorf can be addressed separatly by the initiator. The excuses given to my suggestion are not valid ( is not it a requirement to provide a valid e-mail addy from now on on the new format?). He can also be addressed to by PM. I expressed here what would be my personal choice if I had any issues with a participant I evaluate to be demonstrating non constructive manners in a consistant way. I am also aware of my personal accountability in pertaining to make accusations of any sort pertaining to the character of ANYONE publicly. That is my position and I stand on it. Carry on with your personal method and choice but be aware that there is still a minority which disagrees. Vive la Difference!

12-29-2002, 08:21 PM	#36
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	I personally think you have a small point, altho you could at least read one of his posts, if for no other reason than to learn his name.

12-29-2002, 08:43 PM	#38
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Sabine This is about the level of accountability we have the minute any of us posts in a public forum accusations and assertions that demean the character of any individual. Some 400 people have read this thread. I doubt that anyone will challenge your right to disagree. Personally I welcome your opinions. However, do you disagree when President Bush publicly calls Saddam Hussein an evil man, a liar and murderer? Hundreds-of-millions of people hear him do that almost every time he speaks. Why do you suppose he says the things he does? I agree with you. Defamation of character is serious business. Normally for libel or slander to be actionable, it must be untrue. However, what good would free speech be if we were unable to say, or write, things about others that we know to be true? If you have read all of Radorth's posts in these various forums since the very first ones and are convinced that he has never knowingly prevaricated or equivocated for the purpose of promoting Christian propaganda, then you have a strong position; but a position with which I do not agree.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.