1 of 2
1
General observation
Posted: 30 October 2013 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30

New here and I have been reading over the guidelines.  I am not trying to start off on the wrong foot, but it seems like big brother is watching.  I would not have expected a board interested in skeptical inquiry to be full of rules that are rather subjective.  So before I get kicked out of here, can someone set me straight on how things sway?  I tend to be demonstrative in my opinions, and I have no idea what being polite means in a rational heated discussion.  Some might feel that strong disagreement is impolite.  I presume that we are not allowed to point out to the morons that they are morons even if it seems intuitively obvious?  I don’t get my feelings hurt very easily so if anyone wants to point out I am a moron have at it.  I also have a rather colorful range of vocabulary—something akin to George S. Patton.  I suppose I will be flagged for that also, but I am who I am—but I will try.  Lastly, I think all intellectuals should be concerned about the politically correct aspects (one might even say the smothering aspects) of academia. Am I going to get booted for being supportive of free speech rather than sweet talk or whatever fancy policies inflict the radical left?  I am looking for a place that is willing to address topics with straight talk whether they agree with me or not.  I would expect the same.  Just wanted to do a quick shout out before I invest time in things that might get me booted. 

Take a look at these rules and tell me these are not subjective?  Are we after rational inquiry with subjective constraints?  Good lord, this could be considered a troll so please boot me now rather than later after I have invested some time and thought into this board.

(e) “Trolling” is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.

(f) Threads and posts are not allowed that in the opinion of Moderators are impolite, vulgar, nasty, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive to the good functioning of the either the Forum or to CFI’s mission. Free inquiry is only possible if we maintain civility. Abuse of forum members will not be permitted. In particular, abuse of Moderators for performing their responsibilities will not be permitted. What constitutes abuse will be determined by Moderators on a case-by-case basis, however in general it amounts to any racist, sexist, homo-sexist, threatening, harassing, or other personally offensive, vulgar or derogatory comments. Abuse would include so-called hate speech and fighting words.

Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.

(g) Threads and posts that are disruptive to the flow of conversation by being off-topic, or which in the opinions of Moderators were written to drive up a post-count or otherwise not relevant to the mission of CFI and its Forum are not allowed. They are subject to locking, editing or deletion.

[ Edited: 31 October 2013 07:58 PM by volcanoman ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

volcanoman, if you are looking for unmoderated discussion, there are plenty of places for that on the internet and usenet. We believe that moderation makes for better inquiry, where reason takes the place of vituperation. If you prefer vituperation, this is probably not your place.

Thanks for understanding.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30

This is very vague administrative talk—not surprising coming from the administrator.  So I get vituperation, but I am neither bitter or abusive.  I am colorful, and you did not answer the question.  I am going to push you a bit here to see where this takes us.  The question is: how can you be about skeptical inquiry with subjective rules?  Have you read your rules?  They make you and other administrators “gods”—able to decide what is offensive and what is not.  So forgive me but I am skeptical of your position as a subjective arbiter of subjective rules.  Let’s take an example.  What is “impolite”.  Some might feel that I am being impolite by challenging you on your rules?  Are we skeptical inquirers with the ability to challenge all ideas or are we being reduced to the confines of opinions carried by the administrators?  It sounds like you would prefer for me to move on, but that may be because I have intimidated you.  Not trying to do that - just trying to see where the lines are and if the gods are flexible. 

I feel that I am bringing up important questions.  I belong to what has now become the least free society in the world—the academy—where free inquiry used to be laudatory and extolled.  Not anymore! They monitor what we say and do and subjectively silence based on their arbitrary politically correct rules.  Tenure is meaningless.  I am trying to escape the confines of the university and associate myself with people that think freely and objectively.  I know what Dawkins would say - skeptical inquiry is free inquiry. 

If you are worried about my political slant I suspect you need not.  I am an liberal atheist (not leftist).  Enlighten me.  Who gets to join the club—free thinkers are only those willing to tow the line.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2013 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
volcanoman - 30 October 2013 07:33 PM

This is very vague administrative talk—not surprising coming from the administrator.  So I get vituperation, but I am neither bitter or abusive.  I am colorful, and you did not answer the question.  I am going to push you a bit here to see where this takes us.  The question is: how can you be about skeptical inquiry with subjective rules?  Have you read your rules?  They make you and other administrators “gods”—able to decide what is offensive and what is not.  So forgive me but I am skeptical of your position as a subjective arbiter of subjective rules.  Let’s take an example.  What is “impolite”.  Some might feel that I am being impolite by challenging you on your rules?  Are we skeptical inquirers with the ability to challenge all ideas or are we being reduced to the confines of opinions carried by the administrators?  It sounds like you would prefer for me to move on, but that may be because I have intimidated you.  Not trying to do that - just trying to see where the lines are and if the gods are flexible. 

I feel that I am bringing up important questions.  I belong to what has now become the least free society in the world—the academy—where free inquiry used to be laudatory and extolled.  Not anymore! They monitor what we say and do and subjectively silence based on their arbitrary politically correct rules.  Tenure is meaningless.  I am trying to escape the confines of the university and associate myself with people that think freely and objectively.  I know what Dawkins would say - skeptical inquiry is free inquiry. 

If you are worried about my political slant I suspect you need not.  I am an liberal atheist (not leftist).  Enlighten me.  Who gets to join the club—free thinkers are only those willing to tow the line.

Why don’t you just try it and see if you run afoul of the rules? I have never found them to be draconian in any way.  If you’ve never been on a forum where no one is in charge you don’t know how such a forum can become ugly and abusive to the point that the good members drop out and the jerks stick around abusing one another.  If you’d like an example of such a forum that started out as a good place to discuss issues and then fell into anarchy because the moderator also became abusive, I can direct you. It’s possible that you would like a forum like that since you bristle at standard rules of decency before they’re enforced against you.  The rules were devised to keep the forum from becoming abusive and a magnet for trolls. If you find such rules a burden you really should find another group. This one is probably not for you.

[ Edited: 31 October 2013 07:43 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4616
Joined  2007-10-05
Lois - 30 October 2013 11:17 PM

It sounds like you would prefer for me to move on, but that may be because I have intimidated you.

25r30wi.gif border=0

Speaking for myself only, I am not intimidated by what you have written. Rather, you come across as an egotistical jerk toeing the crackpot line. I agree with Lois. The CFI Forums sound like a poor fit for you. Good luck finding a decent forum where you feel comfortable with the rules.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

I agree with both Darron and Lois. I have never felt my ability to express myself here was limited by the rules. I think the administrators actually give posters a fair amount of leeway and only enforce the rules when someone really goes too far. I don’t understand your claim that one can not be both vague and a skeptic. Rules are necessarily vague when it comes to civility and public discourse. The forum rules basically ask you to use common sense and respect. It seems odd that anyone who believes them self to be intelligent would have trouble with that concept. Are you saying you haven’t been able to master the ability have an intelligent debate without personal attacks and foul language?

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Although I’m a moderator, that only applies when I have to write in blue.  So this is my response as a regular member.  You said

so if anyone wants to point out I am a moron have at it.

  Done.  You have already demonstrated by your initial posts that you are a moron.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30
DarronS - 31 October 2013 07:17 AM
Lois - 30 October 2013 11:17 PM

It sounds like you would prefer for me to move on, but that may be because I have intimidated you.

25r30wi.gif border=0

Speaking for myself only, I am not intimidated by what you have written. Rather, you come across as an egotistical jerk toeing the crackpot line. I agree with Lois. The CFI Forums sound like a poor fit for you. Good luck finding a decent forum where you feel comfortable with the rules.

Ah precisely what I thought.  So calling me an egotistical jerk is perfectly acceptable and considered polite as long as you are defending the administrator.  Double standards IMO—looks like you never miss a chance to suck up.  So Slick, care to share with us what the “crackpot line” is.  Foisting me off as a crackpot is a silly way to make a rational point and strikes me as an opinion formed from little data.  Interested to see if senior members on here can do anything but call those with a difference of opinion names.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 08:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2013-10-30
Occam. - 31 October 2013 08:49 AM

Although I’m a moderator, that only applies when I have to write in blue.  So this is my response as a regular member.  You said

so if anyone wants to point out I am a moron have at it.

  Done.  You have already demonstrated by your initial posts that you are a moron.

Occam

Already violated the rules with silly name calling.  You guys are real intellectuals.  It sounds to me that 2 of our senior members are intellectual frauds.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

No, I was merely responding to your offer. 

And from your posts it appears to me that you are in severe need of psychiatric service.  Please seek help soon. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4616
Joined  2007-10-05

Volcanoman, I did not call you an egotistical jerk; I said you come across as such. That is an important distinction.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2012-04-25

Sorry buddy but you came in here guns ablazing, as if you were merely trying to pick a fight.  If I didn’t know better I’d say you might be a troll who’s conservative theist looking to cause trouble.  There are many folks in the forum who express themselves pretty harshly, but never with the intention of causing trouble just to cause trouble.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

It seems that volcanoman hasn’t spent enough time in forums which are actually “completely free” where everything degenerates into juvenile name-calling and profanity.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22
volcanoman - 30 October 2013 06:26 PM

New here and I have been reading over the guidelines.  I am not trying to start off on the wrong foot, but it seems like big brother is watching.  I would not have expected a board interested in skeptical inquiry to be full of rules that are rather subjective.  So before I get kicked out of here, can someone set me straight on how things sway?  I tend to be demonstrative in my opinions, and I have no idea what being polite means in a rational heated discussion.  Some might feel that strong disagreement is impolite.  I presume that we are not allowed to point out to the morons that they are morons even if it seems intuitively obvious?  I don’t get my feelings hurt very easily so if anyone wants to point out I am a moron have at it.  I also have a rather colorful range of vocabulary—something akin to George S. Patton.  I suppose I will be flagged for that also, but I am who I am—but I will try.  Lastly, I think all intellectuals should be concerned about the politically correct aspects (one might even say the smothering aspects) of academia. Am I going to get booted for being supportive of free speech rather than sweet talk or whatever fancy policies inflict the radical left?  I am looking for a place that is willing to address topics with straight talk whether they agree with me or not.  I would expect the same.  Just wanted to do a quick shout out before I invest time in things that might get me booted. 

Take a look at these rules and tell me these are not subjective?  Are we after rational inquiry with subjective constraints?  Good lord, this could be considered a troll so please boot me now rather than later after I have invested some time and thought into this board.

(e) “Trolling” is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.

(f) Threads and posts are not allowed that in the opinion of Moderators are impolite, vulgar, nasty, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive to the good functioning of the either the Forum or to CFI’s mission. Free inquiry is only possible if we maintain civility. Abuse of forum members will not be permitted. In particular, abuse of Moderators for performing their responsibilities will not be permitted. What constitutes abuse will be determined by Moderators on a case-by-case basis, however in general it amounts to any racist, sexist, homo-sexist, threatening, harassing, or other personally offensive, vulgar or derogatory comments. Abuse would include so-called hate speech and fighting words.

Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.

(g) Threads and posts that are disruptive to the flow of conversation by being off-topic, or which in the opinions of Moderators were written to drive up a post-count or otherwise not relevant to the mission of CFI and its Forum are not allowed. They are subject to locking, editing or deletion.

Why are you wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense.  You can express any opinion about the real world here that you like.  All we require is that you mind your manners and respect all here, as your mother should have taught you.  If you are merely looking for a fight I am sure there area couple of bars in your area that can accommodate you.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2013 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
volcanoman - 31 October 2013 08:57 AM
DarronS - 31 October 2013 07:17 AM
Lois - 30 October 2013 11:17 PM

It sounds like you would prefer for me to move on, but that may be because I have intimidated you.

25r30wi.gif border=0

Speaking for myself only, I am not intimidated by what you have written. Rather, you come across as an egotistical jerk toeing the crackpot line. I agree with Lois. The CFI Forums sound like a poor fit for you. Good luck finding a decent forum where you feel comfortable with the rules.

Ah precisely what I thought.  So calling me an egotistical jerk is perfectly acceptable and considered polite as long as you are defending the administrator.  Double standards IMO—looks like you never miss a chance to suck up.  So Slick, care to share with us what the “crackpot line” is.  Foisting me off as a crackpot is a silly way to make a rational point and strikes me as an opinion formed from little data.  Interested to see if senior members on here can do anything but call those with a difference of opinion names.

You will notice that no one was called on it.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2013 08:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Volcanoman:

Foisting me off as a crackpot . . . strikes me as an opinion formed from little data.

While it may strike you as that, it appears to me that you’ve demonstrated quite sufficient data for that conclusion.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1