A&A Feedback

Valmont

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, a little more introspection on your part, together with a little less of the religious-style persecution complex, would probably make your viewpoint look much more secure, well-informed and well-balanced than it currently appears.

And if you posted your pet political polemics in an appropriate forum where you don't retain control over the content and direction of the discussion you wouldn't look like a scaredy cat with an axe to grind. Additionally, the A&A forum might appear slightly more welcoming to non-leftists. I wouldn't visit the Psychology forum so frequently if the moderator threw in a thread every few weeks about how they hate football.

Valmont

Perhaps all this angst would be better channeled into a brand new A&A thread by Robindch: "Ayn Rand's - The Fountainhead"?

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

I get tired of robin ranting about an author whose books he hasn't read, so I don't read those posts.

Just FYI - by now, I've read somewhere between one and two hundred pages of Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and one entire work, a dreadful screed named Anthem which I reviewed here in the Philosophy phorum.

While I entirely accept that the tone of my attitude towards Rand (and her endless teenage angst writ large) can be described accurately, by somebody who doesn't like my attitude, as "ranting", I do believe that I've read more than enough to form a reliable view of what her opinion and her prose is worth. Which is to say "nothing", save for it being an example of how not to go about it.

bluewolf wrote: »

I like jokes about biscuits and wrong threads.

KahBoom

robindch wrote: »

I'd like you to back up that hard claim of bias with hard evidence from the public record of cards and bans.

If the evidence you produce does not support your claim, then I would like you to retract it, here in this thread, where everybody can see your retraction. If you refuse, or otherwise fail, to provide adequate evidence, then by the rules of polite debate, your claim will be accepted by everybody as false.

Indeed, and I could say similar for the claims made about my own posts/views, by both Permabear and bluewolf - there are a lot of claims made about the content of my posts, and my attitude towards Libertarians (accusing me of vitriol/hatred against Libertarians - among other claims; should be noted that I consider myself a Libertarian - a Left Libertarian), claims that are asserted and unbacked - or backed with extremely selective quoting that leaves out nearly all context, and with links that don't show what is asserted.

Follows the pattern of many other claims made in this thread, where the same accusations are repeated again and again, yet never substantiated.

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

Additionally, the A&A forum might appear slightly more welcoming to non-leftists.

The world must appear very small indeed if it's only populated with people who belong to something called the "right" and another thing called the "left".

Have you considered the possibility that some people -- hell, perhaps even quite a few -- mightn't fit all that conveniently into these little pigeonholes?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What do you mean? You've made a hard claim of overt moderator bias based upon what I had assumed was hard evidence. Are you now saying that you don't have any evidence at all?

Regardless, the boards.ie sysadmins might be able to help you with gathering the information you need in order to substantiate your claim - you should be able to contact them via the feedback forum.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the spirit of transparency I would like to state that since joining boards I have received a grand total of 7 yellow cards. 1 in A&A, 1 in Christianity and the rest in Politics - I have no doubt those 5 yellow cards in Politics is cos I iz a mouthy pinko commie queer.

:pac:

Bannasidhe

Valmont wrote: »

Perhaps all this angst would be better channeled into a brand new A&A thread by Robindch: "Ayn Rand's - The Fountainhead"?

Or perhaps by not resorting to childish bitching?

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's fourteen and a half pages more than any human should read of that book.

And, for the record, 135-odd pages less than I heaved my way through. Did she really need to carve all her prose from lead, granite, brass and scarlet drapes?

BTW, this thread is about A+A in general, not just one minor thread -- and one ghastly author -- which haven't seen any action for months.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But you made a claim, surely you have evidence to backup said claim?

Or do you want to admit you made a false claim and that you have no evidence to backup said false claim?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

That's fourteen and a half pages more than any human should read of that book.

And, for the record, 135-odd pages less than I heaved my way through. Did she really need to carve all her prose from lead, granite, brass and scarlet drapes?

Make a spin off tread dammit!!! :mad:

We could call it turgid prose that inexplicably influenced people. As my contribution I nominate Philip O'Sullivan Beare's 'Catholic History of Ireland'... I had to teach that bloody heap of steaming poo..:(

plz. tanks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Doesn't count. You've made an hard allegation that a "rightwing" poster complaining about a "leftwing" point of view is much more likely to be carded or banned than a "leftwing" poster complaining about a "rightwing" view.

That's a simple matter of finding and totting up, from the public record, the number of cards, bans and tallying them against the posts which caused them.

As above, if you can't substantiate your claim then you should withdraw it. An apology for making it in the first place would be nice too as some people get upset when their honesty is impugned in the absence of evidence.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This pedantry seeking a contradiction where this is none is getting very tiring.

Jank, is a special case of leniency and tolerance. There's certain modes of discussion that cannot be used this should be OBVIOUS. All ideas can be criticised but only using appropriate means of discussion. Jank has contravened these far too often.

Valmont

robindch wrote: »

That's fourteen and a half pages more than any human should read of that book.

And, for the record, 135-odd pages less than I heaved my way through. Did she really need to carve all her prose from lead, granite, brass and scarlet drapes?

BTW, this thread is about A+A in general, not just one minor thread -- and one ghastly author -- which haven't seen any action for months.

It's this fundamental refusal to honestly tackle any of Rand's actual ideas which means you can only rant about it in your own forum where another moderator won't hold you to any rational standards of debate. As an atheist there are fascinating discussions to be had on Rand's contribution to moral philosophy sans religion, but your reflexive ideological opposition to anything that sniffs of the 'the right' ensures that is a discussion that will not happen in any civil fashion in this forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lingua Franca

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which is it?

Cabaal

Permabear, just cut to the chase please.

Either backup your false claims with credible evidence or apologies and admit you've made stuff up and that you have no evidence. Its not alot to ask.

You can't even seem to make up your mind. You've stated you have evidence, then that you don't have evidence and now you claim the evidence exists outside of boards

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As I've already suggested, you can request the information in the feedback forum and with support from the mods here -- you can count on mine -- I'm sure the request is likely to be satisfied.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not sure that you understand where you've navigated yourself.

You have made repeated claims -- not even via the politer means of delivering allegations -- that there is systemic bias in this forum which results in higher levels of bans and cards for people who hold "rightwing" views.

You have been asked to substantiate these serious claims of systemic bias but you refuse.

People, as I mentioned above, are now free to draw the inevitable conclusion that you're refusing to substantiate these claims because you can't. In such a case, continuing to make these claims is effectively trolling, which is something that's likely to be subject to moderator intervention.

You have two options at this point - substantiating them here on boards via the feedback route I suggested above. Or you can withdraw them. Your call.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

This forum is a free for all. I like it that way. I get tired of robin ranting about an author whose books he hasn't read, so I don't read those posts. I don't post about politics here particularly after the last "regulation must be working because of laws against murder" fiasco and I don't have patience for arguing it anymore anyway.
I like jokes about biscuits and wrong threads.
I think the jank issue should have been dropped with Dades' and robin's posts in Feedback as the last word which postdated the discussions in this thread. Clean slates, and less modding as part of an argument.

Few posters here have expertise or knowledge of theology. Yet, this is what the folks in the forum have criticised over and over some even going so far as to say it's a fake subject. Simply put you do not have to read everything to criticise something. Granted, reading it should in theory make you less likely to strawman. In my opinion it's rarely much different. People strawman **** anyway. Having "read" a book is helpful but shouldn't be a requirement for criticism of anything. To put it politely if the criticism is valid it's valid, if it's not you should be able to explain why. Otherwise, it's academic snobbery. Have you read the Qu'ran? Then you can't criticise it. The forum cannot adopt this position for anything!

A and a is a forum where nobody is expected to "understand" any position a certain way.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

NO HE WOULD NOT. HE'D STILL BE ON THE BRINK. Other posters who espouse excessive views of other posters are carded and banned.

Criticising rand or her supporters is fine, criticising Catholicism is fine. Criticising anything "jank" colorful style isn't .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KahBoom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right so this is what it's been about all along: The last week or more of forum posts, has been you needling at this issue, because - unstated during all this time - you indirectly have access to the private mod forums, and it turns out that (despite all you've said) you do have an axe to grind, based on this private discussion.

Come out with it then (could have saved loads of everyones time by just coming out with it in the beginning): What does this 'evidence' say exactly?


It's one thing for a mod (whoever it was) to share private mod forum info privately/selectively (frowned upon I'm sure, but not like it doesn't happen all the time), it's another thing entirely to publicly stir crap with someone and try to malign their reputation through that.

Wonder what the admins think, of private mod forum info being disclosed and used like that? (and it sounds like something that should have been taken up with admins in the first place as well, since they can safely be sent this 'evidence')

Lingua Franca

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which is it?!

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But you made comments about this forum specifically, now you are saying you have no evidence to support the comments about this forum.

So you knowingly lied to everyone here?

The general comments about boards are still unfounded until you produce evidence as well, so you are lieing about that also.

Gota agree with a previous comment made, its coming across like you are just trolling now. That your plan all along?

coffee_cake

Turtwig wrote: »

Have you read the Qu'ran? Then you can't criticise it. The forum cannot adopt this position for anything!
.

I don't criticise it except the translated bits I have read, and mostly any mad claims made by muslims. I HAVE sat down and read through leviticus which is why I can criticise that too. There are plenty of crazy things people do and claim without any basis for it in their religious texts for us to criticise already

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Jazuz...now it's Biasgate...the screenshots.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of this 'bias' directly resulting in infractions by providing evidence of more substance than that wink wink nod nod saynomore saynomore comment then I am afraid your position is untenable.

KahBoom

On the 'read before you criticize' thing:
I can only think of one or two Libertarian posters (not present), who actually read any Post-Keynesian alternatives to austerity that have been presented to them (and these are not book-sized tomes, just articles), before reflexively criticizing/dismissing them without understanding anything about them - with the misunderstandings being evident in the straw-man arguments used against such views.

A favourite tactic of many Libertarians, to try and create a monopoly on authority in discussion, is exactly the "read this multi-hundred page book before you can speak" tactic - it's just another in a long line of fallacious arguments/tactics used.