Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Here I am later:
Still no charges of rule-violations. Still no request for moderator involvement. None
Sadly, my non-cries for non-help went non-heard.
Don’t you get it? I don’t need evidence and I am not required to support your dishonesty. All I have to do is be a mind-reader of at least Glen’s level and look at your past history. You’re a hoot.
Wrong and delusional yet again. I know it is futile to try to talk my way out of this. You already have your minds made up and I am not so foolish as to think I can change them.
You can’t talk your way around the dishonesty everyone saw Mung. Looks like you’ve now gone for plan B to disrupt the board with the Mung Attention Whore show.
Yes, quite unlike yourself, the evidence matters to us.
Your bullshit doesn’t.
Glen Davidson
You’re not reading a thing that I write. You live in a fantasy world if you think you or any of these other jokers here are making me uncomfortable with your misguided charges of dishonesty. You really don’t get it. In my world, you are the dishonest ones. Do you get that? EARTH TO KEITHS!
Maybe if you keep trying to bait me I might even say something nasty. But you are barking up the wrong tree. Beating your head against a brick wall. Do keep trying. Your cause is so righteous!
REFORM THE MUNG!
One more time. I have flat out told you and Patrick and the others here who have attempted to read my mind and attribute motives to me that you are mistaken. There is no way that anything you say is going to convince me that you know my mind, or know what my motives were, better than I do. Give it up already.
That’s exactly the point I’ve made here, that you and most of your ilk are really so far into your bunch of dishonest bullshit that there was never even a hint of good faith interaction from you all from the beginning.
I do appreciate you stating that fact so well, though. I have never gotten why anyone thinks that good faith can be exhibited by your side as a rule, rather than as the exception.
Glen Davidson
Attention, everyone. Mung wants you to know that he is not the slightest bit uncomfortable about being accused of dishonesty here.
Please ignore the evidence in this thread and simply take his word for it.
More infallible logic from the great minds at TSZ.
From the fact that people are being dishonest in their dealings with this incident of alleged dishonesty and quote-mining from the Krauss/Meyer/Lamoureux debate it doesn’t follow that I think everyone here is always dishonest.
But that is what GlenLogic gets you. Always seeing the worst. He should have tried to read my mind again. Who knows, maybe he’d get it right for once.
Oh, isn’t that precious, Bung doesn’t necessarily disbelieve us when we’re not disagreeing with his fantasies.
No, you’re an amazingly stupid fuck. I said you never dealt with us in good faith, not that you never believed anything we said. Words–those things you’re too dumb to understand.
Yeah, I see you. You’re not really the worst, but close enough.
Well, shithead, if you can ever read my sentences without inserting your bullshit misunderstandings into them, maybe you would quit lying about me. Until then, as usual, I’ll expect mostly dishonesty from you.
Glen Davidson
keiths, this is right smack in the middle of my comfort zone. I’m like a pig in mud. You don’t get the slightest sense that I am actually enjoying this? Oh man, I am so loving this. I am playing you like a fiddle, and it’s beautiful music.
Glen thinks vulgarity and childish name calling helps. I think I better back off. Don’t want him to burst another blood vessel.
Bung thinks lies get him somehwere.
Not really, fuckwit.
The trouble is that you can’t understand what something like “good faith” means, dumbfuck that you are. At least you understand words that refer directly to your idiocy and dishonesty.
Glen Davidson
Mung:
Riiiiight. Just keep telling yourself that.
It’s OK. Mung enjoys being a dishonest prick, we enjoy pointing out his dishonesty and the way he spits on his so called Christian morals.
It’s a win win.
keiths,
No, that’s not what I mean. I grumble repeatedly when it happens, or when some legit quote or reference is spun out that I’m supposed to argue with. I would far rather debate using our own words.
But it is the fact that it is something of a syndrome that makes me less outraged by it than some. And I genuinely believe that it is not (always) being done dishonestly. I think there are fundamentally different approaches at work.
Sure. But there rapidly comes a point when the shields are up and the arrows are just pinging off the hull. Particularly when everyone’s joining in.
Agreed, but I genuinely believe that there was no attempt to deceive in this case. I see it as a glib off-the-cuff remark. In fact I have referred to that elsewhere as ‘doing a Mung’.
Allan Miller,
Well said, Allan. I hope that produces the de-escalation that it should.
Just a reminder of what Lizzie wrote when setting up this site.
And here:
I still think these aims are worth supporting. In view of that, until Lizzie makes any changes she decides are needed, I shall, as time permits, carry on as I think best serves those aims. But this issue of mung and his out-of-context sound-bite has been done to death.
The sandbox thread is available for those wishing to discuss other issues and the noyau thread is there for anyone wishing continue indulging in flame-wars.
Allan,
Right, so it’s a bit baffling to see you chiding the rest of us for doing the same.
In this case it clearly was dishonest. Even Alan admits that “it wasn’t accidental”, though he bizarrely insists that it wasn’t deliberate, either.
Mung could end the barrage at any time by simply walking away. As it happens, he has chosen to worsen his predicament by trying to lie his way out of it. A recent example:
Of course, neither Patrick nor I have claimed that Mung was working from a transcript.
I (and others) think it’s worthwhile to point out the continued dishonesty. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but don’t be surprised when we decline your advice.
keiths:
Allan:
This is similar to your “word-gaming” defense. The fact that something is “word-gaming”, “glib”, or “off-the_cuff” doesn’t rule out dishonesty.
When you look at the full quote, it’s obvious that Mung removed certain words because his ‘gotcha’ wouldn’t have worked otherwise. When you doctor a quote in order to achieve an effect that it otherwise wouldn’t have, you are being dishonest. Dishonest word-gaming is still dishonest, and it’s one of the reasons that Mung consistently subtracts value from the threads he participates in.
Alan,
If you think we have forgotten Lizzie’s aims or have decided that they are “not worth supporting”, then you have no grasp of the situation.
Rich:
keiths:
Glen:
keiths:
Flint:
Exactly. They choose not to apply their critical thinking skills to their own rationalizations. As I said:
And it isn’t just in cases where people want to continue believing that this happens. I have a smart friend who is actually afraid to weigh the evidence, pro and con, for Christianity, because he thinks that to do so is to commit a sin. Nothing less than blind faith is acceptable.
This bothers him, because his natural tendency as an intelligent person is to ask questions and to analyze the evidence. He doesn’t want to think that his intellect is a danger to his salvation, but he continues to believe it, because he is afraid to apply his critical thinking skills to his goofy religion.
The one thing that could rescue him from his fear — his own intelligence — is something he’s afraid to use.
Fear, as well as desire, is a strong motivator.
Glen,
Sure, but that in itself is valuable (not so much to that person, but to the rest of us). Instead of dealing with the Frankies, Mungs and phoodoos of the world, I’d much rather argue with a smarter opponent like, say, vjtorley. I want my opponents to present the best possible arguments for their positions — even if those arguments are ultimately rationalizations — because I want to probe my own position and see whether it holds up under attack.
The worthier our opponents, the better, which is why Frankenjoe, Mung, and phoodoo are such consistent disappointments.
Arguing with them is like cleaning up vomit. It doesn’t require any particular skill, but we do it because we don’t like the mess they leave behind.
Again, keiths, thank you so much for all your service to the planet.
keiths,
I’m not. Where have I chided anyone for the simple fact of objecting? Such complaint as I may have voiced is at the repetition, beyond any realistic hope of a change in anyone’s opinion.
Anyone could.
I’m not his attorney. I am simply offering my opinion; how I received and subsequently perceived the bare words. To fully adjudicate on dishonesty would require access to thought processes to which even the individual concerned may not have current access. “What was I thinking when I said that? Well, I think I was aiming for … “. Of course we can’t gain that access, so we take a view, and It is my honest opinion that it was not done with intent to mislead. Your mileage obviously varies.
Honestly, if he’d said it in a pub converation it would have been simply picked up on then forgotten. “You what? Bullshit” or “Oh haha very clever. Your round”.
Allan,
And yet you have continued many exchanges here beyond any realistic hope of a change in anyone’s opinion. We understand and don’t chide you for it.
keiths:
Allan:
Sure. But as I said:
Allan:
And yet all of us — including you — routinely adjudicate on dishonesty despite being non-telepathic. We do so based on the evidence, and the evidence in this case is extremely strong.
A guy with a long history of dishonesty and quotemining takes a quote, but instead of presenting it naturally, as it occurred, he omits precisely the words that would have rendered it ineffective as a ‘gotcha’. You seriously want to argue that it wasn’t intentional? What is your evidence?
Also, you’ve presented a couple of arguments that are non-sequiturs:
And:
Word-gaming and dishonesty are not mutually exclusive, and neither are glibness and dishonesty.
You’re generally quite rational, and I admire you for it, but in this case your rationality seems to have gone off the rails.
Mods and admins,
I’d like to start a discussion about evolutionary biologist Dan Graur vs. Encode. He has a picture of his ganddaughter giving the middle finger to ENCODE. I thought it was hilarious and it is on his university website. Can I show it in blog post or is that too vulgar?
Scroll to the bottom of this link:
http://nsmn1.uh.edu/dgraur/Encode.html
Not so. That’s a picture of his grandaughter. She isn’t giving the middle finger to anything. But he has captioned it to indicate that he is giving the middle finger to ENCODE.
I doubt that the picture will offend anyone. I think it a poor illustration for what you are wanting to post. And you really should get permission from Dan Grauer, if you want to go that route.
What is there to discuss?
I don’t understand what route Sal intends to take.
More to the point – is it relevant?
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf+html
I think it will be in light of the other stuff I’ve seen written his personal website where he calls NIH ENCODE researcher’s crooks.
I’m giving a talk at AM-NAT 2016 that will feature Graur’s anti-ENCODE campaign.
I found it helpful to visit TSZ and interact with the regulars before I give presentations. I’ll obviously take the side of the NIH in the Graur vs. NIH wars in my presentation.
I might post some of my ideas in presentation in the blog. I’m arguing Graur’s interpretation of naturalism and evolution is inducing him to fight medical researchers for no good reason.
His arguments are based on his interpretations of evolutionary theory and naturalism and not in agreement with the biochemistry being discovered in cells by NIH-funded projects.
keiths,
Oh sure, I’m like a dog with a bone. But if consumers of my prose want to give me feedback on repetitious content, they are more than welcome. I doubt I would give them the old tu quoque heave-ho; I would take it under advisement.
That’s right. And I adjudicate in this case and find the defendant not guilty. Not guilty of deceit, that is. Guilty of sarcasm, word play, nose-tweaking and such, but not deceit.
That wasn’t intended to be a sequitur, nor the erection of a dichotomy. Things can be both, but evidently I don’t think this to be such an instance.
Likewise.
That’s your rationality detection meter in for a service too, then.
Allan,
Most of us recognize that it’s dishonest to doctor a quote in order to change its apparent meaning.
moved comment to Noyau
Alan,
This comment violates no rules and should be restored from Guano to the original thread:
Please do so immediately and exercise more self-restraint going forward.
keiths,
Ah.I did misread. Your ability to sail to the edge of rule-breaking is without parallel. I’ll reinstate.
No, Alan, that comment was not “on the edge of rule-breaking”. It clearly and obviously does not violate the rules, as anyone can see by simply reading the rules and then reading my comment.
You fucked up because once again you indulged your emotions instead of doing your job and applying the rules.
I don’t think you can help yourself. You simply don’t have the minimal discipline required of a moderator.
keiths,
No, really! I did misread it. I do think your comments lately have not been in the spirit of the aims of this site. As to your views on my moderating skills, considering the level of remuneration, I think I provide great value.
Alan,
Even if that were true, it wouldn’t excuse your behavior. Your job is to apply the rules. Non-rule-violating posts don’t belong in Guano. If you need to read a comment twice to figure out whether it really violates a rule, then read the comment twice. If because of poor reading comprehension you need to read it five times, then read it five times.
It’s your responsibility. Stop making excuses and do your job, Alan.
You’re not accounting for the fact that your continued fuckups subtract value from the site.
Revisiting…
I’m human, Keiths. I own my emotions. I’m sorry you got shunned. It is a despicable way to treat anyone.
Let’s include that in the survey, shall we?
keiths:
Alan:
You think your fuckups add value to the site? Because surely you’re not disputing that they are fuckups, are you?
Alan,
The problem is not that you “own” your emotions. It’s that you continually indulge them instead of doing your job.
It’s not that difficult, Alan. Comments that do not violate the rules do not go to Guano, no matter what emotions you are “owning” at the time.
Alan:
Huh?
THINK, keiths.
And you were addressing the poster not the post. You do it all the time.
keiths,
I think I provide some value despite my “fuck-ups”. I’m prepared to put that to a straw poll. I Don’t think your contributions, on balance, currently provide much value. But that’s just my personal opinion. I’m sure you give about the same weight to my opinion about what adds value to this site and what doesn’t as I do to yours.
Mung,
No, I wasn’t. That’s why Alan had to move the comment back. Read it again:
Your statement was stupid and false, so I called it stupid and false. There is no rule against that, as you know perfectly well.
Alan,
So do I. You install new software when it’s available, and you release comments from the spam queue. You also post OPs for people like “Frankie” who don’t have permission to do it themselves.
The problem is your continued moderation fuckups and your inability to learn from them.
How hard is it to ask yourself “Does this comment really violate any of the rules?” before moving it to Guano? If you can’t manage that simple task, then why are you a moderator?
Alan’s moderation actions do add to the value of the site. Yes, he is human and occasionally gets it wrong. But, overall, he provides a valuable service.