Hamster

special protection and benefits at Tweb.Con?

Such as?

Sauron

Read the preceding thread. Anyone who dares to make the connection between Sarfati and his sock puppet, Socrates, has their post edited. Ditto for Turkel and JPHolding.

Not to mention the fact that while the skeptics get warnings, bannings, editing of posts, etc. these two clowns get away with pretty much anything.

Jayjay

None. The examples you gave aren't half as bad as the Socrates' rants I have reported. But if someone does find Jim Eisele's posts troublesome, surely it's his or her duty to report him instead of us atheists trying to figure out what might offend Christian sensibilities?

RufusAtticus

Well for one when Socrates flames someone, they're told "suck it up," but when posters respond in kind they're told "cut it out." 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.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by pz
What is wrong with these people that they continue to make excuses for Socrates? What kind of leverage does he have on them?

pz! Where have you been! He is THE EVOLUTION EVISCERATOR!!

[cue some cheesy muzak]

Sauron

Other than the cheesy muzak , it's pretty quiet in here. All I hear is the sound of crickets.

Guess Hamster isn't going to defend the transparent bias of moderators on Tweb.con in favoring their pet members.

RufusAtticus

The irony is that the only thing he manages to eviscerate is his own position.

Hamster

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.

while the skeptics get warnings, bannings, editing of posts, etc. these two clowns get away with pretty much anything.

As I have shown, Jim Eisele gets away with just as much "inflammatory" langauge as J.P. Holding or Socrates.

The examples you gave aren't half as bad as the Socrates' rants…if someone does find Jim Eisele's posts troublesome, surely it's his or her duty to report him instead of us atheists trying to figure out what might offend Christian sensibilities?

Plenty of Christians have had their sensibilities chewed up and spat out by Jim Eisele who constantly uses rhetoric which even embarrases other Atheists. Given this, and the fact that most of Eisele's comments have stayed in tact, why can't a person draw the conclusion that TheologyWeb is trying to protect Jim Eisele?

Furthermore, you seem to acknowledge the somewhat subjective nature of "sensibilities" -- but if that is the case, how can you determine that Eisele's posts are not even "half as bad" as Socrates'? How can someone make that determination, measuring for Vitrions?

for one when Socrates flames someone, they're told "suck it up,"

Examples, please? Preferably with links to the offending threads, or at least the subject/title of the thread.

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")

Also there was no threatening with "banning" because Theologyweb does not "ban" - though it does penalize the user for blatant rule-breaking, such as placing their posts on "moderation" when they blatantly violate the rules regarding user privacy.

Can you show where TheologyWeb has had a double-standard with regard to user privacy?

Guess Hamster isn't going to defend the transparent bias of moderators on Tweb.con(sic) in favoring their pet members

Because I took half an hour out of my time to eat dinner? That's pretty big talk, considering my comment regarding the "member of the month" nonsense everyone was whining about was completely ignored That much is to be expected since it was an obvious error by people who are clueless as to the "motives" of the moderators and administrators.

How about posting a direct reply to the question you quoted but failed to answer?

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.

By the way, it looks like Ryokan is in the lead for Member of the month, followed by John Powell. Those sneaky admins with their reverse psychology!

The simple fact of the matter is that no one can tell me why TheologyWeb is protecting Jim Eisele.

Sauron

Actually, what the rule is protecting is not their privacy - since both Turkel and Sarfati are public figures, and have placed their names on many webpages. There is no issue of protecting privacy here, since both players have voluntarily made themselves quite public.

No, Hamster, what the Tweb.con 'rule' does instead is to enable the creation of personas that people can hide behind. Not for privacy, but for their own non-privacy-related reasons. In Sarfati's case, it appears to have something to do with being able to quote his own works, write recommendations of himself, etc. For Turkel, it's a mix of self-centered arrogance ("all great writers use pseudonyms") and the fact that he doesn't want someone making sport of a last name so close to the word "turkey".


You have shown no such thing.

Duvenoy

Yes, he decollops his position quite well, doesn't he. But, if the best that he can cite is AiG and ICR, it's understandable. He's working from severly limited information. It's small wonder he so often resorts personal insults and disparaging remarks. Ill manners is really all he has, and I find it amusing. Those he snarls at handle themselves well.

I've only briefly tangled with The Sock, not enough to really get him going at me (he has a habit of bugging out, never to return). I rather hope that I can stay at least as civil as the others he's attacked.

Dunno anything about Turkel. I guess we travel in different circles.

doov