MLW

[Omni]

13 minutes ago, hot enough said:

If you are so certain it is nonsense, it will be incredibly easy for you to illustrate that. Please do so, Argus. I have asked Omni, B_C, segnosaur, and I extend it to anyone else who holds the view that the things I have advanced on 9-11 are nonsense. 

Then try answereing the questions: how much thermite do you think these conspirators had to install, and how did they do it. We'll get to the hijackers after that.

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Then try answereing the questions: how much thermite do you think these conspirators had to install, and how did they do it. We'll get to the hijackers after that.

Move to the thread where this is being discussed. 

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, hot enough said:

The first guiding principle means, to me at least, that one addresses any science put forward in a scientific fashion. That has not been the case in many threads here.

[Full disclosure: I will be the first to admit that I have not always rigorously followed the wisdom found in this guideline.] 

Can't we all do better?

I believe the purpose of debate is to seek knowledge.  Person A expresses an opinion (a theory, really), then Person B points out flaws in Person A's opinion (and/or theory). Then, and this is the most important and hardest part, Person A can then reevaluate their opinion based on the (hopefully) constructive criticism given by Person B.  If Person A doesn't even bother to listen to Person B and consider their criticisms, what's the point?  If Person B just insults Person A instead of giving constructive criticism, what's the point?

I think this is why we have rules here, to maintain respectful discourse with each other, so that we can more easily find knowledge together.  All insults are good for is getting people's backs against a wall & making people more stubborn and close-minded, and any useful discussion takes a back seat.  As long as people are moderately respectful on here, I don't care how off-the-wall your opinions are, in fact I welcome them.  There isn't much diversity in opinion on MLW, or in Canada generally.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[Altai]

13 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

No. 

A logical and reasonable approach is for members to ignore everything believed to violate the forum rules and guidelines. Do not respond to whatever-you-believe fails to "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion."

 

Yes. 

We are also doing that but is not it also harming the forum's positive credibility ? Allowing these agressive, offensive and ignorant people is just causing valuable members to run away. All the members which I like to talk join the forum once or twice in a month. 

Someone's freedom of speech ends when they start to harm others.

[drummindiver]

20 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

 

 

Yes. 

CA telling people they can do better is the epoch of hypocrisy.  

Do some screaming or banning CA....the two things you excel at.

[Charles Anthony]

8 hours ago, Altai said:

We are also doing that but

No.  Not everybody ignores violations of the forum rules and guidelines.  Some people choose to feed and encourage forum violations. 

 

8 hours ago, Altai said:

is not it also harming the forum's positive credibility ?

Possibly but the alternative is more censorship and less discussion which we can do but the balance between all of the competing interests occurs when folks ignore what they want suppressed. 

I can not speak for what everybody believes to be credible. 

 

SHORT VERSION:  If everybody ignores what they want suppressed, then there is no problem nor is there censorship.

[drummindiver]

8 minutes ago, Charles Anthony said:

No.  Not everybody ignores violations of the forum rules and guidelines.  Some people choose to feed and encourage forum violations. 

 

Possibly but the alternative is more censorship and less discussion which we can do but the balance between all of the competing interests occurs when folks ignore what they want suppressed. 

I can not speak for what everybody believes to be credible. 

 

SHORT VERSION:  If everybody ignores what they want suppressed, then there is no problem nor is there censorship.

You censor what you don't agree with....note two posts of mine removed from this thread.  

[Charles Anthony]

13 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

You censor what you don't agree with....note two posts of mine removed from this thread.  

I censor violations of the forum rules and guidelines....I do not agree with derailing discussions. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

I censor violations of the forum rules and guidelines....I do not agree with derailing discussions. 

Do you not feel, Charles, that a person who persists in posting the same message all across the spectrum of conversations here, always trying to bring the subject to the same thing, is derailing discussions?

[drummindiver]

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you not feel, Charles, that a person who persists in posting the same message all across the spectrum of conversations here, always trying to bring the subject to the same thing, is derailing discussions?

Of course he doesn't because he shares that persons narrative.

[betsy]

On 4/4/2017 at 11:28 AM, hot enough said:

This website, MLW, was started with grants from a Canadian university, was it not?

Its guidelines states: "Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way."

That would seem to me that it would operate in a fashion that represents, respects, mirrors academic discussion. That means a scientific approach, one that follows the tenets of science. Is this not a logical and reasonable approach? One that we all should/would want to see. 

The first guiding principle means, to me at least, that one addresses any science put forward in a scientific fashion. That has not been the case in many threads here.

[Full disclosure: I will be the first to admit that I have not always rigorously followed the wisdom found in this guideline.] 

Can't we all do better?

Who got you all upset and agitated now?  You got clobbered again?

[The_Squid]

I wonder if the educational institution realizes what a waste of money their grant was....?

[The_Squid]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you not feel, Charles, that a person who persists in posting the same message all across the spectrum of conversations here, always trying to bring the subject to the same thing, is derailing discussions?

Are you talking about DogOnPorch and his obsession with Muslims?

[betsy]

On 4/4/2017 at 11:49 AM, bcsapper said:

It's not just misleading, it's completely out to lunch.  Shady was gone long before it was added as a feature.  I made it my goal to put him on top, but I've had a lot of help.

Shady's gone too? 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:40 PM, hot enough said:

"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Isn't this something we should all take to heart?

Talk about honesty.  If you're taking that to heart,

 

Quote

Ha-ha-ha, you worrying about the first "war crime" that hasn't even been committed yet.....yet the war crimes of Islamic despots are happening all around you.   What a doober. 

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/profile/113610-hot-enough/?status=10322&type=status

 

then why did you send me this veiled threat in my pm for that response in your status update?

 

Quote

hot enough

And that is a reportable personal insult. But I'm not a whiny type.

 

I say "what a doober" for foolishness.  I picked that up from hubby, and I asked him what a doober is.  You should complain if I said, "what a wanker."

 

You said something foolish.  Wear it proudly.

 

 

You should do as I do.  I ignored all the direct insults you threw on me in practically all threads I participated in, or created.  What I did was finally report you for relentlessly trying to derail my topic, after I repeatedly asked you not to. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:57 PM, hot enough said:

And after this Thomas Paine speech, no comment from you on Argus's comment. No comments from you in all the threads on 911 where you not only encouraged others to degrade the level of "something I value very highly", you did so yourself, ie. degrade that which is "something I value very highly".

 

Are you referring to your world in turmoil thread?

Do you think giving rebuttals and showing you why you're wrong in theory, a degradation of your thread?  By giving rebuttals, we're degrading it?

You post a topic, and you don't expect any counter? 

 

Yoo hoo?  Are you lost?

 

You're in a forum!

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

On 4/4/2017 at 4:44 PM, hot enough said:

That is reasonable on its face however, the avalanche of distractions, which are unscientific and against forum rules causes there to be a failure, often multiple failures, diversions, tangents, which do not "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion", but just the opposite. See the post right before your post to me for a perfect example.

 

Most of those distractions are coming from you.  You're spewing your propaganda on practically all threads.  You try to distract from the thread topics.    Some would call that "spamming."  Spamming is against forum rules.

 

You're trying to control what we discuss in this forum! 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

On 4/5/2017 at 4:07 AM, Altai said:

We are also doing that but is not it also harming the forum's positive credibility ? Allowing these agressive, offensive and ignorant people is just causing valuable members to run away. All the members which I like to talk join the forum once or twice in a month. 

Someone's freedom of speech ends when they start to harm others.

 

You mean, all opposition to his views ought to be silenced.

Soft jihad works only on stupid people, you know.......

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

17 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

I censor violations of the forum rules and guidelines....I do not agree with derailing discussions. 

 

Hot enough has been derailing discussions!  He has continued to do so even after I reported him.

 

Quote

 

Charles Anthony

Yes, the report button works.  Your reports have been received.  We are thinking things over. 

In the meantime, just ignore those posts and move on. 

 

 

What's being done about it?  You guys still "thinking things over?"

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

 

Hot enough has been derailing discussions!  He has continued to do so even after I reported him.

 

 

What's being done about it?  You guys still "thinking things over?"

 

It is strange. I have a suspicion that this is being allowed for a reason, perhaps to judge our responses. Maybe someone at the university is doing research. I know it sounds bizarre but that's the only way I can rationalize the double-standard.

[Charles Anthony]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you not feel, Charles, that a person who persists in posting the same message all across the spectrum of conversations here, always trying to bring the subject to the same thing, is derailing discussions?

I will tell you how I feel after you answer my questions: 

Do you not feel, Argus, that a person who persists in quoting/responding to what-you-perceive-to-be-derailment encourages further derailment of discussions? 

What do you want moderators to do with quotes/responses to derailment?

Do you trust your judgement of what constitutes derailment better than anybody else's judgement?

[betsy]

3 minutes ago, Charles Anthony said:

I will tell you how I feel after you answer my questions: 

Do you not feel, Argus, that a person who persists in quoting/responding to what-you-perceive-to-be-derailment encourages further derailment of discussions? 

What do you want moderators to do with quotes/responses to derailment?

Do you trust your judgement of what constitutes derailment better than anybody else's judgement?

 

Moderators used to remove posts that are considered out-of-topic.  I'd seen strings of conversations that derailed the topic, disappear.  Why can't you do that?  At the very least?

Edited April 6, 2017 by betsy

[Guest]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Shady's gone too? 

 

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/profile/1123-shady/content/

Yep, gone...

[Altai]

22 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

Possibly but the alternative is more censorship and less discussion which we can do but the balance between all of the competing interests occurs when folks ignore what they want suppressed. 

Putting everyone in ignore and banning them is the same thing. But banning them is an exact solution, while they are still keep trolling around when we put them in ignore. 

Banning them wont cause less discussion, you think so because currently there are troll members gained majority because all the valuable members run away, dont be afraid of losing them, we dont need them. Valuable members will replace them. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

I will tell you how I feel after you answer my questions: 

Do you not feel, Argus, that a person who persists in quoting/responding to what-you-perceive-to-be-derailment encourages further derailment of discussions? 

I generally ignore such derailments, but unfortunately others do not and will not, and sometimes the derailment then becomes the topic. Which is fine at times for the flow of conversation should lead where it will, but when it's the same person taking the conversation in the same direction they've taken or tried to take a dozen other conversations, and there are already a myriad of topics on that subject it can be annoying. So it is far better to deal with the person doing the derailing rather than all the others.

3 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

What do you want moderators to do with quotes/responses to derailment?

That requires judgement as to whether the new, off-topic conversation is of substance and should have its own topic or whether it's crap. In the latter case they should simply be deleted. In the former case they should be split off onto a new topic. If such a topic already exists then those involved should be warned to take their topic there, and then their off-topic discussion deleted.

3 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

Do you trust your judgement of what constitutes derailment better than anybody else's judgement?

Yes.