Re: The problem with all these "Debates".

On Nov 2, 5:41 pm, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:39 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Nov 2, 7:12 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:04 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:46 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
No different here.  Like I said it is just human nature.  You seeall
kinds,  Deal with it.

And so then that's why I don't bother going on it forever, as it just
wastes
time.

<snip>

Well, that is what happens in some cases.  What are you going to do
make it a closed forum?

If you do that, who will you close out?  The guys like Ray and adman,
or the guys that respond to them in what you believe to be an
inappropriate manner?  Take out the cause, or remove what may possibly
be the real victims?  The truth may be ugly, but you aren't going to
change that, by removing a segment just because you want to pretend
that it really isn't that ugly.

Ehmn. If anything maybe not many of either of these would be "fit" for
a
"closed forum"... What is BAD about cutting out stuff like "worthless
ass"
and so on?

You didn't get it did you?  Are you going to ban the guys saying
"worthless ass" or the worthless asses?  

Did you read what I said? You'd have to ban them both, but then
there's
no debate forum. Better if the people don't do it and adopt a more
civilized form of debate -- both of them.

Well, you aren't going to get it done by praying about it.


Where did I say that would get it done???





SNIP

Demonstrate that their dishonesty is due to mental incompetence.

But what happens in those cases? That's what I was asking about. Not
whether
a particular case was due to it.

First you have to determine that their dishonesty is due to mental
incompetence.  Just take Sean as an example and go for it.  Then you
can ask what should happen in that case.

My first guess is that once someone was declared to be mentally
incompetent and verified to be so, that most people would stop the
overly negative junk.  There may be people that get their jollies from
that type of abuse, but most posters would likely lay off.  So just
start making those judgements and getting people to sign onto your
evaluations.


Thank you for the explanation.





<snip>

Maybe, but I prefer not to go and make those sort of judgments. Yes,
it is
possible and probably likely (no, make that pretty much _certain_)
there
are people out there who really do lie, but I prefer not to make those
sort
of judgments.

Take your time to make those judgements.  A lot oftheseguys hang
around long enough for even the most dense to determine that they
aren't worth worrying about.

So if they aren't worth worrying about, why bother with all the
insulting?

Why stop it, and how would you stop it?  Your best argument would be
that it might turn off the casual observer, but anyone that really
looked into the situation would know better.  So it boils down to how
would you stop it?  Who are you going to elect as god to determine
what is and isn't justified?  Are you going to get rid of the real
cause or the guys reacting to the cause?  What would that accomplish?

Let things alone.  The best argument against the current creationist
political scams are the people that support the dishonest scams.
Getting rid of the brain dead and dishonest would do nothing, but help
the creationist political scam artists look more legit than they are.
Getting rid of the guys that call a spade a spade only give the brain
dead and dishonest more leverage than they deserve.

So what if you just get rid of the political scam artists???

Except for Sean they don't seem to post here, and Sean is some small
fish with his own agenda.  All we usually get here are the victims of
the political scam artists.  The problem is that once they find out
how they have been had, a lot of them accept the dishonesty and go
with it rather than back off and wait for an honest effort.


And that's when the "victim" starts to become "blameworthy", right --
because
now it becomes deliberate?

SNIP:



Again, demonstrate that they are mentally incompetent.

Again, I was not claiming a specific case was due to mental
incompetence.
I was asking about what you do in such cases.

So I cannot "demonstrate" it at all and don't have a clue as to how.

So why even put forward the proposition?  If you can't determine
mental incompetence then there is no issue.  Why discuss
hypotheticals?  You have to deal with what you can do.


Because _I_ am not trying to become a moderator here. And what
proposition?
(I might have forgot, this discussion is getting long) I was _asking_
about _what
happens_ _in those cases_.

SNIP:





Good thing that you can't be elected moderator.  You would really
screw up the works and everyone else would have to pay for it.  The
only doubt is are they just mentally incompetent, bogously dishonest,
or a combination of the two.  If you are claiming that since they are
likely mentally incompetent that people should be nicer to them, then
demonstrate that they are mentally incompetent.

Well if they could be proven dishonest then they'd go into the bin
too. So that's
not a good moderator? If, hypothetically, I was a moderator, and did
manage to
judge they were really being truly diishonest liars, I'd ban them from
the forum!
Yep, you read that right! I'd *also* edit out insults and worthless
ass comments. I'd
do BOTH.

You haven't seen these guys operate have you?  Being a moderator with
the bogus types they have on the creationist side would be the utter
pits.  Just take one example:  I was once involved in a discussion
with one of the main ARN ID perps.  This guy sniped out things from my
posts and pretended that I hadn't written what I had written.  It
wasn't the first time he did it, but I confronted the guy about it.  I
just pointed out what he had done.  I didn't call him any names or
anything like that, and some moderator came in and said that I
couldn't do that.  The guy came in to justify what he had done and
threw it into the moderators face by claiming that he had done exactly
what he intended to do.  What is the moderator going to do?  Is he
going to take that as an admission that the guy knew what he was
doing, or should he take it that the guy didn't really want to pull a
fast one.  The ID perp never clarified the issue.  These are the kinds
of people that you have to deal with.  They know how to game the
system.  They rely on people like you with your "doubt," and use it to
do bogus things.

Your system will only work if there were some infallible bogousity
detector.



So then, like it or not, the forum can really only be kept open.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The problem with all these "Debates".
    ... Getting rid of the brain dead and dishonest would do nothing, ... the creationist political scam artists look more legit than they are. ... only doubt is are they just mentally incompetent, bogously dishonest, ... If, hypothetically, I was a moderator, and did ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The problem with all these "Debates".
    ... What is BAD about cutting out stuff like "worthless ... no debate forum. ... Because _I_ am not trying to become a moderator here. ... only doubt is are they just mentally incompetent, bogously dishonest, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The problem with all these "Debates".
    ... no debate forum. ... the brain dead and dishonest. ... the creationist political scam artists look more legit than they are. ... demonstrate that they are mentally incompetent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gerritsen Sentenced
    ... Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to ... This newsgroup is not a national political election forum. ... You WILL find that true moderator tasks will have to be ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.policy)
  • Re: CSS vs WoS forums
    ... a web forum... ... threatened by the moderator with being thrown off the forum for using ... I also don't like IRC for similar reasons, as the channel ops are ... lose the posts, whereas with newsgroups and email lists you either ...
    (comp.sys.sinclair)
Loading