Kevbo

I don't report anything there because I'm very much anti-censorship and wouldn't care if there weren't any posting rules other than eliminating clogging spam or multiposts.

I could care less about the moderator situation, but I just can't stand Sarfati. He's a pompous jerk who has the nerve to insult every mainstream branch of science while maintaining that the universe is 6000 years old. Not only do there exist actual civilizations of human beings dating back much farther than this figure, but intelligent people empirically realized that this claim was false over 500 years ago!

His entire modus operandi consists of distorting legitimate science and then resulting to the same childish insults when buried in real data that conflicts with his medieval worldview. I'm more than happy to reveal here that this despicable individual who posts at TheologyWeb is one of the head honchos of the #1 pseudoscience misinformation site, AiG.

It's entirely impossible to have a rational disagreement with Sarfati without seeing him resort to a plethora of insults to distract from his weak claims. If you read carefully at the Biology section of TheologyWeb, when discussing actual ideas, people defending the integrity of real science provide information and arguments first and foremost. They do not simply say as a preface to every post, "AiG are wrong because they are a dogmatic pseudoscience organization stuck in the 15th century," because this is like saying "the sky is blue" at that point. For the most part, these people actually attempt to make actual arguments instead of prefacing every reference to AiG with "gutter bibliolatrist website."

On the other hand, Socrates ALWAYS makes a disparaging remark about the affiliations of any website or person contradicting his position, justified or not. He automatically begins with irrelevant ad hominem attacks or interjects them into every sentence. That is the real issue.

RufusAtticus

Pangloss,

DDW has accused you of misrepresenting the exchange she had with you. Can you provide her emails for us?

Sauron

Bullshit. It puts the lie to the stated justification of Tweb (protecting privacy). There is no privacy left to protect - both of these clowns have given up any pretense to privacy, by their own actions long before Tweb ever came into existence.

So given that Tweb's fig leaf for this policy is now gone, what's your new rationalization going to be?

Here's the reality: the Tweb policy has nothing to do with privacy. Zero. Zip. Nada. The Tweb policy exists to enable anonymity - which these two characters use in order to hide their true names, agendas, ministry affiliations, etc. from the viewing audience.

Privacy is making sure that confidential personal information stays confidential. Not a concern here, since both of these individuals have broadcasted all that data over the internet already. You can't keep something a secret when tens of thousands of people have immediate access to it.

Anonymity is being able to say or do whatever you want, without people knowing who you really are.

Tweb coddles the 2nd, and has nothing to do with the first.

Incorrect.

As I indicated - the fact that you created a rule that allegedly applies to everyone doesn't change the fact that the only people who wanted this rule, or who use it, are the pet posters that Tweb has a special relationship with - Sarfati and Turkel.

Again: You created a rule that you are willing to apply to both sides, but only one side in the debate even wanted or needed the rule in the first place. "You can attend any church you want, as long as it's Baptist" - equal treatment over a privilege that does not have equal appeal or applicability.

It isn't a matter of stating it. A side-by-side comparison is all that is necessary. In addition, you might take some time to address the other posters here who have stated the same thing.

Of course, that might force you to come to grips with Tweb's double standard, which is probably not a pleasant prospect for you.

Your whine is a red herring, as far as this comparison is concerned. I never said that Eisele never engaged in such behavior. I said that he tends to the generic, while Socrates gets personal.

Mostly, they are not.

And in degree, Socrates is worse.

Sauron

If making a parody of someone's name is against the rules, when do you plan on putting Turkel on moderation? That's one of his favorite tricks. I'm sure you realize that, don't you?

Or maybe this is yet another example of rules that favor Sarfati and Turkel - enforced against others, but not against the pet posters of Tweb?

Let me guess - you're going to invoke the "subjective" clause here.

Lobstrosity

First, allow me to say that I can't stand Socrates. I haven't seen much of him, but what little I have seen is enough to keep me from ever trying to post at TWeb.

With that out of the way, I would just like to say that I fully understand and respect the policies of TWeb regarding privacy. Sometimes people join fora with the intent of anonymity. They want to show to the world a persona that they can't have in real life, or perhaps start from scratch interacting with people who are not tainted by knowledge of prior actions. It shouldn't matter how famous these people are in real life or what they do away from the fora. Your identity on the forum should be your identity on the forum. People should not be posting your real name or providing pictures of you without your consent. If TWeb wants to respect anonymity, I can completely understand.

However, if someone choses to wave that anonymity by making references to accomplishments of his real-life public persona, then I think he forfeits such protection. If Socrates is going to be quoting Sarfati (or whatever he does) all the time and saying how great his theories are, he has effectively chosen to shatter that anonymity and anyone who wants to call him on it should be allowed to do so.

Hamster

What "justification"? The rule says that a person's personal information is not to be discussed if they do not wish it to be discussed. You have not told me why this is wrong, except for saying "well, they're public figures!" .. which is the same kind of ratty justification the papparazzi use for taking pictures of celebrities walking down the sidewalk of their hometowns.

But again, you're missing the point - I don't care if you don't like TheologyWeb's rule regarding a user's personal information. TheologyWeb is certainly not the only thing on the Internet that has privacy policies, and privacy policies are not made invalid just because the person is otherwise well-known. The only thing a privacy policy does is insure that a user will not have to reveal who they are.

You don't like it? Tough. Don't post at theologyweb. But you have not shown how this is a "special privelage."



Privacy is making sure that confidential personal information stays confidential. Not a concern here, since both of these individuals have broadcasted all that data over the internet already. You can't keep something a secret when tens of thousands of people have immediate access to it.

Anonymity is being able to say or do whatever you want, without people knowing who you really are.


Why do you waste my time with such asinine false dilemmas? Their Privacy is insured through anonymity. Hello? How can they have privacy if they don't have anonymity? The only thing the TheologyWeb privacy statement insures is that you do not have to reveal who you really are, or any of your personal information. Can you imagine if this absurd line of reasoning was used by websites who promise not to give out your personal information?

Sure, we said we wouldn't give your e-mail adress out, but we've seen that you already posted your e-mail adress at a few other websites. Your e-mail adress is thus public information, hence we saw no problem with selling this information.


[b]the fact that you created a rule that allegedly applies to everyone doesn't change the fact that the only people who wanted this rule---

Once the rule was instituted, for whatever reason it became available to everyone, and is by definition not special "privelage."

Now I am through wasting my time with your hackneyed rationalizations.

It's not privacy, it's anonymity. Priceless.

If anyone wishes to adress any concerns regarding the way theologyweb is run, they can post a thread in the dean's office or in the janitor's closet. If anyone has any concerns with any moderating issues made by me personally, they can contact me via the aforementioned methods.

Vorkosigan

Hi Hamster! Good to see you over here. Stick around -- we have a great library and not all our forums are devoted to theism/atheism discussions.

What do you think? Should comments that accuse other posters personally of being traitors and lovers of dictatorship be permitted? Can you supply us with some posts of atheists at TWeb that are as personally slanderous as that?

When 'crates runs out of things to say, he simply accuses people of being bigots, despite the repeated calls from Admins and moderators that such behavior be tempered.

Of course, as we saw later in that hilarious thread -- many thanks to Celsus and GW Herbert -- ol' Vork did know more than "professional naval architects." Socrates fled that thread after ignominious defeat.

I think TWeb is facing a serious problem: the atheists there not only know more than the Christians there on the whole, they are also, of course, right. Either by itself would not be an insurmountable problem for a sufficiently intelligent Christian propaganda organization, but both together pose insuperable obstacles. The general solution, implemented by other debate forums, is simply to eliminate or severely restrict what the nonChristians say. TWeb, however, attempts to have principles. I suspect that the nastiness of Socrates and Holding are another solution to the problem of atheists being so effective: by being so nasty, they chase away intelligent moderates on both sides who might sustain a conversation that would cause doubt among the Christians there and shift them to more enlightened and liberal versions of Christianity.

As for me, I will stay there until that day comes when they move to restrict or eliminate non-Christians.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

Hello Hamster,

Welcome to II. I think you'll find that we aren't going to call you a rabid misoatheist as soon as you open your mouth here. The problem with Socrates and Turkel is that you can't debate in good faith with the likes of them. I went there, took the trouble to be excessively polite, and then a few posts later got jumped on by Socrates with his standard "rabid God-hater/misotheist/ignoramus" ad hominem. After that, I found that Socrates was sniping me in threads I was completely uninvolved with. I completely understand why people are frustrated by him (especially the first time they encounter him). Myself, I can't help laughing every time he flails hatefully around, but I guess his predictability helped. I've had some good discussions there (e.g. with BlakeReas), but the few like Socrates and Turkel as well as anyone else who stoops to their level thoroughly spoil the forum. I don't know Jim Eisele. I do know Socrates, and to a lesser extent, Turkel. Both of them are better testimonies against Christianity than a hundred of us going over there to debate.

Regards,
Joel

Sauron

The one you offered earlier. That the rule was put in place to protect privacy.

That justification is fraudulent.

If you feel like lying over on Tweb, go ahead. But if you do it here, we'll catch you on it.

I have told you why your analysis is wrong - privacy is no longer an issue, once the individual themselves has abandoned it on purpose. The Tweb policy exists to enable anonymity - which these two characters use in order to hide their true names, agendas, ministry affiliations, etc. from the viewing audience.

Privacy is making sure that confidential personal information stays confidential. Not a concern here, since both of these individuals have broadcasted all that data over the internet already. You can't keep something a secret when tens of thousands of people have immediate access to it. Anonymity is being able to say or do whatever you want, without people knowing who you really are.

Privacy is what a medical patient should enjoy. Anonymity is what obscene phone callers rely upon. (Or disreputable fundies, who don't want people to know that they're posting under sockpuppet aliases.)

Your question has been addressed. You're uncomfortable with your situation, and you're faltering in your response - we see that. But don't pretend that I skipped the question.

Who said anything about liking? Not me. That's your own red herring, Hamster. This isn't a debate about what I like.

It's a debate about whether or not the rules of Tweb are set up in a fair and consistent manner, and whether the mods are consistent in the application of those rules. The answer to both questions is "hell, no."

Getting all pouty and steamed up does not answer the moral failure or the inconsistency of the moderators.

Um, yes, I have. Once again:

the fact that you created a rule that allegedly applies to everyone doesn't change the fact that the only people who wanted this rule, or who use it, are the pet posters that Tweb has a special relationship with - Sarfati and Turkel.

You created a rule that you apply to both sides, but only one side in the debate even wanted or needed the rule in the first place. None of the skeptics want or need this rule - why would they? It's only your your pet icons who utilize this rule.

It's like the old literacy test for voting, used in the 1800s in the South. In theory, it applied against everyone in the, south, regardless lf color. But in practice, it benefitted whites because the majority of them could read, and the majority of blacks could not. Did the rule apply to everyone? Yes. But the rule's very format created a situation that heavily favored one side. This is precisely what your rule does - creates a convenient mechanism for people like Sarfati and Turkel - a mechanism that they need and relish using. But nobody on the other side wants or needs such a mechanism. So the net effect is that you enable their deception and dishonesty, by having this rule in the first place.


It is not a false dilemma, as I've just demonstrated.


1. And in like fashion, Turkel has responded to people using his real name and address - it's public information.

2. And in like fashion, merely doing a whois on tektonics.org will yield all kinds of personal data about Turkel - again, it's public information.

So by your own argument, the mods at Tweb should have no problem with someone calling him by his real name. Yet they do have such a problem - a BIG problem.

So what's it gonna be, Hamster? Using your own standard, you shouldn't be protecting Turkel any longer.

n.b. - the feeling you're experiencing is commonly known as "checkmate".


The fact that it applies to everyone does not prevent it from being a special privilege. If the only people who wanted the rule, or used the rule, are your two pet clowns, then it's most certainly a special privilege. Equal treatment over a privilege that does not have equal appeal or applicability amounts to a special privilege.


Yes, they're different. Privacy is keeping confidential information secret. Anonymity is people not knowing who you really are.

Or we can just discuss them here, where the postings won't be censored and where your double-standard can be viewed in the full light of day.

Jayjay

I'd like to reiterate that not all of us think that TWeb admins and moderators are the devil incarnate in this issue. Having a rule to protect anonymity is fine, regardless of whether that rule was set up for benefit of just two people. What I find problematic is how Socrates' abuses this anonymity: he engages in fierce battles to defend and praise Jonathan Sarfati, referring to himself in third person. Right now, there's an ongoing "discussion" between Socrates and Joe Meert regarding an AiG article where Sarfati got Meert's name wrong because of his sloppy background checks. Is it appropriate for a person to take a pseudonym for the purpose of pretending to be his own biggest fan and defender?

Perhaps it's not the responsibility of TheologyWeb staff to worry about such misconduct by their members. But if they did, it would certainly be commendable.