Nature Cannot Have a Natural Origin [modified]
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That's how we got here.
I'm of two minds about moderation, but I differ on how we got here. Chris made it clear that when the board's automtic elimination system was hacked, he was angered and upset by the level of discourse in here and that was why he first planned on eliminating the board and then decided to turn it into a ghetto. For awhile, it seemed as if being off by ourselves was a good thing, but then CSS returned. Our two trolls seem to encourage each other by their presence. He and Ilion have made it clear they despise the rest of us on this board and are perfectly willing and eager to drive as many or all of us away as they can. Worse, as you just pointed out, as the frustration level mounts, they drag others down to their level by spouting absolute nonsense. Ravel is a special case. I like the kid and harbor a suspicion that his IQ might be higher than mine, but he proves, over and over again, why Chris's set 18 as the minimum age for membership - even though he does nothing to enforce it. You are absolutely right that he and Christian seem to be the two who cannot ignore the trolls no matter how much they try.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
ignore
It was the use of "kill voting" as a tool for censorship of a select few that provoked the hacking as a retaliatory escalation, in my opinion. Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
-
Oakman wrote:
More and more I am beginning to think that this is a question that must be addressed by the moderators. Too many intelligent contributers to this board said they are coming here less often because of the the antics of our two trolls.
Translation: We irrationales ganged-up to silence what we do not wish others to hear or think about. That didn't work; instead our mass right to silence another member of this semi-public discussion board (and which member has historically contributed far more to the core mission of the organization sponsoring the board than most of us can ever hope to contribute) was revoked -- strictly because it was used against us. However, since certain of us irrationales now have the private ability to silence and censor, without apparent repercussion, that which we do not wish others to hear or think about, let us do so. What harm can there possibly be?
Ilíon wrote:
that which we do not wish others to hear or think about
My you certainly are dense. Stan, for example, has no problem communicating to the rest of us what he wants us to hear and to think about. He definitely has the ability to heat things up and to piss people off, yet he isn't considered a troll. It isn't ideas that cause you to be shunned, it's your disregard for forum etiquette (link monkey), name calling, arrogance, and your refusal to discuss (you have gotten better on this).
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Oakman wrote:
ignore
It was the use of "kill voting" as a tool for censorship of a select few that provoked the hacking as a retaliatory escalation, in my opinion. Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
Rob Graham wrote:
Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
Rob, I hear you very clearly, but you yourself have said that you are less and less interested in coming here because of the antics of those two clowns. You are right to point out that these two unemployed bums have nothing better to do with their time than to harass us by poosting and reposting while most of the rest of us have lives to live and work to do. At the same time we allowed our names to be selected by some sort of acclamation as moderators presumably in the expectation that we do something to fulfill that role. I've been trying, succesfully, to keep from responding directly to anything they've said. Of course that meant they have redoubled their efforts to get me to admit they exist, but that has just made me smile. But that hasn't helped the board much. You've been staying away - and Christian seems to want to debate them. I don't see those choices as helpful either. So what, if anything do we do as moderators? By the way, I think that deleting messages as quickly as possible woould deprive them of the recognition they hunger for. Ilion has already stopped harrassing one other board because they cancelled his privilges.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ilíon wrote:
that which we do not wish others to hear or think about
My you certainly are dense. Stan, for example, has no problem communicating to the rest of us what he wants us to hear and to think about. He definitely has the ability to heat things up and to piss people off, yet he isn't considered a troll. It isn't ideas that cause you to be shunned, it's your disregard for forum etiquette (link monkey), name calling, arrogance, and your refusal to discuss (you have gotten better on this).
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why do you continually insist to clutter this board with crap?
Why do you continually insist upon cluttering the board with your crap[^]?
More links. Wow. There's a surprise.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why do you continually insist to clutter this board with crap?
More and more I am beginning to think that this is a question that must be addressed by the moderators. Too many intelligent contributers to this board said they are coming here less often because of the the antics of our two trolls.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
While I've been too busy of late to frequent the board:
Oakman wrote:
Too many intelligent contributers to this board said they are coming here less often because of the the antics of our two trolls.
this is becoming clear. The problem is always with the attention cravers. They can't get recognition on their own, so they force themselves upon people.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
Rob, I hear you very clearly, but you yourself have said that you are less and less interested in coming here because of the antics of those two clowns. You are right to point out that these two unemployed bums have nothing better to do with their time than to harass us by poosting and reposting while most of the rest of us have lives to live and work to do. At the same time we allowed our names to be selected by some sort of acclamation as moderators presumably in the expectation that we do something to fulfill that role. I've been trying, succesfully, to keep from responding directly to anything they've said. Of course that meant they have redoubled their efforts to get me to admit they exist, but that has just made me smile. But that hasn't helped the board much. You've been staying away - and Christian seems to want to debate them. I don't see those choices as helpful either. So what, if anything do we do as moderators? By the way, I think that deleting messages as quickly as possible woould deprive them of the recognition they hunger for. Ilion has already stopped harrassing one other board because they cancelled his privilges.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I would be willing to bet that if we were to make a concerted effort to censor these two, at least one would appeal successfully to the owner to have our powers revoked for misuse (either that or Chris would follow his original instinct and just close the place). I think Chris meant for us to protect his site against clearly abusive or offensive posts, not to enforce our idea of what ideas are fit to post. If we don't want CSS' or Ilion's crap ideas discussed here, then our only choice is to lead by example and ignore them. If that fails, then this forum is not worth salvaging. We can't ban them, Chris won't ban them, they won't leave as long as they get the satisfaction of response (even if it is just ridicule). That leaves us with precious few alternatives.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You certainly are a hypocritical fool.
Case in point.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
You're right, it IS horribly formatted. His conclusion is also completely retarded: 1. Everything is either phenomenal or noumenal 2. All phenomena (the universe) did not arise from a phenomenon-type cause 3. Hence all phenomena arose from a noumenal-type cause. The only known noumenal causes in human experience have to do with the deliberate acts of conscious beings. Hence: all phenomena arose from the deliberate act of a conscious being. A billion words, and the essay amounts to: I think it was intelligently created, so it must have been.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A billion words, and the essay amounts to: I think it was intelligently created, so it must have been.
And you are so utterly unwilling to reason; and you are so utterly unwilling to admit that your petty objection is already answered in that piece (and in some of the various things in my words which I post). But OK, let's assert, in agreement with you silly children, that the truth of the matter about reality is actually that "2*) All phenomena arise strictly from phenomenon-type cause(s)" ... that is, that there are no "noumenal-type causes." So, what does this "truth" tell us? It tells us that we do not (and cannot!) know anything at all ... including the "truth" that "2*) All phenomena arise strictly from phenomenon-type cause(s)." It tells us that we do not (and cannot!) actually think. It tells us that we do not (and cannot!) actually reason.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You certainly are a hypocritical fool.
Case in point.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Case in point.
Indeed[^] edit: Tell you what, instead of wasting time dishonestly and hypocritically faulting me for how I choose to do Christ's work with this specific audience, in the language it employes, why don't you do something for Christ? I'm sure he's quite impressed with you sig-line.
-
I would be willing to bet that if we were to make a concerted effort to censor these two, at least one would appeal successfully to the owner to have our powers revoked for misuse (either that or Chris would follow his original instinct and just close the place). I think Chris meant for us to protect his site against clearly abusive or offensive posts, not to enforce our idea of what ideas are fit to post. If we don't want CSS' or Ilion's crap ideas discussed here, then our only choice is to lead by example and ignore them. If that fails, then this forum is not worth salvaging. We can't ban them, Chris won't ban them, they won't leave as long as they get the satisfaction of response (even if it is just ridicule). That leaves us with precious few alternatives.
Rob Graham wrote:
I think Chris meant for us to protect his site against clearly abusive or offensive posts, not to enforce our idea of what ideas are fit to post.
You are probably right. I just question whether or not inflicting iodiocy on everyone else can be considered abusive.
Rob Graham wrote:
then our only choice is to lead by example and ignore them
I agree, I just wish we could convince everybody else. My frustaration comes from seeing good men and true be suckered into responding to idiots. As the old saw would have it, when a wise man argues with a fool, it becomes hard to tell them apart.
Rob Graham wrote:
If that fails, then this forum is not worth salvaging
I suppose I've got to admit the Darwinian ( ;) ) truth of that statement.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
While I've been too busy of late to frequent the board:
Oakman wrote:
Too many intelligent contributers to this board said they are coming here less often because of the the antics of our two trolls.
this is becoming clear. The problem is always with the attention cravers. They can't get recognition on their own, so they force themselves upon people.
-
Oakman wrote:
ignore
It was the use of "kill voting" as a tool for censorship of a select few that provoked the hacking as a retaliatory escalation, in my opinion. Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
Rob Graham wrote:
It was the use of "kill voting" as a tool for censorship of a select few that provoked the hacking as a retaliatory escalation, in my opinion. Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
There was no hacking, there was no sock-pupperty, there was no breaking of the rules; it was, in fact, the rules themselves (whatever those rules are) that resulted in the untoward :laugh: effect of you-all getting a taste of your own medicine. It doesn't matter how often DryRot asserts that the site was hacked, it was not.
-
I would be willing to bet that if we were to make a concerted effort to censor these two, at least one would appeal successfully to the owner to have our powers revoked for misuse (either that or Chris would follow his original instinct and just close the place). I think Chris meant for us to protect his site against clearly abusive or offensive posts, not to enforce our idea of what ideas are fit to post. If we don't want CSS' or Ilion's crap ideas discussed here, then our only choice is to lead by example and ignore them. If that fails, then this forum is not worth salvaging. We can't ban them, Chris won't ban them, they won't leave as long as they get the satisfaction of response (even if it is just ridicule). That leaves us with precious few alternatives.
Rob Graham wrote:
I think Chris meant for us to protect his site against clearly abusive or offensive posts
Okay, what is abusive to your mind? When Ilion's post consists in large part or completely of insults, is that abusive?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It was the use of "kill voting" as a tool for censorship of a select few that provoked the hacking as a retaliatory escalation, in my opinion. Censorship never achieves it's goal. It only stirs the censored to more strenuous effort, being an affirmation of their purpose and a clear personal recognition.
There was no hacking, there was no sock-pupperty, there was no breaking of the rules; it was, in fact, the rules themselves (whatever those rules are) that resulted in the untoward :laugh: effect of you-all getting a taste of your own medicine. It doesn't matter how often DryRot asserts that the site was hacked, it was not.
It doesn't matter whether it was a hack or not (and it sure looked to me to be a hack or sock puppetry at work, since posts got deleted without meeting the supposed criteria for deletion). The point remains that YOU abused the system to achieve revenge. Your continued trolling, link spamming, and personal insults when confronted make this forum less appealing every day. I, for one, am perfectly willing to abandon it to you and CSS. Enjoy each others company, you certainly deserve each other in every way that matters.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I think Chris meant for us to protect his site against clearly abusive or offensive posts
Okay, what is abusive to your mind? When Ilion's post consists in large part or completely of insults, is that abusive?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
I think posts that are purely personal attacks are without merit and qualify as abusive. As do posts that publish anothers personal information, or contain encouragement to violence.
-
To the entirely limited degree that one can apologize for another, I apologize for the terrible run-togetherness of the following essay. If you are not interested in thinking about these things, you will, of course, not care even were it better formatted; if you are interested in thinking about these things, you may be able to convince yourself to put in the effort to work around the bad formatting: [edit: at some point, the essay was reformatted and is now readable] Nature Cannot Have a Natural Origin[^] Here is Mr Wright's essay from which the above grows (it's not all run together): Before there was Time, there was no Time[^]
modified on Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:33 PM
-
Philosophy: the diet coke of science. All the logic, none of the testability or applicability. Just one calorie!
- F
Now that deserves a 5.
-
It doesn't matter whether it was a hack or not (and it sure looked to me to be a hack or sock puppetry at work, since posts got deleted without meeting the supposed criteria for deletion). The point remains that YOU abused the system to achieve revenge. Your continued trolling, link spamming, and personal insults when confronted make this forum less appealing every day. I, for one, am perfectly willing to abandon it to you and CSS. Enjoy each others company, you certainly deserve each other in every way that matters.
Rob Graham wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it was a hack or not (and it sure looked to me to be a hack or sock puppetry at work, since posts got deleted without meeting the supposed criteria for deletion). The point remains that YOU abused the system to achieve revenge. Your continued trolling, link spamming, and personal insults when confronted make this forum less appealing every day. I, for one, am perfectly willing to abandon it to you and CSS. Enjoy each others company, you certainly deserve each other in every way that matters.
Now see? This is a prime example of your (singular and plural) disinclination to reason properly. You have no idea what the rules really are -- you have not read and fully understood the implementation-in-code of whatever the "rules" are intended to be. You have some theory of what the rules are, and which theory obviously does not accord with the actual implementation-in-code. But, as we all understand, even if many will not admit it, the so-called Soapbox was meant to be a Sandbox, a protected play-area for certain persons of certain opinions. But, officially, it is claimed to be a Sandbox, open to all members of CP to express their opinions. I didn't ABUSE anything. You children are bitching because I am refusing to abide by the unstated understanding that only certain opinions are allowed and only certain persons are allowed to express opinions.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It doesn't matter whether it was a hack or not (and it sure looked to me to be a hack or sock puppetry at work, since posts got deleted without meeting the supposed criteria for deletion). The point remains that YOU abused the system to achieve revenge. Your continued trolling, link spamming, and personal insults when confronted make this forum less appealing every day. I, for one, am perfectly willing to abandon it to you and CSS. Enjoy each others company, you certainly deserve each other in every way that matters.
Now see? This is a prime example of your (singular and plural) disinclination to reason properly. You have no idea what the rules really are -- you have not read and fully understood the implementation-in-code of whatever the "rules" are intended to be. You have some theory of what the rules are, and which theory obviously does not accord with the actual implementation-in-code. But, as we all understand, even if many will not admit it, the so-called Soapbox was meant to be a Sandbox, a protected play-area for certain persons of certain opinions. But, officially, it is claimed to be a Sandbox, open to all members of CP to express their opinions. I didn't ABUSE anything. You children are bitching because I am refusing to abide by the unstated understanding that only certain opinions are allowed and only certain persons are allowed to express opinions.
Um. You seem so certain of what I know and don't know. But thanks, you have finally convinced me. Goodbye, you arrogant asshole.