Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jackalope · 05-22-2003, 02:47 AM

Agreed. It's Sarfati's abuse of anonymity that's the problem. Among other things, it's unethical to use a psuedonym to review one's own writings. Using your own papers as support for your arguments is okay, but not when you're using a false name to distance yourself from your work. The fact that Sarfati appears to be doing the same thing on Amazon's book reviews should be a big red flag as well. Using a fake name to pimp your own books is unethical, no matter where you do it. This is why sockpuppet accounts are held with such distaste on the net. The sockpuppet pops up and says, "Why yes, [poster blahblah] is totally correct and a nice person besides. I can't believe you could slander him/her/it like that!" It's an especially childish form of lying.

That's just the sockpuppet issue. Then there's the bit about being abusive and slanderous, which "Socrates" certainly has displayed again and again.

For those two reasons alone, Sarfati has forfeited the right to anonymity.

pangloss · 05-22-2003, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hamster
[B] Anyone who dares to make the connection ---

Yes, because according to TheologyWeb's rules, a person's privacy is protected. Any person's privacy is protected, wether they be Christian or otherwise. Thus posts like "I'll bet he's this guy---" get moderated out, because they are in violation of the rule.

How on earth is this a double standard?

9. Participant Anonymity

In conjunction with our Privacy Statement please respect the anonymity of other posters on TheologyWeb. Unless otherwise stated only registered screen names are to be used when referring to participants. Personal information of another participant is not to be disclosed in any of the public forums. Requests for personal information such as name or location may be done but any refusal of the information by other participants is to be honored.

I will again remind everyone that specualtion as to a persons identity is a violation of rule 9 when that person has specifically called for their anonymity whether you think the reason are valid or not.

You know, thats funny, because Jonny Safarti not only mentioned me by name in a post responding to me, he linked to my personal website. I pointed this out, and the post remains.
Protection.

Quote:

Nothing is more telling than someone copying one of Socrates's flames, changing the names around, and then getting threaten with banning because of it.

Are you referring to this post? This is the only place I could the word "ignoramus" in SLPx's posts.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...amus#post53488

If you are, this post was destroyed because it violated rule number 9 (a rule which no one has been able to say is "special treatment")

Interesting. The word "ignoramus" remained in the linked post because Socrates had written it. My cut and paste of Socrat's insult isn't around because "Momma Dee Dee" censored it!

In an email to me, Momma wrote: "I could care less if
you cut and pasted words since obviously they survived moderation, thus, the same standard. "

But now a PropWeb moderator says that there are no posts by SLPx with the word ignoramus in it (except for the Sarfati quote).

Which means that, in fact, it had been censored.

And it is worse because Momma Dee Dee claimed that it had not been.

Protection. The thing is, he is being protected and the Mods apparently don't even realize they are protecting him, as they repeatedly claim not to be!

Quote:

Why don't the people who complain about Socrates ever report the Jim Eisele's or "Jimbo"s over there?

I've already gotten the reply that "w-w-well, we don't visit every thread at theologyweb[/i] -- fine. Neither do I. But then such blanket assertions about the "motives" of moderaters and admins is uninformed.

I have never heard of them either. Are other posters complaining about them? As for the 'accusations' being uninformed, I find that absurd. It is obvious from the facts that Socfart is being protcted. That the mods might not even reaize it is just a demonstration of their bias.

pangloss · 05-22-2003, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
This is an example of the double standard, SPLx is placed on "moderated status" for continuely breaking the rules, but Socrates who is typically abusive and breaks rules even after receiving public warnings is not.

Actually, I never did "continually" break the rules. I made the Sarfati link a couple of times, posts were edited, and the next thing I know I am on "moderation." You see, for some reason, my PMs did not work, so I never got the 'watch it or you'll be on moderation' talk from Momma Dee Dee. I mentioned this in a thread in the janitor's closet. So, despite the fact that I never actually received the warning, I was moderated anyway.

Do I respond in kind to Socfart? Yup. Because of a childish "he does it too!" idea as Momma claims? Nope. I do it to show the hypocrisy of the admin. My posts get gutted - if they make it at all - while Socfart's remain largely untouched, except for the occasional token "Now now, Socrates..."...

pangloss · 05-22-2003, 07:23 AM

What utter bullshit. True, Momma Dee Dee never said "we will ban you," but the effect is the same - if my posts never even make it to board, then that is, in effect, banning. Of course, you fail to post the personal correspondane leading up to her reply below.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hamster
Dee Dee's Reply:

I go on to list side by side comments that he complained about with Soc and comments of his which were also on the board showing his gross hypocrisy.

For Momma Dee Dee to call it "gross hypocrisy" is really just an indication of her break with reality. What she can't seem to comprehend is that her list of "far worse" (sic) from was - all of it - in direct response to Socfart's own claims! Responding in kind, it is called. I get censored, Safartis doesn't - THAT is what I complain about, and it is not hypocritical in the least. What IS hypocritical - and grossly so - is Momma Dee Dee's insitence that Socfart gets censored just as much as me ( or anyone else, for that matter) and is subject to the same rules. She has deluded herself into actually believing this, apparently. Oh, she also used some of my statements from the thread wherein she and a few others were insisting that all atheists "deny" God, no matter what we actually say...

Quote:

Notice that I told him that it was because his post was the �sum and substance� of his entire post is an example of why he was on moderation. That is significant. He is on moderation because he willfully on several occasions violated the privacy policy and was posting short (two or three sentence) posts that had NO substance but only comments like that above.

This occurred while my PMs were not working. Guess that doesn't matter to der Fuhrer... [/quote]

The rest of my PM demonstrated that he went tit for tat with Soc on many comments and they were all allowed to remain so he must be championing his own censorship.[/quote]

Again, I was demonstrating the hypocrisy and bias of the admin. That Momma Dee Dee can't see that is telling.

Quote:

Never once was he threatened with banning. He then justified his posts with a �he did it first� defense. And I made it clear to him that I was not objecting to his strong defenses, just his hypocrisy.

Projection. Creationists are masters of it.

Quote:

He would very often report a post and shortly afterwards before it could be reviewed post a resonse that went beyond that of which he was complaining.

"went beyond" and "far worse" are lies Momma Dee Dee likes to spew. While I have been tempted, I have not once called a specifgic individual an ignoramus, an idiot, etc., as Socfart has. I guess in Momma Dee Dee's little world, if someone says ANYTHIONG against her protected hero, it is automatically "far worse" than anything he had said.

Quote:

And for the record, I never saw Soc�s original post. Was it reported? Do I view every post in Biology? No. Do I approve of every single thing that Soc says? No. If Soc�s post was a simply few sentencer with those words, it should have been edited.

LOLO!! Oh, no, she never saw his original post. She only reads the posts of those she wants to "moderate"!

Quote:

My list to SLPx showed that whatever he complained of Soc�s that was allowed to stand unedited, SLPx did far more. SLPx and Gamble were the only ones heavily moderated, and SLPx got himself into that pickle primarily for vilating the privacy rule� something he conveniently forgets.

To claim that I did "far more" than Socfart is just an example of Momma Dee Dee's delusional state.

Jayjay · 05-22-2003, 07:46 AM

Could you please cut down on calling the guy "Socfart"? It's just the kind of childish name calling Sarfati indulges in and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

Jimmy Higgins · 05-22-2003, 07:46 AM

I wouldn't say Dee Dee Warren is in a delusional state at all. However, from what I've seen, she allows Socrates to get away with most everything in the end. And despite her claims to trying curb Socrates' behavior, I have seen no change in his behavior. So there are a few conclusions.

1) Dee Dee has asked Socrates to tone it down and he hasn't, but Dee Dee Warren isn't paying attention.

2) Dee Dee has asked Socrates to tone it down and he hasn't, but Dee Dee Warren thinks that the visitors complaining are overreacting or being hypocritical and therefore thinks that Socrates should be allowed to be rude.

3) Dee Dee is not asking Socrates to tone anything down and is a shield for him.

Which one is it?

Jimmy Higgins · 05-22-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jayjay
Could you please cut down on calling the guy "Socfart"? It's just the kind of childish name calling Sarfati indulges in and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

I must ditto that. It's not really creative enough to be funny anyways.

Duvenoy · 05-22-2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jayjay
Could you please cut down on calling the guy "Socfart"? It's just the kind of childish name calling Sarfati indulges in and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

Thank you, JJ! It certainly gets old after a while. I was on the verge of mentioning it myself. Funny the first time, mildly amusing the second, and dull and repititious after that.

doov

GunnerJ · 05-22-2003, 08:36 AM

Let's just make it official:

T EVERYONE: No more SO FUNNY rearangements of various TWeb posters' names.

kthnxbye,

GunnerJ, E&C Mod

pangloss · 05-22-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jayjay
Could you please cut down on calling the guy "Socfart"? It's just the kind of childish name calling Sarfati indulges in and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

Awww.....

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

05-22-2003, 02:47 AM	#171
Jackalope Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hayward, CA, USA Posts: 1,675	Agreed. It's Sarfati's abuse of anonymity that's the problem. Among other things, it's unethical to use a psuedonym to review one's own writings. Using your own papers as support for your arguments is okay, but not when you're using a false name to distance yourself from your work. The fact that Sarfati appears to be doing the same thing on Amazon's book reviews should be a big red flag as well. Using a fake name to pimp your own books is unethical, no matter where you do it. This is why sockpuppet accounts are held with such distaste on the net. The sockpuppet pops up and says, "Why yes, [poster blahblah] is totally correct and a nice person besides. I can't believe you could slander him/her/it like that!" It's an especially childish form of lying. That's just the sockpuppet issue. Then there's the bit about being abusive and slanderous, which "Socrates" certainly has displayed again and again. For those two reasons alone, Sarfati has forfeited the right to anonymity.

05-22-2003, 07:46 AM	#175
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	Could you please cut down on calling the guy "Socfart"? It's just the kind of childish name calling Sarfati indulges in and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

05-22-2003, 07:46 AM	#176
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	I wouldn't say Dee Dee Warren is in a delusional state at all. However, from what I've seen, she allows Socrates to get away with most everything in the end. And despite her claims to trying curb Socrates' behavior, I have seen no change in his behavior. So there are a few conclusions. 1) Dee Dee has asked Socrates to tone it down and he hasn't, but Dee Dee Warren isn't paying attention. 2) Dee Dee has asked Socrates to tone it down and he hasn't, but Dee Dee Warren thinks that the visitors complaining are overreacting or being hypocritical and therefore thinks that Socrates should be allowed to be rude. 3) Dee Dee is not asking Socrates to tone anything down and is a shield for him. Which one is it?

05-22-2003, 08:36 AM	#179
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Let's just make it official: T EVERYONE: No more SO FUNNY rearangements of various TWeb posters' names. kthnxbye, GunnerJ, E&C Mod

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.