Posted By desertgal on 27 Mar 2010 04:37 PM
I was going to protest that infraction in FM, AC, but I'll wait to see what answer, if any, Darat gives you. The infraction makes no sense.

Ditto.  99% of the recent posts in that thread were technically infractable, but AC's was one of the very few that seemed OK,   And it was the only one not moved to AAH, which probably says something, although all it's saying to me at the moment is that someone has lost the plot.
 

Posted By Audible Click on 27 Mar 2010 04:40 PM
I hope he answers my PM because, frankly, I'm afraid to post anything at the moment. Thanks for your support DG.

Don't sweat it too much, Cobber.  The stupid cow is on holiday for three weeks and she ain't reporting anyone for anything.
 

Are ya, cloth ears? Yes Annie, I'm talkin' to you, ya waste of space.

I notice Darat has removed the infraction.

Good on yer, Matey.

I reckon they should give you a get-out-of-jail-free card so you can take a proper swipe at your favourite Mad Cow.

Although it would be wasted on a sweetie like you, of course, being as how you wouldn't know how to verbally tear someone a new one. 


 

I think what irritates me the most is when the mods move a post such as this one (from GeeMack) to AAH:

Actually pretty much all but the most naive, stupid, and/or easily manipulated realize that Anita treats people like crap and they're better off not trying to help. Although she disingenuously pretends to solicit advice, she ultimately doesn't accept any. She's proven that she's thankless and selfish. And it's been established beyond any reasonable doubt that she's a liar and a fraud. I'm quite certain that almost nobody is foolish enough to fall for her trolling, her manipulation, her desperate demands for attention, and her dishonesty in order to indulge her ongoing fantasies and delusions.

To me, this really isn't a case of "attacking the arguer". Anita does solicit advice without intending to use it. She continually makes the argument that she is compassionate and considerate, honest and genuine. I think we all should have the right to bluntly call her on that, since we can provide conclusive evidence that none of it is true. Instead, the mods wrap her in cotton wool.

It's really not clear, in cases like this, where the JREF does anything but encourage woos to run wild with their claims. If we're not allowed to call them on it, then it defeats the purpose of a skeptical organization, and it doesn't reflect well.

"Come to the JREF, where we let woo be woo, and the skeptics have to mind their words."

Posted By UncaYimmy on 27 Mar 2010 05:43 PM
AC, your infraction is beyond ridiculous. I can't see what was a personal attack at all in that post. You didn't respond to my PM about my infraction regarding Wolfman. I asked Wolfman, and he said he didn't see a personal attack in my post. Did you? I honestly don't see anything in mine that could be construed as an attack - at least your post is one sentence, so it must be that one line. At least you can argue that. I asked Lisa very nicely to please point out what sentence(s) were an attack in mine, and she ignored me. So much for helping people stay within the rules.

To tell the truth, as much as the post is generally a bit strongly worded, I think Locknar has made a mistake in removing that 'mountain people' phrase, and if it was because of that that the post was infracted then I think it should have been reversed.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 27 Mar 2010 05:43 PM
AC, your infraction is beyond ridiculous. I can't see what was a personal attack at all in that post. You didn't respond to my PM about my infraction regarding Wolfman. I asked Wolfman, and he said he didn't see a personal attack in my post. Did you? I honestly don't see anything in mine that could be construed as an attack...

Actually, I could, because "mountain people" is similar to "hick" - sometimes used as a semi derogatory term by folks in the more cosmopolitan areas. It shouldn't be, but it is. So, I could see why the term was intiially interpreted as insulting. Granted, the folks up in the hollers of Kentucky may not be reading the forum, but that doesn't mean some of the members didn't come from rural places, and might find it offensive. (I grew up in a town of 107 people-I hate it when people refer to my being raised in "hickdom". It's true, but I still don't like it.)

But, if Wolfman didn't have a problem with it, and once you put it into context for Lisa, then she should have reversed the infraction.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 27 Mar 2010 07:07 PM
What I said was that I wished Wolfman would extend the same courtesy to me as he does to the mountain people. For those who don't know, Wolfman sometimes works with people in Asia who live in the mountains. They have no roads or electricity. They seek medical care from a local shaman. They don't go to real doctors because it takes a day or two to get there. They only go when they are desperate and the shaman has failed to cure them. Many don't survive the trip. Therefore, Wolfman realized, they are skeptical of hospitals because most people they know die if they go whereas as most people who visit the shaman survive. Perfectly logical. That's why I told him my logic was sound but that I may have different experiences.

More importantly, the mods have repeatedly stated that members can insult groups, so even if you take it to mean hicks, it's not against the rules (Truthers, anyone?). Lisa reversed the infraction for not being civil and instead said it was a personal attack. Wolfman had said in effect, "people find stuff about me on the web and bring it up in the forums all the time, so that should be okay." What I said in effect was, "What if I found a pic of you marching in a gay parade? Could I bring up your sexuality? I don't think it would be right. You could do it if you wanted, but it would be inappropriate for me to bring it up first."

For that I was slapped with an infraction for attacking Wolfman. I honestly don't get it.

What's to get? The JREF moderators are inconsistent, often incompetent, and certainly biased. Recently I made a comment which Locknar quoted and agreed with. Darat moved a bunch of posts to AAH including my post. Then he edited Locknar's post to say the quoted comment was removed but he also edited out Locknar's comment agreeing with my post. There was, of course, no mention of that edit. Darat is covering Locknar's ass, as usual. What they're doing is dishonest. If only they had the balls to actually be honest, good moderators, and good skeptics.

That's the example they set, and if someone tries to base their behavior on the moderators' examples, it's a suspension waiting to happen.

And for a moment I was starting to think Locknar was changing his mode. He is still a biased jerk, and he's part of a group of dishonest moderators covering each others' asses.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 27 Mar 2010 07:07 PM
What I said was that I wished Wolfman would extend the same courtesy to me as he does to the mountain people. For those who don't know, Wolfman sometimes works with people in Asia who live in the mountains. They have no roads or electricity. They seek medical care from a local shaman. They don't go to real doctors because it takes a day or two to get there. They only go when they are desperate and the shaman has failed to cure them. Many don't survive the trip. Therefore, Wolfman realized, they are skeptical of hospitals because most people they know die if they go whereas as most people who visit the shaman survive. Perfectly logical. That's why I told him my logic was sound but that I may have different experiences.

I understand that.  I'm not arguing with your logic. I'm looking at the issue with (I think) Locknar's...well, version of logic. I believe his removing the term "mountain people" was a knee jerk reaction to what he considered a derogatory term.I didn't mean that he was right, just that some people might be more prone to take it out of context that way.

More importantly, the mods have repeatedly stated that members can insult groups, so even if you take it to mean hicks, it's not against the rules (Truthers, anyone?).

I know. But, it's Locknar. He once blamed members for comments that appeared in a moderated thread.

Lisa reversed the infraction for not being civil and instead said it was a personal attack.

Wolfman had said in effect, "people find stuff about me on the web and bring it up in the forums all the time, so that should be okay." What I said in effect was, "What if I found a pic of you marching in a gay parade? Could I bring up your sexuality? I don't think it would be right. You could do it if you wanted, but it would be inappropriate for me to bring it up first."

For that I was slapped with an infraction for attacking Wolfman. I honestly don't get it.

Circling the moderator wagons...

Posted By desertgal on 27 Mar 2010 06:23 PM

I think what irritates me the most is when the mods move a post such as this one (from GeeMack) to AAH:

Actually pretty much all but the most naive, stupid, and/or easily manipulated realize that Anita treats people like crap

This was a response to an extremely naive and ignorant post by fromdownunder http://forums.randi.org/showpost.ph...tcount=281
Could the above sentence (and mainly the word 'stupid') be construed as an implicit personal attack on fromdownunder?
I don't think it was a personal attack but an illustration of the naivity of that post.