A Question for Swansont

[Robittybob1]

When I read Gees responses I understand the situation she is in. Even if someone is hijacking the thread will it be supported by the moderators if she was to report it? Over the years I have felt it was actually detrimental to complain for the moderators would prefer no one discussing the "supernatural" in any way so a discussion on whether there should be a restriction on the consumption of pork is just the best thing out i.e. hijacking the thread is the best thing. Complain more and she may have received some warning herself just for annoying the moderators for would this forum really pull up some of its best posters over an issue like that? I have yet to see it.

[swansont]

Over the years I have felt it was actually detrimental to complain for the moderators would prefer no one discussing the "supernatural" in any way

 

 

SFN is a science discussion site, so is it so surprising that there isn't support for discussing pseudoscience?

[iNow]

A bit like going to a Yankees forum and talking about the Red Sox.

 

*This analogy was inspired by Zapatos

[Robittybob1]

 

 

SFN is a science discussion site, so is it so surprising that there isn't support for discussing pseudoscience?

But my point was more about the etiquette of the discussion, should hijacking and abuse be tolerated even if the topic is considered slightly left-field.

Argue the points scientifically not using tactics that would be frowned on in other threads. I went across to the thread that I was leading as the OP and all that and I could have pulled up many instances to prove my point but it would be suicide on the forum if I actually raised them (that is my fear at least, so I'm not willing to tempt fate), really it just can't be done.

So it also must be difficult as a moderator to pull them up too, you've got to look after the forum, not so much look after the OP.

So we see a lot of "king hit" type posts where a statement is made in the OP and that is the last we'll see of the OP. That is not my style I prefer to stand my ground and debate but it takes its emotional toll.

But that too is seen as sign of weakness and a time for the others to pounce. When someone is down, drained "you've got him, finish him off while you've got the chance".

Have you ever experienced that?

A bit like going to a Yankees forum and talking about the Red Sox.

 

*This analogy was inspired by Zapatos

The pre-game strategy would be to look for weaknesses to exploit in the opposing team. That is sport and war and science forums in general.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Endy0816]

Nobody is psychic. If you don't call the cops when your home is burglarized they won't magically show up at your door. Same principle. You don't report and mod's assume you are okay with it. Only if it is the forum's equivalent of shots being fired will they intervene. Very hands off here, honestly more so than other forums I've been a member of.

 

 

All you have to do is make your case supported by evidence or a model in a calm and collected manner. You don't need tactics. Just debate honestly.

 

Science came about at least in part from the study of rhetorical debate. Main reason why illogical arguments are dismantled so readily today is the fact that the subject has been studied to death for over a thousand years already.

[Robittybob1]

Nobody is psychic. If you don't call the cops when your home is burglarized they won't magically show up at your door. Same principle. You don't report and mod's assume you are okay with it. Only if it is the forum's equivalent of shots being fired will they intervene. Very hands off here, honestly more so than other forums I've been a member of.

 

 

All you have to do is make your case supported by evidence or a model in a calm and collected manner. You don't need tactics. Just debate honestly.

 

Science came about at least in part from the study of rhetorical debate. Main reason why illogical arguments are dismantled so readily today is the fact that the subject has been studied to death for over a thousand years already.

On the news yesterday was something like an admission from the BBC that Jimmy Savile was too important to take down. Even when they were told he was abusing kids they did nothing about it.

Not quite the clip I was after but the word "banned" is used so it is appropriate.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Gees]

Ophiolite;

 

Please consider:

 

1. The danger is that a poorly executed tactic can look like manipulation and appear dishonest.

 

But we are not talking about a "poorly executed tactic" so the above statement is moot.

 

If you thought there was a "poorly executed tactic", then you would have to do the research, find it, and present it here. Otherwise you are just using innuendo, which would be manipulation and appear to be dishonest.

 

2. Perhaps your tactics are removing clarity from your writing. If one or two people fail to understand it is likely their reading skills that are lacking. If everyone fails to understand we would suspect writing skills. Since this post is clear it suggests the incomprehension arises from your application of tactics.

 

You start with "perhaps", then add on two assumptions to reach a conclusion. This looks more like a rationalization than it does any kind of logic.

 

How about this for a breakdown of your clarity:

 

Perhaps + assumption + assumption = conclusion

 

Not in any logic that I have ever heard of; although, you may develop a good career in fiction.

 

3. Then it would probably make sense to stop complaining about other things.

 

What other complaints? Are you mixing me up with someone else? The only complaint that I have with this forum is the membership's lack of respect for philosophy and inability to understand philosophers. I have put forward the suggestion that a working philosopher on staff could solve this problem.

 

 

 

Swansont;

 

Please consider:

 

SFN is a science discussion site, so is it so surprising that there isn't support for discussing pseudoscience?

 

The following quote is from the Philosophy and Religion section's guidelines:

 

Don't use attacks on evolution, the big bang theory, or any other widely acknowledged scientific staple as a means of proving religious matters. Using scientific reasoning is fine, but there are certain religious questions that science cannot answer for you.

The above forum rules seem to imply that science may not have all of the answers, especially for religious questions. The supernatural is also the root of religion, so that would imply that science may not have answers for the supernatural. So the supernatural, on its own, is not pseudoscience.

 

Are you implying that I was using pseudoscience in the Supernatural thread? How could you possibly know, as you told me that you did not read it?

 

 

 

Robbitybob1;

 

Well, you certainly like to pull up my old threads. Are you trying to get me in trouble? (chuckle) Mom always said that "misery loves company", and I think she was right; on the other hand, we do have some things in common.

 

I have not yet decided if you are a philosopher, but you are very curious about a lot of things, and I suspect that you think like a philosopher. All philosophers have something that they are working on, and they tend to examine it from many different angles, so it can be difficult to pinpoint their topic if one does not follow their posting.

 

Since you spend a lot more of your time in the Science section, I am not that familiar with your ideas, as I don't spend much time in the science area. I am not a scientist, so I can not answer questions, and so far, I do not get my questions answered there.

 

The post by Gees was several years old. I was looking for the most recent policy on warning points and this thread seemed to be the most recent.

 

I didn't even know you had warning points, as I don't see them when I look at your posts. So you probably don't know that I have warning points; I have two. I got the first one in the Supernatural thread after punching the "report" button and asking for help. That was a huge mistake, as the moderator told me that not only did I have to allow the hijacking of my thread, I had to assist. I remember thinking, "Bullshit. Not after I worked so hard to disassociate my thread from religion." It wasn't even the Religion forum. I got the second one, either in the Supernatural thread, or directly afterward, and also after asking for help.

 

So I learned a few things:

 

1. NEVER TOUCH THE REPORT BUTTON!!

 

2. If you are getting angry because someone wants to be an idiot, stop posting and leave the forum for a few days until you can cool off. Sometimes you may have to walk away from your own thread.

 

3. This is not a democracy. Someone went to a lot of trouble to start and maintain this forum, and that someone did not have me in mind. That someone has their own motivations and objectives, and also has all of the responsibilities for this forum, which means that the someone also has all of the rights.

 

4. When I worked in law, we had this saying: "The Supreme Court is not last because it is always right; it is always right because it is the last Court where an Appeal can be made." Moderators are kind of like that, as there is no real probability for appeal.

 

So I have developed a personal philosophy regarding my warnings; I wear them like medals earned in war. If my warnings were taken away, there is a good possibility that I would work to regain one or two. (chuckle)

That was good advice. "focus more on submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts"

 

Well, I am not sure how good that advice is, as I like my advice above better. But sometimes it helps if there is an example of what constitutes a good post.

 

So consider the following post that was made by a well-respected long-time member of this forum. It had, I believe, three up votes, so I am sure that it is "thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, [and] inherently awesome".

 

Just a small selection of the sophistry, insults, snide insinuations, fallacies, terminological kincker-twists, and rhetoric in this thread so far; not surprising after all the rubbish which is posted that

That was the entire post. Now there are some forums that might say the above quote is just opinion, and that the opinion is inflaming, so the poster would be reprimanded for flaming. But in this forum it received up votes, so it was celebrated.

 

You may want to emulate this "awesome" posting style, but I should warn you that a lot depends upon who the poster is and who the poster is addressing. This style could backfire on you. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Gee

[swansont]

Swansont;

 

Please consider:

 

 

The following quote is from the Philosophy and Religion section's guidelines:

 

 

 

The above forum rules seem to imply that science may not have all of the answers, especially for religious questions. The supernatural is also the root of religion, so that would imply that science may not have answers for the supernatural. So the supernatural, on its own, is not pseudoscience.

I assure you that religion does, in fact, exist, whereas there is no scientific evidence to support the supernatural. There's a lot about religion you can discuss without talking about the supernatural part.

 

 

Are you implying that I was using pseudoscience in the Supernatural thread? How could you possibly know, as you told me that you did not read it?

No. I don't see where your name came up in what I wrote, and RB1 wrote "over the years" so he wasn't talking specifically about that thread, either.

I didn't even know you had warning points, as I don't see them when I look at your posts. So you probably don't know that I have warning points; I have two. I got the first one in the Supernatural thread after punching the "report" button and asking for help. That was a huge mistake, as the moderator told me that not only did I have to allow the hijacking of my thread, I had to assist. I remember thinking, "Bullshit. Not after I worked so hard to disassociate my thread from religion." It wasn't even the Religion forum. I got the second one, either in the Supernatural thread, or directly afterward, and also after asking for help.

 

A case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc? You may have gotten your warning points after reporting, but that's not necessarily why you got them. You see, other people can, and do, use the report post function (and you were not the only one reporting that thread), and moderators read threads.

[Robittybob1]

I assure you that religion does, in fact, exist, whereas there is no scientific evidence to support the supernatural. There's a lot about religion you can discuss without talking about the supernatural part.

 

 

 

No. I don't see where your name came up in what I wrote, and RB1 wrote "over the years" so he wasn't talking specifically about that thread, either.

 

A case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc? You may have gotten your warning points after reporting, but that's not necessarily why you got them. You see, other people can, and do, use the report post function (and you were not the only one reporting that thread), and moderators read threads.

 

What I said was "Over the years I have felt it was actually detrimental to complain for the moderators would prefer no one discussing the "supernatural" in any way". I wasn't just implying this was the case on this forum. I might have reported spam and the like but I cannot remember reporting posts on this forum. I would be reluctant to do so from experiences on other sites.

It becomes tricky then for if I falter just the once and get warning points and I complain that I was provoked I'm told "you should have reported them". I feel as though I'd lose either way.

I don't envy the job of a moderator, how do you take a moderate path through this situation? No doubt it is the easiest thing just to get rid of those that being reported just to make life easy.

Would I do the same? No I would concentrate on those who have an agenda. I see there are a few like that.

[swansont]

What I said was "Over the years I have felt it was actually detrimental to complain for the moderators would prefer no one discussing the "supernatural" in any way". I wasn't just implying this was the case on this forum. I might have reported spam and the like but I cannot remember reporting posts on this forum. I would be reluctant to do so from experiences on other sites.

 

Different sites have different rules and cultures. As a general rule we don't discuss other sites here — just because site X does something a particular way doesn't matter. If it works for them, great, but there has to be more than that for us to adopt it. Similarly, if mods somewhere else act a certain way that's their call, not ours. Nobody can stop you from having an experience elsewhere affect your actions here, but recognize that that's on you.

[Robittybob1]

 

Different sites have different rules and cultures. As a general rule we don't discuss other sites here — just because site X does something a particular way doesn't matter. If it works for them, great, but there has to be more than that for us to adopt it. Similarly, if mods somewhere else act a certain way that's their call, not ours. Nobody can stop you from having an experience elsewhere affect your actions here, but recognize that that's on you.

OK - I am still on the forum and I'm not banned yet, so just to test it out I will report other posters in the future. Do all the moderators operate similarly? [Must admit it doesn't feel right to even say I'm going to do this.]

[swansont]

OK - I am still on the forum and I'm not banned yet, so just to test it out I will report other posters in the future. Do all the moderators operate similarly? [Must admit it doesn't feel right to even say I'm going to do this.]

We all follow the same rules, but we are individual people.

[imatfaal]

OK - I am still on the forum and I'm not banned yet, so just to test it out I will report other posters in the future. Do all the moderators operate similarly? [Must admit it doesn't feel right to even say I'm going to do this.]

 

We all follow the same rules, but we are individual people.

[Robittybob1]

We all follow the same rules, but we are individual people.

A bit like Russian Roulette. Take the last warning point received is it even possible to identify where my mistake occurred? I had told the forum I was getting worn out a day or so prior.

It might be #193 where I was answering Pavelcherepan, then the next post #194 Mordred seemed to take offense. In #195 I say to Mordred I had not heard from him (on the topic). Which may seem odd but that day to me (I'm on a different times than northern hemisphere) all he had posted were things I'd consider were "red herrings" nearly hijacking the thread.

Next post was the moderator note to which I replied in a PM.

Immediately after that my warning points score changed. A day later I find an email explaining what the warning point was about.

 

I would have liked to reply (but inwardly I was resigned to defeat) but the message was on my gmail email and I'm not sure if I can reply from my private email back to this site.

 

But did that really deserve warning points I was being worn out by Pavel and Mordred with all their red herring stuff, yet they must have reported me for something and I lose.

 

In this case I needed Mordred and he had agreed to help me, so it feels rather counter productive to report him. I don't know if you realise how difficult the situation was. Basically there was no argument between us, we were all getting along quite fine, we just had to thrash out the science.

Science where there was only the one paper which had some formulas in it and we were going to apply those formulas to the Sun.

 

I feel had you (Swansont) been part of the discussion we would have stayed on track as we've done in the past. (Yet from memory there was a warning point associated with one of our debates as well, applied by someone else not by you.)

 

When I looked up on the forum for how warning points worked there seemed to be indications of some time given between the moderator note and the application of warning points but in this case there was no practical time given.

[swansont]

A bit like Russian Roulette. Take the last warning point received is it even possible to identify where my mistake occurred? I had told the forum I was getting worn out a day or so prior.

It might be #193 where I was answering Pavelcherepan, then the next post #194 Mordred seemed to take offense. In #195 I say to Mordred I had not heard from him (on the topic). Which may seem odd but that day to me (I'm on a different times than northern hemisphere) all he had posted were things I'd consider were "red herrings" nearly hijacking the thread.

Next post was the moderator note to which I replied in a PM.

Immediately after that my warning points score changed. A day later I find an email explaining what the warning point was about.

 

I would have liked to reply (but inwardly I was resigned to defeat) but the message was on my gmail email and I'm not sure if I can reply from my private email back to this site.

 

But did that really deserve warning points I was being worn out by Pavel and Mordred with all their red herring stuff, yet they must have reported me for something and I lose.

You were warned because you declared you were not reading the material people provided as answers owing to a lack of time, and yet you had time to continue posting in the thread, rather prolifically. But if you haven't read the material, you have not had a chance to modify your position, meaning that you are soapboxing, which is against the rules. You say it was red herring material, but you didn't read it, so how do you know that? And are you really in a position to know? The people answering your questions have demonstrated a much better depth and breadth of physics.

 

That post was reported, there was some commentary by staff, and when someone not involved in the thread was available, the mod action took place. Those involved in the discussion decided that yes, you deserved the warning point.

 

 

In this case I needed Mordred and he had agreed to help me, so it feels rather counter productive to report him. I don't know if you realise how difficult the situation was. Basically there was no argument between us, we were all getting along quite fine, we just had to thrash out the science.

Science where there was only the one paper which had some formulas in it and we were going to apply those formulas to the Sun.

 

I feel had you (Swansont) been part of the discussion we would have stayed on track as we've done in the past. (Yet from memory there was a warning point associated with one of our debates as well, applied by someone else not by you.)

 

When I looked up on the forum for how warning points worked there seemed to be indications of some time given between the moderator note and the application of warning points but in this case there was no practical time given.

The moderator note and warning were issued as essentially one action. It's sometimes necessary to post a modnote to let others know that the staff is dealing with a problem.

[iNow]

Robittybob - If your objective is to once more get on the mods good side / avoid their bad side sooner, might I suggest allowing this thread to go dormant effective immediately and instead focus again on writing inherently awesome posts on topics that are actually interesting rather than annoying/boring like this one?

[Robittybob1]

You were warned because you declared you were not reading the material people provided as answers owing to a lack of time, and yet you had time to continue posting in the thread, rather prolifically. But if you haven't read the material, you have not had a chance to modify your position, meaning that you are soapboxing, which is against the rules. You say it was red herring material, but you didn't read it, so how do you know that? And are you really in a position to know? The people answering your questions have demonstrated a much better depth and breadth of physics.

 

That post was reported, there was some commentary by staff, and when someone not involved in the thread was available, the mod action took place. Those involved in the discussion decided that yes, you deserved the warning point.

 

 

The moderator note and warning were issued as essentially one action. It's sometimes necessary to post a modnote to let others know that the staff is dealing with a problem.

Thanks for trying to explain that to me. I remember looking at the scientific paper Pavel quoted, it was 26 pages of undecipherable mathematical equations that I bet Pavel did not know how to use either, and yet it was some sort of answer. That was like saying go and become a professor, it was too much and off the topic. Of course I haven't got the capacity to read and understand that and I made that clear.

Robittybob - If your objective is to once more get on the mods good side / avoid their bad side sooner, might I suggest allowing this thread to go dormant effective immediately and instead focus again on writing inherently awesome posts on topics that are actually interesting rather than annoying/boring like this one?

I intend to do this if possible.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Robittybob1

[iNow]

I acknowledge how strong the urge to respond can feel and how compulsive it can sometimes become, but let's be honest here... There is nothing stopping you. It's entirely possible with a bit of determination. It's a choice, and one entirely in your power to make.

 

I do acknowledge its not always easy, though. If you must, consider writing it as a draft, but delete it instead of posting it. That can be very cathartic, and frankly mature.

 

All the same... Very glad to hear it.

 

 

 

[Robittybob1]

I acknowledge how strong the urge to respond can feel and how compulsive it can sometimes become, but let's be honest here... There is nothing stopping you. It's entirely possible with a bit of determination. It's a choice, and one entirely in your power to make.

 

I do acknowledge its not always easy, though. If you must, consider writing it as a draft, but delete it instead of posting it. That can be very cathartic, and frankly mature.

 

All the same... Very glad to hear it.

The only time I don't post what I write is if there is a glitch and the post does not submit properly. I hate writing the same stuff twice.

[Gees]

Swansont;

 

If you were another person, I might not bother, but I respect your intelligence, your ability to think, and your understanding of logic, so I am going to try to explain my position. Please consider:

 

I assure you that religion does, in fact, exist, whereas there is no scientific evidence to support the supernatural.

 

If you had read my thread, you would have learned that your above assertion is unsupportable for a variety of reasons.

 

1. The supernatural is an unknown, so it is not the venue of science and "scientific evidence" is not required in order to study this subject.

 

2. My thread on the supernatural was opened in the philosophy section, as philosophy studies the unknown. No thread on the supernatural should be opened in science, which includes speculations.

 

3. You will note that the religion forum is also in the philosophy section -- for the above reason stated in (1).

 

4. Mind and consciousness have no more "scientific evidence" than the supernatural has -- and may have less evidence -- as the evidence for all three is subjective, but the supernatural has some objective evidence. (Do not confuse this with neurology's study of thought, as that is not mind or consciousness.)

 

5. Mind and consciousness are acceptable for discussion in science, but the supernatural is not. Why? Considering that all three have the same level of evidence, this division is not supported by evidence.

 

6. So what supports this division? Long-held belief; tradition. Tradition so old that it existed before science was a glimmer in philosophy's eye. What created this tradition? Religion. Consciousness is or comes from "God"; mind is "soul"; the supernatural is whatever that specific religion rejects.

 

7. According to Google pseudoscience is:

 

pseu·do·sci·ence

ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/

noun

1. a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Accepting mind and consciousness, while rejecting the supernatural is "cherry picking" plain and simple. If you want to let religion dictate to science what is acceptable and what is pseudoscience, so be it. I will not let religion dictate to philosophy.

 

There's a lot about religion you can discuss without talking about the supernatural part.

 

That would be a lot like discussing the Presidential campaign without mentioning the candidates. Pretty boring stuff.

 

No. I don't see where your name came up in what I wrote, and RB1 wrote "over the years" so he wasn't talking specifically about that thread, either.

 

I confused the word, supernatural, with my thread on the supernatural. There was no intent to misdirect your meaning, so I apologize.

 

A case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

 

Maybe. On the other hand, if you ask for help and get your hand slapped, then you ask for help again and get your hand slapped again, you stop asking for help unless you are dimwitted.

 

I see three general reasons for the Report button: To report a problem like a double post or spam; to report another member; or to ask for help, usually to help me manage my own thread.

 

There are enough members here, so I do not need to report problems. I don't generally tell on other members, as I have the ability to dissect and decimate posts, if people give me cause. And I am not going to get help because I am a philosopher, so the moderators either don't see the problem or are unmotivated to help.

 

You may have gotten your warning points after reporting, but that's not necessarily why you got them.

 

No. I got them for arguing with the moderator, just like when a ball player argues with the umpire.

 

You see, other people can, and do, use the report post function (and you were not the only one reporting that thread), and moderators read threads.

 

Well, the specific problem that the moderator addressed started with a statement that I made while comparing the Old Testament "God", who was "spirit", but involved in physical things, with the New Testament "God", who was physical, but involved in spiritual things. The point of that statement was to discredit the idea of the Old Testament "God", as most thinking people will realize that a "spirit" "God" would be involved in spiritual things -- not physical things. OR there was no supernatural Old Testament "God".

 

While enumerating the physical things, I listed hygiene and germ issues that seem to be addressed in the Old Testament. Another member picked up on the "germ" idea and wanted to argue about it. But germs are not supernatural. This would have become a debate on religious dogma, which was off topic.

 

After finding that I could not dissuade the other member from this idea, I finally asked for help. The moderator explained that he had heard the other member's argument before and agreed with it, so I would have to oblige.

 

My thoughts:

 

1. The moderator did not hear this argument before in a thread on the supernatural, because there were no threads on the supernatural. I checked.

 

2. The moderator must have heard this argument in the religion forum.

 

3. If "moderators read threads", then the moderator would know that the thread was about the supernatural not religion or religious dogma.

 

Conclusion: The moderator knowingly abetted the hijacking of my thread. Why?

 

It is my thought that the science v religion topic is so very entangled with the thinking of members of this forum, that they simply concluded that I am not a scientist, so I must be a religious nut. They wanted to see me lose that argument.

 

What they did not know, is that I already did a thread on the Old Testament Laws in another forum, years ago, and have enough information to argue that point until the cows come home. But it would have taken my thread off topic, and I rarely argue religious dogma, and avoid the religion forum.

 

Arguing religion is futile. If I win the debate, then I destroy someone's faith and they lose. If I lose the debate (which is likely as it is hard to change belief), then I lose. It is a lose, lose proposition. Since there are no winners, it is somewhat cruel and mean-spirited to intentionally try to destroy someone's faith.

 

Gee

[swansont]

If you had read my thread, you would have learned that your above assertion is unsupportable for a variety of reasons.

I probably read only some of the thread. It was of little interest to me. If moderator action had not been required (if I was involved in that) or this discussion didn't come up I might not have read any of it.

 

I have no interest in re-hashing the argument here; it is entirely off-topic, in addition to my existing lack of interest in the discussion.

 

 

Maybe. On the other hand, if you ask for help and get your hand slapped, then you ask for help again and get your hand slapped again, you stop asking for help unless you are dimwitted.

OTOH, some people are able to reason out the action-response mechanism that takes place. Unfortunately not enough, since we continually get visitors who can't make the correlation.

 

I see three general reasons for the Report button: To report a problem like a double post or spam; to report another member; or to ask for help, usually to help me manage my own thread.

 

There are enough members here, so I do not need to report problems. I don't generally tell on other members, as I have the ability to dissect and decimate posts, if people give me cause. And I am not going to get help because I am a philosopher, so the moderators either don't see the problem or are unmotivated to help.

That you are a philosopher makes no difference. The report post function is to call our attention to problems and rules infractions. Some people report posts asking us to intervene because the target of the report is allegedly wrong about something. Some complain about being down-voted. Some people claim to have been personally attacked when in fact their argument has been attacked. We're not going to respond to those.

 

 

No. I got them for arguing with the moderator, just like when a ball player argues with the umpire.

 

 

Well, the specific problem that the moderator addressed started with a statement that I made while comparing the Old Testament "God", who was "spirit", but involved in physical things, with the New Testament "God", who was physical, but involved in spiritual things. The point of that statement was to discredit the idea of the Old Testament "God", as most thinking people will realize that a "spirit" "God" would be involved in spiritual things -- not physical things. OR there was no supernatural Old Testament "God".

 

While enumerating the physical things, I listed hygiene and germ issues that seem to be addressed in the Old Testament. Another member picked up on the "germ" idea and wanted to argue about it. But germs are not supernatural. This would have become a debate on religious dogma, which was off topic.

 

After finding that I could not dissuade the other member from this idea, I finally asked for help. The moderator explained that he had heard the other member's argument before and agreed with it, so I would have to oblige.

This sounds a lot like a scenario I described above. "I could not dissuade the other member from this idea" is not an issue of a rules violation, AFAICT. It's an issue of an admixture of unpersuasive arguments on one side and skepticism (and/or stubbornness) on the other. That a moderator would not take action is completely unsurprising.

 

 

I recall looking at the reports, but that was a few weeks ago. I don't feel inclined to dredge them up again, but I don't recall finding anything that supports your claim that you were warned because of your report. As I said, other people report posts, too.

[imatfaal]

After finding that I could not dissuade the other member from this idea, I finally asked for help. The moderator explained that he had heard the other member's argument before and agreed with it, so I would have to oblige.

 

My thoughts:

 

1. The moderator did not hear this argument before in a thread on the supernatural, because there were no threads on the supernatural. I checked.

 

2. The moderator must have heard this argument in the religion forum.

 

3. If "moderators read threads", then the moderator would know that the thread was about the supernatural not religion or religious dogma.

 

Conclusion: The moderator knowingly abetted the hijacking of my thread. Why?

...

 

Your comprehension of the written word needs improving

 

this is what I posted

 

Moderator Note

Can we move back to a more substantive discussion of the issues rather than a technical argument about procedural niceties. There has been a fair bit of rhetoric and a touch of sophistry in this thread already; it would be nice if we could return to a debate based on facts.

 

Gees - several times you have made imputations regarding the persona and characteristics of other posters; this has to stop now. And if you introduce a source - then you must expect it to be criticised; this extends to books of religion. As there is little to no empirical evidence in these areas, issues of self-contradiction, consistency and motivation must form part of the critique of these works of a religious nature.

 

Moon - I understand your argument; mainly because I agree with it and have seen you make it many times previously. Perhaps your familiarity with the topic has lead to a slight abbreviation of the stages of the expostion; this has maybe lead to a perception of peremptory dismissiveness and intransigence.

 

 

Did you forget that the major import of the modnote directed towards you was to stop making personal arguments? The final section is not even addressed to you

 

My second modnote concentrated on asking you not to argue moderation (still going after this time) but more importantly to stop being abusive .

 

The final modnote again asked you to stop commenting on moderation and asked you to back up a position or resile from it.

 

Your warnings were for soapboxing (you implicitly mention within the thread that you are doing this) but mainly for responding to moderation when explicitly told not to, and most importantly for making personal characterisations and attacks when previously and recently warned not to do this.