Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Leviathan · 07-30-2003, 11:39 PM

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...75#post1101875

I have been directed here concerning a problem with the moderators. Kindly review the thread, its rather long, and I'm sorry for that, but note the overwhelming evidence of numerous personal attacks on my education and "brainwashing" from posters, and how two mods simply ignore these remarks: saying they find no problem with them. It is highly upsetting to me, to see a website that prides itself on being anti-mainstream, anti-majority, can, (at least in my opinion), support the majority opinion of its posters with such vigor and aggression.

And then, when one protests their actions, what do these moderators do, but edit your protest, and tell you to "go to another forum?" Goodness...

I guess this is the place you're allowed to "speak out" against the powers that be?

pescifish · 07-31-2003, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
And then, when one protests their actions, what do these moderators do, but edit your protest, and tell you to "go to another forum?" Goodness...

I guess this is the place you're allowed to "speak out" against the powers that be?

You agreed to this when you registered your account on this board:

Quote:

Excerpted from IIDB Forum Rules and Policies
Note: Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators. However disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the discussion topics. They may be discussed in the Bugs, Problems & Complaints forum. Keep in mind that complaints that are not supported with evidence, such as quotes and links to their source topics, may not be taken seriously.

This rule will not be modified in the foreseeable future. Please do not blame, challenge or otherwise disparage any moderators who have pointed this out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
Kindly review the thread, its rather long, and I'm sorry for that, but note the overwhelming evidence of numerous personal attacks on my education and "brainwashing" from posters, and how two mods simply ignore these remarks: saying they find no problem with them.

As the thread is rather long, please provide specific quotes showing evidence of the "personal attacks". We cannot review or respond reasonably without a more specific complaint.

Thank you,
pescifish, Administrator

Leviathan · 07-31-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Specified quotations:
One:

This sort of patronizing remark is ill-suited to a serious discussion. - Toto

(Analysis): Admonishing me for supposedly making the following remark: "Like my youngest child, the 9th Circuit judges responsible for the Pledge decision seem to know the color of he crayon, but not how to stay within the lines."

It wasn't even my remark, but my evidence from a law review. But, what we can draw from this is the level of "patronization" that will be tolerated at this forum. Evidently, making even the most mediocre of reference to the 9th Circuit being activist is crossing the line...

but personal references to a specific poster is not? How is that not a double standard in moderation of this forum? Is this, "Who will save the children from this evil?," one of those patronizing remarks we should not allow? (Said by Toto)

Two:
You have made some clear errors in regard to what denial of cert means. Just admit it and get on with it, or everyone will think you're just a blustery fraud. - Toto

Three:
I have been attempting to give your posts serious consideration. Unfortunately you are making it increasingly more difficult to consider you a serious historical scholar.

Four:
One of the major differences between you and me is that I do not readily accept ("roll over") things on blind faith simply because someone cites many authorities

Five:
You are correct. You are all-knowing. Good luck with your studies. If you can't be bothered getting the facts, I can't be bothered trying to provide some for you. I avoid folks who pretend that they have all the answers.

Six:
Perhaps you need to make your writing style a little clearer or more precise.

Seven:
I'm 68 and have learned just how much I don't know. Perhaps your "reality" will teach you that lesson one day.

Eight:
I wouldn't be surprised if this young man attempted to claim that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was just nothing but a harmless written error of no intended malice. [/b]

Oh my...

Nine:
This fellow has been brainwashed to have faith beliefs without critical research and questioning. He hides behind laws without understanding how or why they came to exist. It appears that no one has helped to teach him how to apply the critical thinking processes in any meaningful and objective depth. He thinks we are personally challenging him when we merely question the foundations of his statements. That is why trained reason is the mortal enemy of blind faith...and vested interests.

He also seems to fail to appreciate that he is just an echo that we have heard many times before from extremely well qualified sources that have also been found limited... by their blind faith beliefs... on issues of major importance to all of humanity. For me, the "know-it-all" arrogance of this law student's posts is rather depressing. I can only conclude that he read few, if any, of the URLs I so laboriously provided. Instead, he elected to criticize their use rather than their content. I am neither qualified to, nor interested in. discussing Constitutional law with a mere law student. I leave that to those members far more qualified to and interested in doing so than I. I am interested in seeking the accurate, original, sources that contribute to today's beliefs...and all the errors I have uncovered.

Ten:
Ref: "Knee jerk academics" --- How is this not a kettle-pot comparison? However, I suspect I understand why you have included this remark in your post. You know very well that you have none of the credentials, experience, training or formal education to be an expert in every area/discipline. Therefore you wish to control the discussions on your own terms and not be forced into examining the accurate foundations of the laws or premises you make. Thus, you desire that everyone in this forum deal only with the merits of your arguments, not the "facts" that led to your "opinions" about how and why these laws may, or may not, have been crafted or be interpreted in the future.

Given the wealth of intellectual diversity and practical experience you will find throughout all these forums, it makes perfectly good sense for you to attempt to limit your exposure to any meaningful, and perhaps insightful, questioning by others. Unfortunately, based on my time in these forums, that "ain't" the way it works around here. If you wish folks to talk to you like you are an intelligent "young" man seeking the input from others concerning your own views, then you might consider paying closer attention to the questions that others ask of you...like this one. "Do you have much formal education in the natural sciences?" (That may seem to be off subject, but I assure you that it is not...depending on your answer.)--- Here is what some of those "knee jerk" academicians have to say about how to obtain objective facts. (It all leads back to those humans, including judges, who believe that everyone is under a, or their, supernatural God.)

This is but a sampling.

Are there pieces of legislation authorizing this treatment of an opposing opinion as well, or do your moderators just overlook what they disagree with?

Toto · 07-31-2003, 02:45 PM

Except for the two comments with my screen name attached and possibly one other, I do not think that these comments were made by moderators.

I stopped engaging in dialogue with Lev when it became apparent that he could not separate challenges to his assertions of fact from personal insults, and that, as a self-described "Christian existentialist relativist nihilist" he was not concerned about actual facts.

I am surprised that Lev failed to complain about this post from enfant terrible:

Quote:

First of all, I must say something in defense of Leviathan's integrity and consistency. If he believes that atheists should not mind the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience, he is not necessarily being discriminatory on religious grounds. Based on an unsolicited private message he has sent me, he also seems to believe people should not mind being described as "punk" or "asshole". Of course, I would be wrong in defending him if his message to me were motivated by my atheism, but I don't believe so; I am convinced it was his sincere and usual way of addressing all human beings he disagrees with.

Jewel · 07-31-2003, 03:52 PM

Honestly, if that is what you consider personal attack's then you did plenty of the same in the thread as well. You became hostile as soon as the credibility of one of your sources -- David Barton -- was challenged. In short, you took it way too personally.

Also, you should note regarding your quote number 1 that after Toto realized that the remark was not made by you he apologized for crediting it to you. That was before you started using the quote tags, so it was an easy mistake to make. He did stand by his opinion that the quote in question didn't really belong in the debate, but that's hardly a personal attack.

Leviathan · 07-31-2003, 07:42 PM

Magically, the people who you tried to discuss this issue with, in PRIVATE messages, will come out and defend their sacred honor now!

Toto, the complaint is not only that you made some of the comments, but you ignored some of the comments, and thus ignored your moderating duties, all b/c you have a personal vendetta.

Additionally, don't say, "I stopped engaging in dialogue with Lev," when you have went on, time and time again, to attempt to re-engage the debate, as a way to prod back into your insulting comments. To say you "stopped" engaging in the debate is nothing but an outright lie.

Jewel, if you don't see those statements as a personal attack, you're either a) defending your own (somewhat likely) or b) incredibly insensitive to the fact that no one likes their education tossed around. Your inability to address any specific statement, and tell me why it isn't a personal attack, only makes me believe "a" even more.

Additionally, statement 1 is not used to show a "personal attack:" it is used as a barometer to show the amount of "patronization" which Toto was going to tolerate from me (given he thought the statement was from me), but then he goes on to allow Mr. Buffman to make long, drawn out paragraphs attacking my person.

Imagine yourself in your collegiate setting maybe Jewel, taking a class, discussing a political topic, and some of those things are said about you. They are PERSONAL ATTACKS, and ignoring the specifics and saying "I don't think they're personal attacks" is not good enough.

Maverick · 07-31-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
Magically, the people who you tried to discuss this issue with, in PRIVATE messages, will come out and defend their sacred honor now!

It is against our rules to discuss moderation within the thread, so Private Messages are a viable way of discussing the issue. The only other option is for the user to create a thread here to discuss the issue. Since you have finally done that it is common for the moderators involved to comment here (in fact it is encouraged).

As to you list of quotes, on first glance I do not see any problems with the statements. I will need to review the thread to see the quotes in context. I will get back to you tomorrow.

Maverick
IIDB Administrator

Toto · 07-31-2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
...Toto, the complaint is not only that you made some of the comments, but you ignored some of the comments, and thus ignored your moderating duties, all b/c you have a personal vendetta.

There is no vendetta. I don't know you from Adam.

Quote:

Additionally, don't say, "I stopped engaging in dialogue with Lev," when you have went on, time and time again, to attempt to re-engage the debate, as a way to prod back into your insulting comments. To say you "stopped" engaging in the debate is nothing but an outright lie.

Accusing someone of lying is not a good way to engage in dialogue. In fact, I have made only a few comments where I thought they were appropriate. I have avoided trying to get you to discuss your views of American history.

Quote:

. . .
Additionally, statement 1 is not used to show a "personal attack:" it is used as a barometer to show the amount of "patronization" which Toto was going to tolerate from me (given he thought the statement was from me), but then he goes on to allow Mr. Buffman to make long, drawn out paragraphs attacking my person.

Imagine yourself in your collegiate setting maybe Jewel, taking a class, discussing a political topic, and some of those things are said about you. They are PERSONAL ATTACKS, and ignoring the specifics and saying "I don't think they're personal attacks" is not good enough.

The "patronization" I thought was not appropriate was a comparison of the ninth circuit to children who could not color inside the lines. But you notice that I only said that the comment was ill-suited to a serious discussion. I did not say that you were a bad person or an idiot for saying it or posting it. I did not edit it out or discipline you for posting it. Why do you interpret this as an attack on your person? Can you defend that statement?

Buffman said that your education was lacking. Why do you think that is a personal attack? (There are certainly ways that my education was deficient, but I don't consider that a personal sin.)

You have never revealed the university you attended or the professors you studied under, so we don't really know what your education consisted of. We only know that you cited David Barton as an authority on American history, and expect us to accept him as an authority without question. That one piece of data does not speak well for your education.

Writer@Large · 07-31-2003, 09:43 PM

Fellow Admin Maverick has already chimed in, and so I'll give my 2 cents' worth:

I read through the thread, and in context, I see nothing wrong with the cited remarks. You keep insisting that personal attacks exist where none do. It seems to me you seem to have a problem with criticism. But don't mistake criticism for personal attack.

--W@L

Jewel · 08-01-2003, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leviathan
Jewel, if you don't see those statements as a personal attack, you're either a) defending your own (somewhat likely) or b) incredibly insensitive to the fact that no one likes their education tossed around. Your inability to address any specific statement, and tell me why it isn't a personal attack, only makes me believe "a" even more.

Honestly, Leviathan, I cannot help what you believe. I read the thread several times and have come to the same conclusion as W@L. Telling me or anyone else that the only reasonable explanation for not seeing this obvious attack is because we are protecting our own or because we agree with someone elses politics is absurd.

Quote:

Additionally, statement 1 is not used to show a "personal attack:" it is used as a barometer to show the amount of "patronization" which Toto was going to tolerate from me (given he thought the statement was from me), but then he goes on to allow Mr. Buffman to make long, drawn out paragraphs attacking my person.

Once again, you were never attacked. Criticism and attacking are not the same thing.

Quote:

Imagine yourself in your collegiate setting maybe Jewel, taking a class, discussing a political topic, and some of those things are said about you. They are PERSONAL ATTACKS, and ignoring the specifics and saying "I don't think they're personal attacks" is not good enough.

Well, I've been to college and I've participated in some very heated discussions. Criticism goes along with the discussion and frankly, if I am presenting incorrect information I welcome being corrected because I think learning is a good thing.

07-30-2003, 11:39 PM	#1
Leviathan Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Georgia, United States of America Posts: 115	Secularism Forum http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...75#post1101875 I have been directed here concerning a problem with the moderators. Kindly review the thread, its rather long, and I'm sorry for that, but note the overwhelming evidence of numerous personal attacks on my education and "brainwashing" from posters, and how two mods simply ignore these remarks: saying they find no problem with them. It is highly upsetting to me, to see a website that prides itself on being anti-mainstream, anti-majority, can, (at least in my opinion), support the majority opinion of its posters with such vigor and aggression. And then, when one protests their actions, what do these moderators do, but edit your protest, and tell you to "go to another forum?" Goodness... I guess this is the place you're allowed to "speak out" against the powers that be?

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

07-31-2003, 03:52 PM	#5
Jewel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Virginia, USA Posts: 1,112	Honestly, if that is what you consider personal attack's then you did plenty of the same in the thread as well. You became hostile as soon as the credibility of one of your sources -- David Barton -- was challenged. In short, you took it way too personally. Also, you should note regarding your quote number 1 that after Toto realized that the remark was not made by you he apologized for crediting it to you. That was before you started using the quote tags, so it was an easy mistake to make. He did stand by his opinion that the quote in question didn't really belong in the debate, but that's hardly a personal attack.

07-31-2003, 07:42 PM	#6
Leviathan Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Georgia, United States of America Posts: 115	Magically, the people who you tried to discuss this issue with, in PRIVATE messages, will come out and defend their sacred honor now! Toto, the complaint is not only that you made some of the comments, but you ignored some of the comments, and thus ignored your moderating duties, all b/c you have a personal vendetta. Additionally, don't say, "I stopped engaging in dialogue with Lev," when you have went on, time and time again, to attempt to re-engage the debate, as a way to prod back into your insulting comments. To say you "stopped" engaging in the debate is nothing but an outright lie. Jewel, if you don't see those statements as a personal attack, you're either a) defending your own (somewhat likely) or b) incredibly insensitive to the fact that no one likes their education tossed around. Your inability to address any specific statement, and tell me why it isn't a personal attack, only makes me believe "a" even more. Additionally, statement 1 is not used to show a "personal attack:" it is used as a barometer to show the amount of "patronization" which Toto was going to tolerate from me (given he thought the statement was from me), but then he goes on to allow Mr. Buffman to make long, drawn out paragraphs attacking my person. Imagine yourself in your collegiate setting maybe Jewel, taking a class, discussing a political topic, and some of those things are said about you. They are PERSONAL ATTACKS, and ignoring the specifics and saying "I don't think they're personal attacks" is not good enough.

07-31-2003, 09:43 PM	#9
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Fellow Admin Maverick has already chimed in, and so I'll give my 2 cents' worth: I read through the thread, and in context, I see nothing wrong with the cited remarks. You keep insisting that personal attacks exist where none do. It seems to me you seem to have a problem with criticism. But don't mistake criticism for personal attack. --W@L

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.