General election coming and I don't know why I was banned form politics

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you were discussing me. and that you were doing so in advance of Oscar Bravos decision to ban me.

...and again. For someone who carps on (and on, and on) about logic, you seem unable to avoid unwarranted extrapolations.

There was no discussion about you prior to me banning you; nor did Tristrame say there was. If you're going to complain about injustice, at least get your facts straight.

ISAW wrote:

"heated argument" your words not mine. clearly stated!

Correct. I said "...you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument." You claim I said you were banned for arguing in the Politics forum. I said you were banned until you convinced me you would change your approach. You claim I said you were permanently banned.

This is why you are banned. It's boring and tedious arguing with someone who twists and warps points others have made in what looks like a desperate attempt to be right all the time. It derails threads, and it makes other people not want to participate in the discussions.

At the end of the day, the charter is a list of guidelines. It's even referred to as such in the title of the sticky on the forum. My role is not one of blind obedience to the charter, but that of facilitator. I want Politics to be a place where people can enjoy discussion and robust debate. My opinion - which is shared by my fellow Politics moderators - is that that goal is best served by removing your access to the forum.

It may seem harsh, but that's the way it is, and nothing in the reams of text you've produced since then has done anything but reinforce that opinion.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you were discussing me. and that you were doing so in advance of Oscar Bravos decision to ban me.

Rofl


As for the rest of your post...
Goodnight sweet dreams,I'm off for a pint now in a nice beer garden not too far away from here.
I suggest you do the same because I'm not wasting time on you.
I've better recreational persuits.

ISAW

seamus wrote:

The appeal process will involve the input of the moderator in question if necessary, thus facilitating the resolution of the dispute.

Well at least there is something called an "appeal process". I certainly hope it doesn't involve appeal through the other politics mods since they have already shown bias in this by discussing the issue between themselves and coming to a decision to permaneltly ban me without answering the first question I asked i.e. What was I banned for?

That is, an Smod will never forcibly reverse the decision of a moderator,

what does that mean? "not forcibly"? what is the difference between that and "not ever at all"? that aside if their is an appeal process one should be clear going into it that the possibility is there of reversing a ban.

In fact as far as this appeal is concerned it MUST be reversed for the outcome to be any different. sionce the ban is now permanent any sucess means that at least the ban be made non permanent. Now if there is an appeal process the process MUST accept that this is a possibility and there are grounds whereby the ban might be reversed. Otherwise what is the point of an appeal process?

I also hope that both sides are privvy to the evidence presented by either side and that secret meetings and decisions made behind closed doors and rumour and gossip are not regarded as evidence.

Thank you for your assistance in this and I hope the process is visible and seen to be done and not clandestine and some decision made without any basis given for it.

but will advise the moderator if they think the actions were harsh or otherwise not valid.

They may also act on the banned poster's behalf and ask that the moderator reverse the ban.

Both these seem fair.

You seem to be confusing this whole thing as if you were in a real world judicial process. You're not.

Sorry but you were the one who suggested "not everything is in the charter". If that is true then to what sence of "fair play" do you appeal? One that exists in the real world? Or one you make up as you go along?

As i have said i am the one suffering the permanent ban here but it is the process you use and whether it is fair and just that is the larger picture which also should concern you. By "you" I mean allo mods and admin and probably the users more than anything. If I want to go to a biased political discussion and unfair appeals or no appeals I can go elsewhere I don't expect it of boards.ie. Why should you?

nesf

ISAW wrote:

I was posting to a thread about science funding. I had been directed there from elsewhere. The posters above claimed to have personal experience of working in science and that therefore my opinion was not as good at theirs. I claimed this was argument from authority and that mine was not opinion but fact based on reference.

Two points.

1) I can see why they made that argument, comments such as postgraduates are the engines of research is simply untrue across science as a whole and strike me as a priori ramblings rather than anything substantial and based on knowledge of the field. You are correct in that it was an argument from authority but that doesn't make your argument suddenly correct.

2) You claim that your opinion is fact because it is based on references? What? Just because you can justify your argument with a few references does not suddenly transform your opinion into fact.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

...and again. For someone who carps on (and on, and on) about logic, you seem unable to avoid unwarranted extrapolations.

there is a rule against being long winded now is there?

There was no discussion about you prior to me banning you; nor did Tristrame say there was.

I don't know that since I don't have access to the evidence. Are you will to post the date and time of the first post in that moderator thread. Im will ing to suggest you are wrong and that Tristrame did discuss me prior to this.
I also suggest that Tristrames discussion in the mods thread was affected by this prior knowledge and discussion.

If you're going to complain about injustice, at least get your facts straight.

Ok you post the date stamp of that discussion aboutme and see if I can point to an earlier discussion PM or prior knowledge none of which involved direct communication with me either to warn or inform me of such an investigation.

Correct. I said "...you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument."

You are aware it will require only one counter example to prove this claim wrong?

You claim I said you were banned for arguing in the Politics forum. I said you were banned until you convinced me you would change your approach.

"arguing" isnt an offence is it? What is "arguing"? I still don't know what I was accused of. I asked it be clarified. I didn't get any actual charges laid against me as to what I am meant to have done!

You claim I said you were permanently banned.

I claimed that there was no difference.
an "indefinite" ban until you understand the ban which I said I understood but didnt agree with because it was baseless is the same as a permanent ban.

As it happens your brother mods have apparently ment and have made the ban parmanent. Don't you attend the secret meetings? I wouldn't know that since I am not privvy to the anon accusations leveled at me there buy four experiences mods who can meet and discuss their banning of me versus me on my tod asking for a fair hearing and to be told what I did wrong.

This is why you are banned. It's boring and tedious arguing with someone who twists and warps points others have made in what looks like a desperate attempt to be right all the time. It derails threads, and it makes other people not want to participate in the discussions.

Is that a direct quote for your secret thread? So you will add "boring" and "tedious" to "longwinded" and "heated" in the charter now will you?

Now as regards mis representing twisting and warping... WHERE in the thread did I do this? Evidence please? and when was this accusation brought before me?

In fact I complain to a mod that I am being accused of lying and deceit and asked the claimant to produce evidence for such a hurtful personal accusation th mod bans me and a month later basically says "yes because I believed the other guy" .So where is the EVIDENCE that i am a liar or mis represented anything? As I se it I backed upo what I claime dwith evidence. It is clear the other poster claimed (among other things) PhD funds should be decantd to post docs. I asked time and time again "buy how much" "how many" "support this" and I have still to get the evidence.

At the end of the day, ... I want Politics to be a place where people can enjoy discussion and robust debate.

So do I. Which is why I asked the other posters to support their position. And if you know what fair treatment and logical debate is it is the reason why I asked why I was banned and for how long.

It appears you now resort to "I dont like the way you argue" . Im sorry about that but there is nothing illogical or ad hominal in the way I argue. So on what basis can you ban someone just because you don't like their writing style?

My opinion - which is shared by my fellow Politics moderators - is that that goal is best served by removing your access to the forum.

Actually the charter is very strong on this point. there is a HUGE difference between opinion and FACT! Fact requires evidence! so far you haven't given any evidence which convinces me warrants a ban permanent or not! So it boils down to "forget the charter it is how we feel". Ironically this is a contradiction. Fellow politics mods are on record stating they go by the charter and not how they feel about style!

It may seem harsh, but that's the way it is, and nothing in the reams of text you've produced since then has done anything but reinforce that opinion.

Oh it does indeed seem harsh! But "thats the way it is" isn't a valid reason for a permanent ban no more than "you desperately want to be right all the time" is. Is it?

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

So where is the EVIDENCE that i am a liar or mis represented anything? As I se it I backed upo what I claime dwith evidence.

Ermm, I accused you of mis-representing me and other posters. You did this by repeatedly asking people to show evidence of claims that you purport they made, but they actually didn't.

For someone allegedly so au fait with the 3rd and 4th level education systems, you seem to be deeply engrained in a need to be spoon fed akin to 2nd level education.

I mean this as no disrespect, but noobody here is paid or inclined to educate you. Noone here is bound by the burden of proof. This is a BBS not a court of law. Someone not showing evidence is not the same is evidence to disprove. If you feel people are wrong, show evidence or an argument to the contrary.

If you continue to jump up and down, screaming "PROVE IT" every 5 minutes, you're not going to get anywhere here.

The irony here is that you're engaging in exactly the same approach that got you banned to begin with.

This unwillingness to learn makes me wonder what good presenting you with evidence would do.

ISAW

nesf wrote:

Two points.

1) I can see why they made that argument, comments such as postgraduates are the engines of research is simply untrue across science as a whole and strike me as a priori ramblings rather than anything substantial and based on knowledge of the field. You are correct in that it was an argument from authority but that doesn't make your argument suddenly correct.

I agree. It does not necessarily make me correct.
Two point s on this:
1.1 Me being correct is not the point. Them showing themselves to be correct is. I was not making the original claim. the burden of evidence is on the claimant e.g. about decanting PhD funds to post docs. I was making counter claims and did (even though it isnt necessary it adds to my sid of the argument) supply factual data to support counter claims. [Truth be told it isn't even that simple since I pointed out I wasn't against post doctoral funding being increased but asked by how much and from what source]


1.2 It may not on its own necessarily logically prove the counter point but other evidence may be added to this . And as I said it isnt for me to prove the negative.

2) You claim that your opinion is fact because it is based on references? What? Just because you can justify your argument with a few references does not suddenly transform your opinion into fact.

That is a fair comment.

Which do you think is more likely to be true. Opinion based on argument from authority or argument based on citation from literature relevant to the field?

Truth be told ther are many fields where we can suggest things as a "fact" but they are actually interpretations based on evidence. Take history for example. Are there "historical facts"? so wht I claim is a "fact" really is in this case like a "historical fact"
Now let me ask you:
Do you believe the WWII holocaust is a "historical fact"?

So how many references do you want for which particular argument? And which side are you inclined to believe?

ISAW

psi wrote:

Ermm, I accused you of mis-representing me and other posters. You did this by repeatedly asking people to show evidence of claims that you purport they made, but they actually didn't.

You claim that so it is for you to support it.

In my defence Ill just take one example. Did you claim that PhD funding should be cut and the money given to post doctoral funding? Did you or did you not make that claim?

Did you state how many to cut and to create?
Where did you supply any evidence to support how this is good for Ireland?

What evidence at all did you provide to support the aboive claim?

For someone allegedly so au fait with the 3rd and 4th level education systems, you seem to be deeply engrained in a need to be spoon fed akin to 2nd level education.

Where did I alledge in the thread that I was "au fait" with 3rd and 4th level? and what has that to do with you supportiong YOUR claims?

I mean this as no disrespect, but noobody here is paid or inclined to educate you. Noone here is bound by the burden of proof.

Nore are they bound by the laws of logic! One can make any nonsensical claim they want. But where is logical dabate then? But of a dead end argument that one!

This is a BBS not a court of law.

So you reserve justice and fair play only for courts of law? I feel sorry for those who meet you on the pitch. don't you think standards of fair play apply there too?

Someone not showing evidence is not the same is evidence to disprove. If you feel people are wrong, show evidence or an argument to the contrary.

See my last reply about "proving a negative". It is a standard logical fallacy.

If you continue to jump up and down, screaming "PROVE IT" every 5 minutes, you're not going to get anywhere here.

Apparently this is true! But does it warrant a permanent ban is the question?
I dont ask for people to prove trivial things by the way.

The irony here is that you're engaging in exactly the same approach that got you banned to begin with.

No irony. It is standard dabating. Im not doing anything wrong and not breaking any rules. Why should it warrant a permanent ban?

This unwillingness to learn makes me wonder what good presenting you with evidence would do.

I learned about logiocal and scientific deabte some time ago I believe. It seems from you above comments you wanbt me to depart from that and not support my claims. Sorry but no can do. Well can do but I wont.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

You claim that so it is for you to support it.

In my defence Ill just take one example. Did you claim that PhD funding should be cut and the money given to post doctoral funding? Did you or did you not make that claim?

Did you state how many to cut and to create?
Where did you supply any evidence to support how this is good for Ireland?

What evidence at all did you provide to support the aboive claim?

Again, you've just completely ignored what I posted. How obtuse are you?

You asked people to support things that you claimed or implied they said, that they didn't.

I'm not entering the debate with your here, as much as you'd like, because this isn't the politics forum.

I'm ignoring the rest because, as usual, it detreacts from the point.

Apparently this is true! But does it warrant a permanent ban is the question?
I dont ask for people to prove trivial things by the way.

You've been banned for a reason given to you. You've chosen not to accept the reason.

Now, rather than give the slightest thought to the fact that you have no rights and have to play by other people's rules (which evidently don't suit you), you have, as far as I can tell (and I could be wrong with any of these charges - so I'm open to correction), continued to post in the manner which got you banned, questioned the integrity of the politics mods, questioned smods function or role, created a phoenix account to circumvent a ban and basically continued to be annoying.

These are not ways to get unbanned.

You live in the misconception that boards.ie is a democracy. It isn't, never has been and has never claimed to be. Your stay here is under dictator rule, albeit a benevolent dictator rule.

If the mods say you're banned for X - and you continue doing X - it stands to reason you won't be unbanned.


You might not like that set up, it might not suit you. But tough cookies.

ISAW

psi wrote:

Again, you've just completely ignored what I posted. How obtuse are you?

Quite clearly I didnt! I think it is clear that rather than ignore it I countered almost if not every point you made.

You asked people to support things that you claimed or implied they said, that they didn't.

who is switching now? Above you say I asked people to support claims they didn't make. So, as a counter example, I asked you above if you claimed someting about PhD's and whether you supported that claim? You did claim it and you didn't support it ! So how is me pointing this out to you implying anything which is untrue?

I'm not entering the debate with your here, as much as you'd like, because this isn't the politics forum.

Then don't make claims you can't support! Especially don't accuse me of pointing this out to you as if it was some hienous crime!

I'm ignoring the rest because, as usual, it detreacts from the point.

i.e. you make claims and give opinions about me and refuse to support them.

You've been banned for a reason given to you. You've chosen not to accept the reason.

I accept the reason. I just don't view it as any way fair or reasonable.

Now, rather than give the slightest thought to the fact that you have no rights

actually I do have legal rights. The laws of the land apply here as much as anywhere else. As I am sure the ever present stickies referring to MCD and tickets will remind you.

and have to play by other people's rules (which evidently don't suit you),

It isn't a question of the rules "not suiting me" as of actually being shown what the rules are! and if there are rules why does it seem that the mods when asked about them say things like "the charter is only a guideline"?

you have, as far as I can tell (and I could be wrong with any of these charges - so I'm open to correction), continued to post in the manner which got you banned, questioned the integrity of the politics mods, questioned smods function or role, created a phoenix account to circumvent a ban and basically continued to be annoying.

Well there is a whole host of new accusations (dressed up as "it is only my opinion") some of which I find personally offensive. But I'll leave that for another day since the issue at hand is one particular thread on funding Ireland's knowledge base and why I was banned from all ploitics fora because of it.

These are not ways to get unbanned.

Im sorry I thought there was a procedure of appeals. Is your opinion about the personal bias of moderators relevant to that. Hang on it probably is! Thank you for your assistance towards my case.

You live in the misconception that boards.ie is a democracy. It isn't, never has been and has never claimed to be. Your stay here is under dictator rule, albeit a benevolent dictator rule.

I never claimed people should vote (save that any people viewing unfair treatemnt will vote with their feet and stay away. I certainly would. Solidarity isnt about secret meetings to support thought police you know. It is about the masses supporting fair play)

I do however, whether a democracy or not, expect fair play. Iand I don't think your suggestion that mods rule and the rest can appease them and not expect fair play is not helping my case or boards.ie

If the mods say you're banned for X - and you continue doing X - it stands to reason you won't be unbanned.

Yes. If this mysterious "x" could be actually defined and stated in the charter that would be a help. But if "x" is "asking people to support their claims" then I certainly have a problem. Especially if "X" is "whatever we secretly call x but we wont tell you what it is".

You might not like that set up, it might not suit you. But tough cookies.

Basically you say people can't expect fair play for you! Just your dictatorial manner and tough on them if you ban then. And you are a mod! That does not reflect well on how others will now perceive mods in my opinion.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

when in this line alone you blatantly misrepresent what I've clearly stated.

My claim was I was banned for "heated Arguing"

Oscars original words wrote:

I've removed your access to the Politics forum, as you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument.

He did this

1. AFTER i posted that i was not posting any more to the thread he had just "stepped into" and had suggested any discussion go to PM between us.

And he banned me for "heated argueing" rather than "discussion". Now if someone else was "heated arguing" I note he didnt ban them so I assumed he meant only I was "heared arguing".

Oddly I still have no knowledge what "heated arguemnt" is or how it warrants a ban from politics.

Dirk Gently

I've just seen this thread

I was wondering why the politics forum wasn't making me want to vomit over the last few weeks. Now I know, ISAW is banned and discussion is flowing nicely without threads being hijacked and spoiled. My index finger thanks the mod in question as I don't have to work so hard on the mouse wheel scrolling down past ISAWs long winded irrelevant posts.

who ever banned him I owe you a pint.

muffler

is this a biography of ISAW?

nesf

ISAW wrote:

I agree. It does not necessarily make me correct.
Two point s on this:
1.1 Me being correct is not the point. Them showing themselves to be correct is. I was not making the original claim. the burden of evidence is on the claimant e.g. about decanting PhD funds to post docs. I was making counter claims and did (even though it isnt necessary it adds to my sid of the argument) supply factual data to support counter claims. [Truth be told it isn't even that simple since I pointed out I wasn't against post doctoral funding being increased but asked by how much and from what source]

I agree, however, experience does actually matter for something and arguments informed by experience in an area are useful things. The problem is that online especially on an issue like this where relatively few people actually know what post graduate research in the sciences is like, some weight has to be given to arguments of authority when they deal with the nitty gritty daily details of the debate. It doesn't mean that they are automatically correct but I wouldn't dismiss their arguments simply because they are arguments from authority. It is a formal fallacy but this isn't a formal debate it is a debate on policy which is necessarily fuzzy around the edges. There is no excluded middle so to speak.

ISAW wrote:

1.2 It may not on its own necessarily logically prove the counter point but other evidence may be added to this . And as I said it isnt for me to prove the negative.

Sure in a formal debate but as I said above this isn't one. One of the key problems of formal logic is that when debating a real life issue such as third level policy it isn't very useful. Secondly you will not get purely formal debates in a Politics forum. It's almost an oxymoron.

ISAW wrote:

Which do you think is more likely to be true. Opinion based on argument from authority or argument based on citation from literature relevant to the field?

I'd give both of them weight in issues such as these. Plus, the goal of such debates on policy is not necessarily truth but the best possible compromise between the competing needs. When speaking of compromises the debate changes.

ISAW wrote:

Truth be told ther are many fields where we can suggest things as a "fact" but they are actually interpretations based on evidence. Take history for example. Are there "historical facts"? so wht I claim is a "fact" really is in this case like a "historical fact"
Now let me ask you:
Do you believe the WWII holocaust is a "historical fact"?

So how many references do you want for which particular argument? And which side are you inclined to believe?

I am not easily persuaded by references. I have done enough debating and public speaking to know that I can back up almost any view on topics that are "fuzzy" such as public policy. I, as a person, am as much swayed by good argument as good references. i.e. the references don't count for anything if the accompanying argument is a fallacy.

The word fact is quite ambiguous but when speaking in the context of argument and references I think it has a very specific meaning attached to it implicitly.



My honest advice is this:

This is only for policy/moral/etc debates and not for scientific or philosophical ones necessarily. Treating debates on here as formal debates is just a waste of your time. It is neither necessary nor in keeping with the general feel of debate on this site. You are aggressive in your replies, this will not win you arguments and only serve to create an antagonistic and combative atmosphere in which to debate. If you are serious about debating you should know that this isn't a good thing, when things get heated people stop listening properly to each other and everyone is the worst for it. The purpose of debating with someone shouldn't be to win but to get them to give serious consideration to your arguments. There is little reason for moderators to allow people who repeatedly cause arguments to get heated and descend into petty point scoring to remain in the forum. It is in the interests of the forum that argument and debate remain calm, polite and informative.

6th

clown bag wrote:

I've just seen this thread

I was wondering why the politics forum wasn't making me want to vomit over the last few weeks. Now I know, ISAW is banned and discussion is flowing nicely without threads being hijacked and spoiled. My index finger thanks the mod in question as I don't have to work so hard on the mouse wheel scrolling down past ISAWs long winded irrelevant posts.

who ever banned him I owe you a pint.

You could of course just use the ignore function?

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

Rofl

When you get up off the floor from laughing maybe you might consider when you stated the following:

I'd prefer if names were kept out of this and you may bring this to pm if you wish.

I believe you were referring to me there were you not?

or your opinion that:

We work within the legislation set out in the charter.

or you discussions about people:

threading the thinnest of lines on the edge of that charter.

Referring to me again? Oddly neither before afture or during this time did you coantact me or warn me in any thread about your opinion about me. I'm not suggesting you had to I'm suggesting that you had discussed me before this particular thread. In secret. Hadn't you?

Dirk Gently

6th wrote:

You could of course just use the ignore function?

unfortunetly the members epic posts are often quoted by others who reply on thread and the problem is the whole thread becomes a debate between ISAW and other posters, with the thread becoming completly hijacked and off topic, so ignore doesn't really work.

SoBe

too early?

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

who is switching now? Above you say I asked people to support claims they didn't make. So, as a counter example, I asked you above if you claimed someting about PhD's and whether you supported that claim? You did claim it and you didn't support it ! So how is me pointing this out to you implying anything which is untrue?

Just because you may or may not (I honestly didn't check) have referenced a claim I did make, doesn't mean you haven't misrepresented me on other occasions.

You are quite simply a dishonest poster. You mis-represent and try and befuddle the issue. You refuse to stick to points. This makes your postings dishonest.

actually I do have legal rights. The laws of the land apply here as much as anywhere else.

No you don't. Prove this claim.

Are you implying you may sue boards????

Well there is a whole host of new accusations (dressed up as "it is only my opinion") some of which I find personally offensive. But I'll leave that for another day since the issue at hand is one particular thread on funding Ireland's knowledge base and why I was banned from all ploitics fora because of it.

YEs, I thought you might want to avoid that particular line of investigation.

Basically you say people can't expect fair play for you! Just your dictatorial manner and tough on them if you ban then. And you are a mod! That does not reflect well on how others will now perceive mods in my opinion.

We all trust that mods will act in the best interests of the site. When they don't, we usually discuss it among ourselves, the debates can often be aggressive and heated.

Interestingly, noone has made any debate against your banning, so consensus seems to have been reached.

SoBe

psi wrote:

Are you implying you may sue boards????

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

I don't know that since I don't have access to the evidence. Are you will to post the date and time of the first post in that moderator thread.

Yes: 27-03-2007, 23:51. Two minutes after the PM I sent you informing you of the ban.

ISAW wrote:

Im will ing to suggest you are wrong and that Tristrame did discuss me prior to this.

Doubtless you'll now acknowledge your error, and apologise for implying that I had lied about this.

gandalf

OK ISAW has asked for clarity on his situation on his lenght of ban. It's permanent. I have only taken interest in this in the last few days and reviewed the thread on the politics mods forum then.

You know why you were banned, you were told what you had to do to get unbanned (and we have handed out open ended bans before that people have acknowledged and have subsequently been readmitted to the forum from) but you fail to acknowledge that you may be wrong or that you may need to look at your posting style with regard to flow of discussions as highlighted.

And for the record I do not like being called a liar when I am not. Doesn't exactly help your case when throw labels like that around.

As far as the politics mods are concerned this is now closed. Can a S-mod or Admin please close this because we will not longer be engaging in discussion here.

Boston

It was I who banned ISAW from the politics forum. I did due to his political affiliations and beliefs. Myself, Tristrame, oscarBravo, and gandalf all had a discussion and it was decided, for the sake of the forum, it would best If I (a non moderator) where to ban you. That way in the event that you saw though our clever political ruse, I would take the hit for the lads.

My actions greatly shame me, and I feel I must resign my position as executioner on the politics forums post hast, as it has clearly become untenable. I'm sorry for any trouble I caused you. Now let that be an end to this.

Yours sincerely.
Boston "DA EXECUTIONER".

RuggieBear

BTW what was the link between the General election coming and being banned from politics?

r3nu4l

Ultimate Cats Pic compilation

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

I've just seen this thread

I was wondering why the politics forum wasn't making me want to vomit over the last few weeks. Now I know, ISAW is banned and discussion is flowing nicely without threads being hijacked and spoiled. My index finger thanks the mod in question as I don't have to work so hard on the mouse wheel scrolling down past ISAWs long winded irrelevant posts.

who ever banned him I owe you a pint.

This is off topic. The topic is why I was banned in a particular thread about sicence funding and for how long.

If you have a problem reading my posts you could ignore them. Long windedness is not a reason for banning as I have pointed out.


As regards politics flowing if I post to a thread and point out the lack of support for someones position and how they have a weak basis then that isn't a reason to ban me either! Of course you can always ban me and indulge yourselves in back patting mutual agreement if you wish but I wouldn't call that open political debate.

furtermore you have just betrayed a biased opinion. since you claim I make you want to vomit we can all see you are affected by your personal opinion of me and are not dealing factually with the arguments I present. Please avoid the insulting ad hominem and attempt to deal with the issue.

Of course one think you mention which is partly on topic is the issue of people acting on how they feel about a PERSON rather than WHAT ARGUMENT that person states.

ISAW

muffler wrote:

is this a biography of ISAW?

Apparently. I started a thread questining a ban and now all the personal attitudes to me emerge. When you get to sort oout the signal from the noise maybe we will get back to what I was banned for in the particular thread. As you can see, it appears however that people already harboured personal attitudes to me personally and not only to the way I post.

Ironically one major line of argument is "you can't ask people to prove things or support what they say". this is coming from moderators in relation to a politics discussion forum?

ISAW

psi wrote:

YEs, I thought you might want to avoid that particular line of investigation.

I don't want to avoid the personal attacks at all. I just don't see them as on topic for why I was banned in the thread about science funding. Going into your personal opinion about me and your insults directed at me isn't addressing the issue of that it is moving off topic. I am happy to discuss it elsewhere.

RuggieBear

ISAW wrote:

When you get to sort out the signal from the noise maybe we will get back to what I was banned for in the particular thread.

hehe

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

Yes: 27-03-2007, 23:51. Two minutes after the PM I sent you informing you of the ban. Doubtless you'll now acknowledge your error, and apologise for implying that I had lied about this.

I didn't suggest you lied about anything. Please withdraw that assertion. I suggested that Tristrame had discussed me BEFORE the thread you refer to and before the ban you made. I implied you were WRONG about Tristrame not discussing me before this time. I believe he discussed me in September 2006.

As I see it Tristrame did do so. And he implied that the mods were discussing me. That isn't a lie.