(Note: I know I said I wouldn't post until sunday but I'm procrastinating on the stuff I should be doing)
Shades, my main issue was always the moderation, not Kevin. Not only have you falsely accused me of writing ad homs in that thread Evidence for Jesus, but you misrepresent my focus in my pms to you as being mainly about Kevin when in fact it was always about the moderation. The only thing I can do is present the chain of events, what I have presented on the board, my memories of pm's to you because they coincided with the board and the pms that I do have in my sent file. While this may be boring I have no other way to counter your accusations. I asked you to provide support but you didn't.
Going back in time to this thread in the Celestial “The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology “
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=2668&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
It ran essentially from
Aug 1/07 to Oct 23/07. In it there were participants who deliberately focused on attacking and one in particular was intent on harassing. I did not contact any mod. If I thought at the time there was a mod unbiased who was interested in curtailing ad homs I might have. At this point in time, I didn’t think you were interested in ad homs either or involving yourself. I also figured no moderation is better than poor moderation.
Going forward in time to
March 5/08
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131919&highlight=#131919
In this thread Moniker informs you that JAK has written an ad hom post in that thread “Roles of Logic ..etc”
In response to Moniker you write: “ I went ahead and edited those words from JAK out.”
I responded to you with:
Well if you are going to now step in and start editing out fallacious ad hominal phrases..that is personal attack in lieu of response on issue..I'll make a list for you. I think I stopped at about page 3 or 4. If necessary I'll continue later...but they are a start.
These are all from Cal. Crusader
Aug 27 10:28 (to JAK)
Aug 27 10.39 (to JAK)
Aug 27 3:07 (to JAK)
Aug 27 5:31 (to JAK)
Aug 27 7:54 (to JAK)
Aug 27 7:56 (to JAK)
Aug 28 2:52 (to me)
Aug 28 3:11 (to me)
Aug 28 3:31 (to JAK)
----------------
From Gad
Aug 30 11:11 (to me)
There was no reply from you on that thread on the board, so I sent a pm, I likely copied the post.
You responded to me by pm, that I should give you particulars I think a link for you to use to correct. I responded back (paraphrasing) “forget it, it’s after the fact, and not worth the time”
At this point in time March 5 , I was under the impression that you were interested personally in curtailing fall. ad homs in the Celestial, given your recent involvement despite that it was well after the fact plus you seemed willing to look at and do something about ones I would point out to you. I didn’t occur to me at the time your only interest was some direct words, that you personally designate as inappropriate. To be honest I find that whole idea absurd, it certainly is not very rational.
So you went into that thread Logic Science and Theology and removed “stupidity and dishonesty” from JAK’s post.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=2668&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=84Stupidity or Dishonesty page 5
Which is it, Gadianton. Are you s***** or d********? It’s one or the other. You cannot even quote a short statement accurately from one of my posts. That word "WHY" makes a totally different statement to you than your false quote which you then straw man attack as if I had said your misquote.
Given that stupidity or dishonesty, discussion with you is pointless.
At least re-read my post Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:08 pm to recognize your own s*******y or d********y.
JAK
[MODERATOR NOTE: Non-celestial aspersions have been edited out.]
At the time that JAK wrote he’d been exposed to an onslaught of off topic attacks. Let’s take a look at CC and Gad’s attacks.
-“ I realize you are lacking in native intelligence”
-“ How many times do I have to explain it to you, rube”?
-“your inability to apprehend it notwithstanding rube”
- “Incidentally, I request this thread be moved to another forum, so I do not have to show restraint in responding to JAK”.
- “I don't care that JAK rejects Kurt Gödel's argument, but I do care that he has the temerity to believe himself a better logician”
- “Are you really such a low-watt bulb”?
- “I don't suffer fools gladly’.
- “What claim did I make, lunkhead”?
- “Read a math book. (Or, more appropriately, have one read to you.”)
-“Your judgment in these matters is far from sound. As I recall, you are also intoxicated with Hyam Maccoby”.
-“That is because you are not worth responding to in detail”.
-“Are you a congenital moron”?
-“JAK said (and Marg, do you lick everything JAK says from his palms or don't you?”),
- “You know JAK, the only thing worse than an [expletive] moron is a pretentious [expletive] moron like you”.These wouldn’t be so bad, if at least CC and Gad also presented an argument, but they didn’t do that, until near the end Gad started to. All they kept doing for practically the entire threadwas focusing on attack, absent argument.
That Shades, is my main issue with the Celestial.
I wrote Gad in that thread: “Gad, you've offered nothing to the issue of the argument "is logic essential to theology?. You've taken pot shots, used diversionary tactics but I don't recall one post of yours in which you put forward an argument regarding the issue at hand. Did I miss it?”
At some point he admits: “I didn't enter this discussion with an interest in what the best arguments for and against Godel (or anyone else on any other thread) are. That doesn't depend on you and JAK or myself. I was interested in the zeal JAK whipped his horse into battle on a topic clearly beyond his grasp. And while Christianity bugs me, ignorant atheism bugs me more.”
So he clearly was not interested in posting on topic, he was focused on attacking.
March 12 only 7 days later I’m still under the impression you are interested in doing something about excessive fallacious ad homs in the Celestial..and I write a post in response to Kevin, his being ad hominal to me :
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=5457&start=21 fallacious ad hominem
Excuse me mods but enough is enough of this sort of argumentation from Kevin. Nothing in his post addresses the topic, addresses what is being discussed in this thread. In the previous thread of Kevin's in the celestial forum "atheism" was being discussed by both Kevin and . and I had a legitimate reason to comment on that, his response was excessive ad homs to me which I commented on but they were allowed to stay.
I really am tired of Kevin's excessive ad hominems in lieu of discussion ..it detracts from the goals of this board but in particular this particular level of the board. Please do something about it and when you do I will delete this post. Thanks
I also write you a pm, I believe with the same words or close to them.
Please note my focus is not Kevin…it is the
sort of argumentation going on. It is about posts focused on excessive ad homs. I point out it detracts from the goal of this board in particular the Celestial level, which I was under the assumption you cared about. You do write that the Celestial is for respectful, polite, scholarly discussions.
So how did you handle my pointing out excessive ad homs Shades? You moved the thread.
[MODERATOR NOTE: Kevin, while discussing things in the Celestial Forum, please don't make blanket condemnations like your first sentence. In the Celestial Forum, always act as though all the discussions that are or have ever taken place there were with your favorite grandmother.
Plus, please leave the word "damn" out of the Celestial Forum, too.
Thread moved.]
And when you did that I wrote :
Since this thread is now in Terrestial and it is open season for a poster like Kevin who focuses on fallacious ad hom I won't bother to post any further responses.
Shades you didn't fix the problem you exasperated it
How absurd to move the thread! If one clicked on that thread in the Celestial although it’s theoretically moved one is taken to the entire thread in the Terrestial. So it makes no difference whether it’s moved or not. The only difference is that by moving it, now one is allowed via moderation policy to increase attacks. It makes things worse rather than doing anything to improve the situation.
Eight days later
March 20, Liz moves the Evidence for Jesus thread. Once again moving it would do nothing but potentially escalate the problem of one person focusing on attacking, because the thread is still in Celestial and can be clicked on and one is immediately taken to the terrestrial one. And of course as we all know pretty much all attacks, including directs words are acceptable in Terrestial. So virtually nothing has changed except now attacks are legitimized. What a strange way to handle fallacious off topic ad homs!.
So I pm’d you to find out why it was moved. As before my focus was not Kevin. Yes he was the only one using ad homs, but there was no clarity as to why the thread was moved. I did not know the reason it was moved. For 3 days in pms all I got from you were that people complained and perhaps it should have been moved based on ad homs. No mention of who is responsible.
March 23 I set up a thread because in pm’s with you, I was getting no where. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=5597&start=0I wrote in the Subject heading Shades, Liz and Jersey Girl
Would one of you or all please explain by indicating posts, words said, by whom, ..some actual evidence..so that I (and others) can understand the reason there was a problem with the thread "evidence for Jesus".
And by the way if anyone else wants to chime in why they found a problem with the thread because apparently Shades had complaints from people..I'd be interested to hear what those complaints are.
Note: My focus is not Kevin, it is trying to find out why the thread was moved.
March 24 , Liz writes a post and explains that she thinks the Celestial is not for debates and that Kevin has requested/suggested she move it based on JAK calling him a liar and so she moved the thread. No mention of Kevin being at all responsible for ad homs despite the fact that it was his posts which were laced with them.
I do have a few pms not deleted in my sent file to you Shades. I’m putting them on the board with nothing deleted. None of them indicate my focus is Kevin, my focus is consistently the moderation policy.
March 24,
Re: I'm still in the dark
:
marg: I don't get this that lots of people were complaining. What on earth would they complain about? I can't see anyone complaining about ad homs.
Shades: They can complain when the activities take place in the Celestial Forum.
Marg: What activities take place? Anyhow, I'm getting more information from liz on the off-topic forum than I have from you. Apparently the Celestial is not a debate forum, it is a discussion forum with the gentle talk one would have with a grandmother, so I guess ad homs are not allowed.
The problem is Shades that good debates require curtailment of ad homs otherwise they get side-tracked. But I will forward this onto JAK.
March 24 Re: I'm still in the dark
Shades: The problem is, what's an ad hominem argument to one person is a legitimate observation to another. That's why, even in the Celestial Forum, I've tried to err on the side of caution. It's much easier to moderate the obvious things like language.
Marg: That's true which is why most of the time I don't say anything to the other person. And I wouldn't even think of getting a mod involved. But when it's excessive, it simply ends up destroying anything productive coming about in discussion. Kevin's request to move the thread is suspect, given that he's one of the worst offenders, it would seem that he wanted it moved to up the ante with his use of them. If someone is honest in discussion they'd be interested in curtailing the other person from using ad homs, but they wouldn't be interested in moving to a less moderated forum.
Anyhow I have a better sense of what went on. It is much better to have things out in the open. The secrecy does no good.
April 8,
Re: now I also understand
:
marg: My question to you, which I don't expect an answer for is... "Is there any reason why anyone should take the Celestial level seriously and invest time in it" that was my point of my note to you.
Shades: Yes. That's because, even with all the problems it is currently experiencing, it still hosts higher-caliber discussions than the other forums.
Marg: And if you don't want to do anything for the board, that's fine, but to be honest to participants you should remove the part which says the Celestial is heavily moderated.
Shades: It is heavily moderated. It just might not be heavily moderated for what individual participants think it should be heavily moderated for.
Marg (response to above): Let's assume your board is considered a serious board, and that there are not a core group of idiots or biased individuals running it and hence there is some consistent fair moderation in place, I'm confused what the Celestial is supposed to be heavily moderated for. Is it just heavily moderated for "stupid" posts and at the whim of a mod if they say they don't like the feel or tone of thread? In the last instance by the way, which I was involved in, the thread "evidence for Jesus" when it was moved, it was done so out of moderator bias in favor of the very participants dishing out the ad homs. I know LIz said otherwise but there was no justification for moving it, other than the excessive ad homs by Kevin. And yet I don't think Liz who at the time was asking favors from Kevin in private to use his board was biased against Kevin but rather biased in favor of him. So was Sam Harris by the way. The only one creating a negative tone via excessive ad homs in that thread was Kevin and he was the one to ask for the thread to be moved.
So, is there a policy to moderate for excessive ad homs by a single offender in a thread and if so how? If it is by moving the thread, how does that curtail ad homs, which are off-topic and affect the tone. As you know the problem I had with moving a thread was 2 fold...no clarity was made as to what the problems were, or who caused them, so everyone in the thread was tainted negatively and in fact Sam Harris I'm sure to this day thinks I did something wrong as she stated so on the board to me, plus the offender was not curtailed, and in fact was protected.
So what should individual participants think the Celestial should be moderated for?
I believe that is my last pm to you, I then asked you the question on the board as within a day or so you hadn’t replied to me. You will note, my focus was not Kevin. He was the example in that thread. But my main consideration the moderation policy and is finding out what we allegedly did that was wrong. My purpose of enquiry it not to demand that you change anything but rather I want to know what your policy is, so that I can determine whether it is worthwhile to post on the board.
So back to your opening post, I didn’t make the mistake of focusing on Kevin or being hypersensitive, that is either a deliberate lie on your part or your misreading of my intent.
You have misrepresented my pm’s to you, they were not focused on Kevin. You have it backwords by the way, it is Kevin who has been focused on JAK mainly and myself, because I support JAK. Kevin it would seem feels threatened by JAK. He has made it clear his goal is to harass him and the reason is he doesn't want people influenced by him.
You are in denial and intellectually dishonest, if you don’t think people are harassed in the Celestial deliberately. And while you have accused me of being partially responsible for moving the thread you have offered
nothing to support that accusation, nor has Liz, nor anyone else.