Pete's Complainy Thread

[Pete]

Yet another ad hominem attack I see. So instead of either ignoring my posts or refuting the errors I pointed out to you, you instead participate in character assasination. That's pretty sad iNow.

 

 

This post is a reply to iNow in this thread here. Posts split off because they are off-topic.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Dak
fix url

[Dak]

well, if you're going to ignore each other from now on, i guess that's the end of it.

 

hint, hint.

[Pete]

well, if you're going to ignore each other from now on, i guess that's the end of it.

 

hint, hint.

In the first place I had stated quite clearly that I won't be posting here again until I heard back from the moderator. In the second place there's no reason to assume that a thread is dead because one or two particular people are not currently posting in it. In the third place I see nothing here that I'm interesting in discussing or anyone's post that I want to comment on. Then the post took a turn into an area that I will not discuss in a science forum, i.e. into religion.

 

However I have heard back from the moderator and am happy with the response I recieved. Since I respect the moderators actions and attitude I've decided that this is a great place to continue discussing science. So if it comes to science I'll be more than happy to continue. I will not comment on any religious side tracks unless they are made in PM or in the religion forum that I go to where I do discuss these kinds of things.

 

Now, on to the most recent post.

 

i reckon morals are psychosocial constructs that are created by the psychosocial nature of the culture that one is born into. eg if i am born in a western industrialised culture then certain psychosocial constructs exist that i will be educated too and thus use to navigate my way in the world.

 

if i was born in a tribal' date=' nomadic society i would simply be educated in the psychosocial constructs (morals) that apply there.

[/quote']

Interesting that you should mention this just now. In that book that I mentioned that I'm reading, i.e. What Evolution Is the author Ernst Mayr writes on page 259

The propensity for altruistic behaviour toward other insiders of the special group is an all-important component in the evolution of genuine genetics. But it requires a cultural factor, the preaching of a religious leader or a philosopher, to be implemented. It is not automatically produced by evolution. Genuine ethics is ther result of the thought of cultural leaders. We are no born with a feeling of altruism toward outsiders, but acquire it through cultural learning. It requires the redirecting of our inborn altruistic tendencies toward a new target: outsiders.

That paragraph is in a section entitled The Evolution of Human Ethics. Seems like a nice treatment by a legend in the field of evolution. I scanned that section and placed it into a PDF file. If you'd like I can make it available to you so that we can discuss it.

[Dak]

In the first place I had stated quite clearly that I won't be posting here again until I heard back from the moderator.

 

and yet you did

 

In the second place there's no reason to assume that a thread is dead because one or two particular people are not currently posting in it.

 

i didn't

 

In the third place I see nothing here that I'm interesting in discussing or anyone's post that I want to comment on.

 

apart from the conversation you just had, the fact you said that in reply to my post, and the fact that you then immediately proceeded to respond to bigjob's post

 

Then the post took a turn into an area that I will not discuss in a science forum, i.e. into religion.

 

apart from the fact that you have, in actual fact, just had a conversation on a science site about religion.

 

in case you couldn't figure it out, that was the 'it' to which i was refering when i said 'i guess that's the end of it'. i.e., this thread will get back on-topic and away from religion.

 

I will not comment on any religious side tracks unless they are made in PM or in the religion forum that I go to where I do discuss these kinds of things.

 

goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood

 

if you wish to reply to this, PM me. any more off-topic posts will be deleted.

[Pete]

Dak - You're acting like a child. What did you hope to gain from your last post?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Pete

[Pete]

I see. You're one of the extremely poor choices of a moderator that they chose who's on a power trip. Well screw you and good by to all you asshole

[Sayonara]

Pete, please stop trying to use the post reporting function as a weapon for clubbing people with whom you have a disagreement. That is not what it is there for.

 

I am sure that you are grown up enough to understand that in these situations - as the saying goes - it takes two to tango.

[Pete]

Pete, please stop trying to use the post reporting function as a weapon for clubbing people with whom you have a disagreement. That is not what it is there for.

It very clear that you're posting your complaint against me publicly when such a thing belongs in a private setting, e.g. you should have sent me a PM. There is only one reason to post such a complain in public and that's publicly embrass me.

 

If you don't like when people report violations then you should remove the report function, not try to guess what the motive is for filing a report.

 

I am going strictly by SFN Forum Rules which are stated at http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14

 

As far as using the report function I am assuming that what is said in SFN Forum Rules and Science Forums Etiquette are correct. That more than one has been sent only reflects the attitude the members have settled into by their violations being ignored to date. I have used in only two types or complaints. In the pages mentioned above they read as

 

If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it.

 

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

 

Dak's recent post tells me that he doesn't know that his comment can easily invoke a negative response. After all, what was he hoping to accomplish? Why didn't he send me a PM instead?

 

Do to negative attitudes demonstated in this forum in the last week I had every intention of leaving permanently. However I've grown to admire Phi in all of this since he not only did took action which is consitent with the forum rules but he also politely pointed out areas in which I myself screwed up, i.e. I may have fractured a rule myself. But he did so privately in PM. Not in public like you and Dak did. My guess is that Phi will recommend that I leave since I have zero tolerance for poor and unprofessional behaviour. I'll leave you and your forum to the way it was, the way you seem to like it.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Pete

[YT2095]

Pete when you say Publicly, do you mean like the 2 posts above Sayos that you made (now deleted) with the Name calling in it?

 

now I suggest you rethink WHY Sayo has posted!

[Sayonara]

Posts undeleted so everyone can see what YT is talking about.

 

It very clear that you're posting your complaint against me publicly when such a thing belongs in a private setting' date=' e.g. you should have sent me a PM. There is only one reason to post such a complain in public and that's publicly embrass me.

 

If you don't like when people report violations then you should remove the report function, not try to guess what the motive is for filing a report.[/quote']

Actually, there is another reason to post this in public, and that's that other members can learn from your mistake. You are not the only person who uses the report a post feature for petty and personal reasons, but you are the only one who has used it every five minutes for the past week for that purpose. If you are embarrassed by my post, that is a side-effect which I am hardly in control of. My reply to this thread was neutral and proportionate: YOU are the one who is having the problem here.

 

The last point I quoted is 50% bullshit and 50% hypocrisy. We don't always like what people post in threads, so do you think we should get rid of the "New Post" button instead of having rules and moderators? Same principle. And as for guessing motives, well you did that in your opening line didn't you.

 

The time has come for you to stop making mountains out of molehills Pete, and to stop blaming everybody else for your spooky ability to rub people up the wrong way. If you think a member is rude or "unprofessional", there is a perfectly adequate ignore list which is provided specifically for that scenario.

 

I have split this crap off to a new thread. I do not expect to see any juvenile arguments resurrected in the Morals thread.

 

I may have over reacted to this comment.

Read, lather, repeat.

[john5746]

Oh for Pete's sake!

[Mr Skeptic]

Pete, iNow has a bit of a hangup when it comes to the God issue. You'd be better off ignoring any posts he makes on that subject, than respond as you have, which would accomplish little more than turning a thread into a flamewar. As to whose fault that would be, I don't really care.

[Realitycheck]

GOD IS DEAD, AND NO ONE CARES!!!!!!

 

IF THERE IS A HELL, I'LL SEE YOU THERE!!!!!!!

 

Only Trent could come up with such flawless decadence.

 

If you care to, check out the song, "Heresy" (it is now legal). It is very moving.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtziKkqazjo cool video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFH7tREOHc better sound quality

Edited September 29, 2008 by agentchange
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Pete, iNow has a bit of a hangup when it comes to the God issue.

As should anyone else on the planet who cares about rationality, critical thinking, and accurate representations of reality, but whatever.

[YT2095]

As should anyone else on the planet who cares about rationality, critical thinking, and accurate representations of reality, but whatever.

 

Fundamentalist much?

 

you`r just as bad (if not Worse for being a Copycat) as the Other end of the spectrum, why don`t the Pair of you Knock it off!

[iNow]

To be fair, YT, I was responding to Mr Skeptic, not to Pete. I've been ignoring Pete for some time already. Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

A Fundamentalist Atheist? That's a new one for me, but it certainly seems descriptive.

 

iNow, I'm pretty sure that the most scientifically correct position on gods would be agnostic atheism, not strong atheism. In any case, disparaging someone's thinking abilities based on the fact that they believe something that you believe (but cannot prove) to be false, seems irrational.

 

A perfectly rational person can come to a false conclusion if he starts from a false premise. Which scientists do all the time. For example, trying to cure stomach ulcers by taking antacids, but later finding that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria and not excess acid.

 

Pete has shown that he values science and knowledge, due to his knowledge of physics. However, physics knowledge does not imply biology knowledge. Pete is unlikely to change his premises unless he sees that they result in a contradiction, nor would he have any reason to. Calling him names won't help. Giving him specific examples, like how scientists managed to reconstruct a retrovirus (HERV-KCON) from fragments of it embedded throughout human DNA, might help. In the previous example, finding remnants of viral DNA embedded in human and other mammalian DNA and distributed as expected by evolution throughout the tree of life, but seems at odds with intelligent design or creation. Once one of someone's premises starts leading to too many incongruencies (the number required depends on how deeply embedded the premise is, ie how useful it is to him).

[Realitycheck]

Hey, the Dow dropped 777 points today after the House failed to pass the 700 billion dollar bailout package. That means there has to be a God, and that means he is probably cabbalistic (conveys his messages through the timely deliverance of numbers), or do you think the Dow people just fudged the numbers to make it look that way?

 

 

... old school

 

[iNow]

I concede the role I played in this, but it's time for all of us to stop talking about god (especially in a thread opened to discuss one members frustration with another member...me). Sound good, people?

[Sayonara]

Further to that, can I point out that this is not going to be the "let's bash Pete and/or his beliefs" thread. It was split off to address his concerns re: moderation and post-reporting without taking the original thread off-topic.

[Dak]

Dak's recent post tells me that he doesn't know that his comment can easily invoke a negative response. After all, what was he hoping to accomplish? Why didn't he send me a PM instead?

 

I dunno. why didn't you just accept that you'd been (apparently too) subtly told to stop discussing religion by a moderator? You know, instead of responding with a numbered list of non-existant issues with what I said, before continuing to discuss religion by declairing that you would only respond to PMs on the issue henceforth?

 

Perhaps I was trying to accomplish you realising that if you're going to throw numbered lists of errors at people (which, by the way, can come across as somewhat patronising), you'd better make sure they're correct. Perhaps I was trying to set a precedent whereby on the rare occasions when I moderate in-thread I'm actually listened to (which, by-the-way, is not the same as a 'power trip').

 

As for 'why not by PM', as well as what Sayo said, I also kinda like doing it out in the open wherever possible so that I can be peer-reviewed. If I was too provocative, any of the other members/moderators are free to say so.

 

I'm open to being criticized further, but I'd suggest you either calm down and think about why you've been 'bitched at' by so many people (and why it was embarrasing to be criticized publically, rather than privatley) then just forget this and stick around, or -- if you're going to leave -- just leave.

[Pete]

To Paralith, Glider, john5746, Mr. Skeptic, and Pioneer

 

I wasn’t planning on visiting this forum again but I realized that I should post at least once more to say that I’m sorry for my part in all of this. I fully admit that I let myself get dragged into responding to the bogus claims made about me and by letting myself get angry about iNow insulting theists for believing in God. I have no excuse for my actions. I only hope that I can rectify this situation by admitting my error.

Pete' date=' iNow has a bit of a hangup when it comes to the God issue. You'd be better off ignoring any posts he makes on that subject, than respond as you have, which would accomplish little more than turning a thread into a flamewar. …

[/quote']

Thank you Mr. Skeptic. You couldn’t be more right. I seem to have let other people antagonize me. It didn’t help that I was also discussing religion with an atheists on the Christian discussion forum that I belong to. After so many insults and bogus arguments made by people I can get a bit touchy. I should have shut the computer off and watched TV,. Of course that’s a very easy thing to do when anyone tries to defend themselves (Have you ever noticed that? It seems that no matter how innocent a person is they will almost always seem to come off a bit guilty when they try to defend themselves!)

but you are the only one who has used it every five minutes for the past week

Since you’re going to start lying and insulting me I’ll be ignoring your comments and making bogus claims in the (near?) future.

Pete when you say Publicly' date=' do you mean like the 2 posts above ...

[/quote']No, of course not! The term public refers to posting a comment in a thread. The term private refers to filing a report and sending a message in PM. I won’t be doing that again unless I also state it in the post I’m reporting it since it was made clear today that such information will be made public knowledge when the moderator wants to behave poorly.

time for all of us to stop talking about god

That's your problem and how you started this nonsense. Besides Pioneer (whose comments about religion were actually relevant) there was nobody talking about religion accept you. Even then you only happened in your mind and from the way drastically exaggerated it so in an attempt to drag me into a debate about God and religion so that you could insult theists. Shame on you.

why didn't you just accept that you'd been (apparently too) subtly told to stop discussing religion by a moderator?

Because I never discussed religion in the first place. Seems like iNow succeed in erroneously convincing you that I did discuss religion. Don’t bother trying to deny it.

[iNow]

That's your problem and how you started this nonsense. Besides Pioneer (whose comments about religion were actually relevant) there was nobody talking about religion accept you. Even then you only happened in your mind and from the way drastically exaggerated it so in an attempt to drag me into a debate about God and religion so that you could insult theists. Shame on you.

Because I never discussed religion in the first place. Seems like iNow succeed in erroneously convincing you that I did discuss religion. Don’t bother trying to deny it.

 

That's the beauty of having our text saved and being able to review it in its entirety. There's no need for misrepresentations, Pete.

 

From the original thread:

 

Post #12, first mention, and it was from you:

Killing people from other tribes is not what I meant by murder. The Bible doesn't even consider that murder.

 

 

 

Then, in post #21:

I'll let you in on a secret. I was trying to figure out how an atheist would account for the origin of morals.

 

 

Then, you were very "prickly" ("Gee, you're so smart"), and things just got worse between us. How much longer do you plan on continuing this tantrum?

 

Your entire argument is that I offended your delicate sensibilities. Fatwah envy, much?

[Mr Skeptic]

By the way, this may be a good time to mention that there is an ignore function available. To access it, go to someone's profile (clicking on their name in the top left corner of their post will take you there), then click where it says user lists, then on ignore. The result is that the ignored person's post is shrunk to basically, this person has posted, but you won't see the actual post unless someone quotes it, or you click the view post link on it. This makes it much easier to ignore someone

[Pete]

By the way' date=' this may be a good time to mention that there is an ignore function available.

[/quote']

Thanks. I just blocked iNow. His last sad attempt at proving I was discussing religion was the last straw. Thanks mucho Mr Skeptic!!!

 

Best wishes

 

Pete

Edited September 30, 2008 by Pete
multiple post merged