TBD bitching thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2013, 11:47 AM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 11:45 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  It's got nothing to do with the gun debate, except the Logica brought it into a thread that wasn't about it. This entire thing is about moderation policy, at least as far as I can tell. TBD started off with the nastiness, and I don't know what it is with this guy, but I can't stand him when he gets on a high horse and starts spreading shit.

We've gone off at each other before, and we both backed down with no concessions on either side. This is pretty similar.

Please show me where I am the one who started off with the "nastiness." Please show me one out and out insult I delivered your way unsolicited from you.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 11:48 AM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 11:45 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  It's got nothing to do with the gun debate, except the Logica brought it into a thread that wasn't about it. This entire thing is about moderation policy, at least as far as I can tell. TBD started off with the nastiness, and I don't know what it is with this guy, but I can't stand him when he gets on a high horse and starts spreading shit.

We've gone off at each other before, and we both backed down with no concessions on either side. This is pretty similar.


All I wanted was him out of my thread, unless he wanted to talk guns. He chose to make it an issue, over some accidentally deleted posts, and started talking censorship. I was willing to talk censorship; elsewhere. And that's still where I'm at.

You don't own any thread. And you've no right to order anyone out of any thread you start. You are not the high king of any area of the forum. No one is.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 12:12 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 11:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 11:45 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  It's got nothing to do with the gun debate, except the Logica brought it into a thread that wasn't about it. This entire thing is about moderation policy, at least as far as I can tell. TBD started off with the nastiness, and I don't know what it is with this guy, but I can't stand him when he gets on a high horse and starts spreading shit.

We've gone off at each other before, and we both backed down with no concessions on either side. This is pretty similar.

Please show me where I am the one who started off with the "nastiness." Please show me one out and out insult I delivered your way unsolicited from you.

I suppose you are not going to or you cannot?

Stop spouting forth out and out lies. Insult me all you want, I could care less. But lying is an insult to any and all who read it. So, put up your evidence for me being the one to start off with the insults, or fuck-off with lies.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
The very first thing you posted accused me and Chas of censorship. No asking why what happened happened, no attempt to reason, just jumping straight to accusation. There are ways of being nasty without profanity, you are aware...

HouseofCantor attempted to get the thread back on track, and I immediately did so, bringing it back to the subject of guns. You brought the word "carnage" in, which is pretty loaded and I saw as an attempt to restart the debate. I ignored the word and replied to the other part of the post. You brought it up again, and I again ignored it, noting I hadn't said anything about it before. I don't know if you were attempting to start something, but in light of previous posts it was a possibility I was looking out for, so I was primed for dealing with bullshit. But nothing happened and we kept talking guns.

Then FSM Scott, two pages later, basically accused Chaz of censorship again and revived the off topic argument. Both you and Chaz posted, and seeing your name attached, I in frustration made this thread because I thought (and still think) that your earlier talk was simply complaining for the sake of complaining, and this seemed like more of the same. Then it erupted into the current multi-page mess.

Honestly, TBD, by this point I think FSM Scott holds more blame than you, although I think all of us fucked up.

You fucked up for making a mountain out of a molehill with the accidental deletions, and for arguing that trying to clean up a mess caused by bad etiquette constitutes censorship
Chaz fucked up by accidentally deleting those posts, and not explaining what happened immediately
FSM Scott fucked up by reviving the dead topic and accusing Chaz of abuse of power without grounds

And I fucked up by not reading carefully enough to see that FSM was who revived it, not you TBD, thus misfiring and causing an escalating shitstorm between us


I stand by this: it is not censorship to MOVE POSTS into a new thread. I did not intend for them to be deleted; I stated, time and time again, that I would be willing to debate in a different venue. I maintain that you were wrong for not starting a new thread on the topic if you were still concerned, rather than continuing to pollute the original thread. I maintain that there are cases where debate is NOT appropriate for a given thread. We have an entire block of forums devoted to debate. This is a casual area, and bringing debate, whether it be about gun control or forum policy, into it constitutes a major breach of etiquette and that splitting off-topic posts out of such a thread is an appropriate response.


I would argue that if splitting posts into a new thread constitutes censorship, then so does eliminating discussion on a topic by flooding it with off topic posts. If it's okay with you, I'd like the Guns thread to be split, into a thread about guns, and a thread about forum policy. Chaz suggested starting a new guns thread, but I don't think that's an acceptable solution seeing as A. the fifty or so existing on topic posts would essentially be lost from the discussion (censored? arguably), and B. I don't trust TBD, FSM, Logica, or someone else to not renew the garbage there.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
11-04-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 12:17 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The very first thing you posted accused me and Chas of censorship. No asking why what happened happened, no attempt to reason, just jumping straight to accusation. There are ways of being nasty without profanity, you are aware...

HouseofCantor attempted to get the thread back on track, and I immediately did so, bringing it back to the subject of guns. You brought the word "carnage" in, which is pretty loaded and I saw as an attempt to restart the debate. I ignored the word and replied to the other part of the post. You brought it up again, and I again ignored it, noting I hadn't said anything about it before. I don't know if you were attempting to start something, but in light of previous posts it was a possibility I was looking out for, so I was primed for dealing with bullshit. But nothing happened and we kept talking guns.

Then FSM Scott, two pages later, basically accused Chaz of censorship again and revived the off topic argument. Both you and Chaz posted, and seeing your name attached, I in frustration made this thread because I thought (and still think) that your earlier talk was simply complaining for the sake of complaining, and this seemed like more of the same. Then it erupted into the current multi-page mess.

Honestly, TBD, by this point I think FSM Scott holds more blame than you, although I think all of us fucked up.

You fucked up for making a mountain out of a molehill with the accidental deletions, and for arguing that trying to clean up a mess caused by bad etiquette constitutes censorship
Chaz fucked up by accidentally deleting those posts, and not explaining what happened immediately
FSM Scott fucked up by reviving the dead topic and accusing Chaz of abuse of power without grounds

And I fucked up by not reading carefully enough to see that FSM was who revived it, not you TBD, thus misfiring and causing an escalating shitstorm between us


I stand by this: it is not censorship to MOVE POSTS into a new thread. I did not intend for them to be deleted; I stated, time and time again, that I would be willing to debate in a different venue. I maintain that you were wrong for not starting a new thread on the topic if you were still concerned, rather than continuing to pollute the original thread. I maintain that there are cases where debate is NOT appropriate for a given thread. We have an entire block of forums devoted to debate. This is a casual area, and bringing debate, whether it be about gun control or forum policy, into it constitutes a major breach of etiquette and that splitting off-topic posts out of such a thread is an appropriate response.


I would argue that if splitting posts into a new thread constitutes censorship, then so does eliminating discussion on a topic by flooding it with off topic posts. If it's okay with you, I'd like the Guns thread to be split, into a thread about guns, and a thread about forum policy. Chaz suggested starting a new guns thread, but I don't think that's an acceptable solution seeing as A. the fifty or so existing on topic posts would essentially be lost from the discussion (censored? arguably), and B. I don't trust TBD, FSM, Logica, or someone else to not renew the garbage there.

The very first thing I posted was deleted by Chas and was in support of Chas and in condemnation of Logica. So, no. That is indeed false.

My first post AFTER Chas deleted the posts was the accusation of the threads having been deleted, which they were. No insult, and while an accusation, it was a true observation. You are conflating "nastiness" with "a comment that said something you did not like."

You assumed I had some ulterior motive when posting about the AK, you were wrong. I was perusing that thread because (as I said in some of those posts) I do have an interest in military technology, guns included. I may not agree with our current gun laws or agree with you on them, but that has no bearing on my desire to learn about military technology. You assumed, and you were wrong.

And FSM accused Chas of censoring after I brought it to his attention and he looked into it and did indeed see that they were deleted. That was also the point of creating the tests posts and a test merger, which is what Chas claimed he did (even thought no split threads showed up anywhere at anytime, as I was online during that fiasco updating the feed every few minutes).

I did not complain just to complain. It is very simple. A member on this forum was silenced because someone disagreed with them and wanted absolute control over a thread started by them. In the process, my post was deleted without my consent or permission. I do not like having what I say censored on a forum claiming to promote free speech.

And it would not be censorship to move content to another thread, but that is not what happened. And (as has been the case here for as long as I am aware) the point of free speech and limited moderation on this forum, is so that people can be free to speak their mind on any topic in any thread (although it is obviously not always kosher to do so). As I have also said more than once between the threads and pms, Logica did not act in a respectful way by going into that thread to start that debate again, but it did not warrant anywhere near the response it received. Ignore them, or reply to them in another thread. If you don't want the conversation in that thread, don't reply in that thread, just go to another one (as you yourself have suggested more than once). This is why there are pm's too. A message to Logica saying "I would rather discuss this in another thread" should have sufficed to keep any posts from needing "cleaned" without consent. Hell, had anyone just asked me before removing it (and asked Logica), I would have said "go ahead." But, no one asked. Everyone made an assumption, and then you jumped straight to insults and opened this thread.

I did not insult you or Chas or derail that thread. Those are accusations and lies.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 12:17 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The very first thing you posted accused me and Chas of censorship. No asking why what happened happened, no attempt to reason, just jumping straight to accusation. There are ways of being nasty without profanity, you are aware...

HouseofCantor attempted to get the thread back on track, and I immediately did so, bringing it back to the subject of guns. You brought the word "carnage" in, which is pretty loaded and I saw as an attempt to restart the debate. I ignored the word and replied to the other part of the post. You brought it up again, and I again ignored it, noting I hadn't said anything about it before. I don't know if you were attempting to start something, but in light of previous posts it was a possibility I was looking out for, so I was primed for dealing with bullshit. But nothing happened and we kept talking guns.

Then FSM Scott, two pages later, basically accused Chaz of censorship again and revived the off topic argument. Both you and Chaz posted, and seeing your name attached, I in frustration made this thread because I thought (and still think) that your earlier talk was simply complaining for the sake of complaining, and this seemed like more of the same. Then it erupted into the current multi-page mess.

Honestly, TBD, by this point I think FSM Scott holds more blame than you, although I think all of us fucked up.

You fucked up for making a mountain out of a molehill with the accidental deletions, and for arguing that trying to clean up a mess caused by bad etiquette constitutes censorship
Chaz fucked up by accidentally deleting those posts, and not explaining what happened immediately
FSM Scott fucked up by reviving the dead topic and accusing Chaz of abuse of power without grounds

And I fucked up by not reading carefully enough to see that FSM was who revived it, not you TBD, thus misfiring and causing an escalating shitstorm between us


I stand by this: it is not censorship to MOVE POSTS into a new thread. I did not intend for them to be deleted; I stated, time and time again, that I would be willing to debate in a different venue. I maintain that you were wrong for not starting a new thread on the topic if you were still concerned, rather than continuing to pollute the original thread. I maintain that there are cases where debate is NOT appropriate for a given thread. We have an entire block of forums devoted to debate. This is a casual area, and bringing debate, whether it be about gun control or forum policy, into it constitutes a major breach of etiquette and that splitting off-topic posts out of such a thread is an appropriate response.


I would argue that if splitting posts into a new thread constitutes censorship, then so does eliminating discussion on a topic by flooding it with off topic posts. If it's okay with you, I'd like the Guns thread to be split, into a thread about guns, and a thread about forum policy. Chaz suggested starting a new guns thread, but I don't think that's an acceptable solution seeing as A. the fifty or so existing on topic posts would essentially be lost from the discussion (censored? arguably), and B. I don't trust TBD, FSM, Logica, or someone else to not renew the garbage there.

The very first thing I posted was deleted by Chas and was in support of Chas and in condemnation of Logica. So, no. That is indeed false.

My first post AFTER Chas deleted the posts was the accusation of the threads having been deleted, which they were. No insult, and while an accusation, it was a true observation. You are conflating "nastiness" with "a comment that said something you did not like."

You assumed I had some ulterior motive when posting about the AK, you were wrong. I was perusing that thread because (as I said in some of those posts) I do have an interest in military technology, guns included. I may not agree with our current gun laws or agree with you on them, but that has no bearing on my desire to learn about military technology. You assumed, and you were wrong.

And FSM accused Chas of censoring after I brought it to his attention and he looked into it and did indeed see that they were deleted. That was also the point of creating the tests posts and a test merger, which is what Chas claimed he did (even thought no split threads showed up anywhere at anytime, as I was online during that fiasco updating the feed every few minutes).

I did not complain just to complain. It is very simple. A member on this forum was silenced because someone disagreed with them and wanted absolute control over a thread started by them. In the process, my post was deleted without my consent or permission. I do not like having what I say censored on a forum claiming to promote free speech.

And it would not be censorship to move content to another thread, but that is not what happened. And (as has been the case here for as long as I am aware) the point of free speech and limited moderation on this forum, is so that people can be free to speak their mind on any topic in any thread (although it is obviously not always kosher to do so). As I have also said more than once between the threads and pms, Logica did not act in a respectful way by going into that thread to start that debate again, but it did not warrant anywhere near the response it received. Ignore them, or reply to them in another thread. If you don't want the conversation in that thread, don't reply in that thread, just go to another one (as you yourself have suggested more than once). This is why there are pm's too. A message to Logica saying "I would rather discuss this in another thread" should have sufficed to keep any posts from needing "cleaned" without consent. Hell, had anyone just asked me before removing it (and asked Logica), I would have said "go ahead." But, no one asked. Everyone made an assumption, and then you jumped straight to insults and opened this thread.

I did not insult you or Chas or derail that thread. Those are accusations and lies.


You have some of the facts wrong.

The split threads did show up. Check with FSM-Scot. It's in the log.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The very first thing I posted was deleted by Chas and was in support of Chas and in condemnation of Logica. So, no. That is indeed false.

My first post AFTER Chas deleted the posts was the accusation of the threads having been deleted, which they were. No insult, and while an accusation, it was a true observation. You are conflating "nastiness" with "a comment that said something you did not like."

You assumed I had some ulterior motive when posting about the AK, you were wrong. I was perusing that thread because (as I said in some of those posts) I do have an interest in military technology, guns included. I may not agree with our current gun laws or agree with you on them, but that has no bearing on my desire to learn about military technology. You assumed, and you were wrong.

And FSM accused Chas of censoring after I brought it to his attention and he looked into it and did indeed see that they were deleted. That was also the point of creating the tests posts and a test merger, which is what Chas claimed he did (even thought no split threads showed up anywhere at anytime, as I was online during that fiasco updating the feed every few minutes).

I did not complain just to complain. It is very simple. A member on this forum was silenced because someone disagreed with them and wanted absolute control over a thread started by them. In the process, my post was deleted without my consent or permission. I do not like having what I say censored on a forum claiming to promote free speech.

And it would not be censorship to move content to another thread, but that is not what happened. And (as has been the case here for as long as I am aware) the point of free speech and limited moderation on this forum, is so that people can be free to speak their mind on any topic in any thread (although it is obviously not always kosher to do so). As I have also said more than once between the threads and pms, Logica did not act in a respectful way by going into that thread to start that debate again, but it did not warrant anywhere near the response it received. Ignore them, or reply to them in another thread. If you don't want the conversation in that thread, don't reply in that thread, just go to another one (as you yourself have suggested more than once). This is why there are pm's too. A message to Logica saying "I would rather discuss this in another thread" should have sufficed to keep any posts from needing "cleaned" without consent. Hell, had anyone just asked me before removing it (and asked Logica), I would have said "go ahead." But, no one asked. Everyone made an assumption, and then you jumped straight to insults and opened this thread.

I did not insult you or Chas or derail that thread. Those are accusations and lies.


You have some of the facts wrong.

The split threads did show up. Check with FSM-Scot. It's in the log.

If I do indeed have the facts wrong then yes, I would love to have that shown to me.

I still do not see how they were deleted, but that is quite simply not the point. If it is indeed what happened, then I apologize to you for being an obtuse ass to you. But Phaedrus has made it plainly obvious he would rather insult, judge, and assume without admitting fault. (his only admission of fault being that he accused me of a post made by FSM_scot).

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have some of the facts wrong.

The split threads did show up. Check with FSM-Scot. It's in the log.

Chas is right in that the posts were split from the thread, there was no merge after that only a delete.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 01:18 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have some of the facts wrong.

The split threads did show up. Check with FSM-Scot. It's in the log.

Chas is right in that the posts were split from the thread, there was no merge after that only a delete.

Then I stand corrected in one of my assumptions, they were split but never merged, only deleted after the split.

If it is the case of an accident, then it is an unfortunate one since the mod who did it, was personally involved in the thread.

In the future, it should be handled by an admin or mod not personally invested in any sense.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: TBD bitching thread
(11-04-2013 01:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 01:18 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Chas is right in that the posts were split from the thread, there was no merge after that only a delete.

Then I stand corrected in one of my assumptions, they were split but never merged, only deleted after the split.

If it is the case of an accident, then it is an unfortunate one since the mod who did it, was personally involved in the thread.

In the future, it should be handled by an admin or mod not personally invested in any sense.

Personal involvement wasn't the problem. You are making that a problem.

Why would I go to the trouble of splitting it only to delete it?

Seriously, let's move this to the Conspiracy forum.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: