Duvenoy

I see where yer comin' from, Lob. I'm thinking of it as the Socrates Equasion. While Soc was not a participant, his attitude colors the whole board. The mods should have slapped him down hard, long ago.

But, instead, they continue to let things get out of hand before they step in and make things worse. I've never seen the beat of it.

doov.

Sauron

Really? Where?

Duvenoy

It's something called Cosmology. The link for it is in Biology, at the top of the page.

Not a lot of action in there, yet and what there is seems to have nothing to do with Cosmology.

doov

Lobstrosity

Actually, it seems to be called Cosmogony, which dictionary.com tells me happens to be a synonym of Cosmology. They have taught me a new word!

Duvenoy

Hm. I must have misread it. Old eyes and an out-of-date perscription on the windshields. So, now I too have learned a new word.

doov

Valentine Pontifex

Thank you.

Valentine Pontifex

The biggest thing to point out is that compliants of undue censorship comes up again and again on the forums controlled by evolution deniers while compliants of censureship on evolution vs. creationism boards controlled by pro-evolution people is virtually unheard of. That so many of the creationists (though by no means all) think it is so necessary is compelling evidence that they are wrong.

Re: Privacy Policies. I would strongly recommend that any board have a posted privacy policy. However Theology Web's rules are a bit unusual. Typically the privacy policy is binding the the owners, moderationers, web masters, volunteers, employees, or the like. It is a bit unusual to have try to have a privacy policy that applies to people who surf in. The biggest thing is that people with access to confidential information which TW collected but promised will remain confidential shall not use that information to "out" someone since that would violate a contractual obligation on their part. And since even if they can figure it out without that information the appearance issue would make it reasonable to make a policy that moderators, etc. not "out" users.

However the use of the privacy policy in TW has been uneven and outright bizarre. Consider, I mentioned in TW the real name of John Woodmorappe in the context of documenting what I consider extremely unethical behavior. To my knowledge Woodmorappe has not ever posted in TW. Furthermore it is fairly easy to discover who Woodmorappe is so my post would not have compromised his "privacy" any more than it already has been. TW censured it. By doing so it made my post pointless. Since Woodmorappe is not on Theology Web, its privacy statement does not apply. To apply the privacy statment to John Woodmorappe makes as much sense as applying it to Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent, and Peter Parker.

It is also very important to point out that the identification of Sarfati as Socrates was not made on violation of confidential information. It was Socrates/Sarfati himself that gave out (unintentionally) this information.

Then of course there is the question of why Sarfati wants "privacy." It is certainly not because he is afraid that he won't get employment because he is a creationist: he has already crossed the Rubicon. It is not that he is worried about his neighbors looking him up; after all they ready know (or can easily find out) what Sarfati does. Creation/evolution issues are a big part of his public offline life. So separation of his offline life from his online life can't be a motivivation.

Reading of his posts as has been pointed out many times gives away a huge motivation. Sarfati is using his pseudonym to give himself and his close colleagues appearently independent endorsements. Self-publicity via sock puppets is highly unethical. Indeed St. Augustine would have considered it to be a lie. To be honest requires more than not knowly making false statement. If uses statements (even true statements) in an attempt to give someone a false impression then one is guilty of deception. When Sarfati endorses his own works via a sock puppet then he is giving a false impression that it is an independent favorable review/opinion. This is lying -- pure and simple. Indeed in virtually every context such behavior would be considered a scandal. I don't see why it should be any different in online forums. Frankly if Eugenie Scott was discovered endorsing her own articles or the NCSE while attacking the NCSE's opponents via a sock puppet the evolution deniers would very likely cry foul. And they would be right to do so. This does not apply creation/evolution. If Al Gore was bad mouthing Pres. Bush or other Republicans via a sock puppet I think that that would be something that is of legit interest to the public at large and exposing him would fully justified. Now if Al Gore had a pseudonym so he could take part of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer discussion forum and did not use it to make unethical attacks on his political opponents then his privacy should be respected since the motivation for the use of the pseudonym was clear and justified. Say if Sarfati was on the Buffy forum, it would also be a good idea not to identify himself (if he does not endorse his own works) since he would make it difficult to discuss Buffy.
(For the record I don't watch that show. )

Frankly if TW wants to keep it privacy rules as well as keeping its own crediblity, it needs to add to the forum rules that users shall not endorse their own works without identifying themselves as the author. It should try to avoid actually and appearant conflict of interest.

Of course another reason why Sarfati uses his pseudonym
is that frankly what he writes at TW is not something to be
proud of. His writting are really make him into a major jerk. I am sure that AiG does not want people identifying its people with the statements Sarfati is making in TW. These statement could be very effectively be used against AiG if Sarfati admitted that he is Socrates.

Indeed Socrates/Sarfati use of blantant calling in a forum that supposedly forbids such behavior and actively censors pro-evolution posters for engaging in such behavior is outrageous. I don't mind whatsoever that namecalling be forbidden. But when Sarfati using the term "Glenn Moron" at believe at least two dozen times and never uses the correct "Glenn Morton" while becoming upset if someone even accidently mispells his own name and gets away with it is very telling.

Unless Theology Web removes all those "Glenn Moron"s and stops Sarfatis name calling and other ad hominems then I can say with conviction:

The people behind Theology Web are liars without any sense of honor, morality, or ethics. They are hypocrites of the highest order. They are engaged in one-sided censorship. And that censorship is not for purposes of maintaining civil behavior but for their own rhetorical benefit.

I might also mention that Sarfati might also be motivated to use a pseudonym to test out statements before using them in writings using his real name. That particular motiviation is not particularily unethical. But is not unethical for his opponents to recognized that either.

Jimmy Higgins

Socrates has been posting "less" for the past couple of days. I wonder if we'll see this continue.

pangloss

The science foruims are going to be under "heavy moderation" for one month at PropWeb.

Here is Momma Dee Dee at her equivocable best:


"There will be no “name calling” unless is absolutely necessary to prove the point."


Any bets on who will deem name calling as absolutley necessary for proving a point?


And any bets on the monumental bias that will come into determining if a spate of name-calling was "necessary" or not?

Pathetic....

RufusAtticus

Oh the irony! The only one I can ever remember using name calling to prove a point was SLPx, and he got warned for it!

I have pointed out the DDW that I feel the root of the problem is that Socrates is given a lower theshold for "supporting" his comments. I suspect that in many instances in the past mods have agreed with his flames, i.e. t.o. is a gutter atheist website and a bunch of bozos, and anyone who disagrees with Soc on the bible is a "villiage atheist" or the sort.