CALL FOR MODERATORS

[MG 2.0]

Cruel words? Sir, I could go back and write a book containing the crap words thrown my way and moderators and/or the ‘woke’ participants didn’t have much if anything to say about it.

So there you go.

Regards,
MG

Writing a book about words, or even crap words? That sounds awfully intriguing. Mind getting on that, right away? Should be hitting the best seller list about this time next year.

After the editing process there wouldn’t be anything substantially left to read.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

If Shades were to appoint Sledge or MG 2.0 as moderators my participation here would cease. Immediately. Permanently.

Personally, I think Shades should appoint whomever he thinks would be suitable and who he thinks he could work with (Sledge and MG 2.0 being obvious vetoes) and not tell us who it is.

Obvious to some, that is. I’m not volunteering because I come and go when I feel like it. I think Shades, for one thing, is looking for those folks that can be consistent. I wouldn’t be. Truth be told, I would be as even handed and respectful of the right of free speech and expression as anyone here. Probably more so. But that wouldn’t do well by you, I understand.

My experience with free speech here has been dismal. The woke crowd overpowers and almost literally drowns out and suffocates those that have an opposing point of view. Cancel culture is alive and well among the critics. That being so, I still respect the right of critics of the church to say their piece. It’s necessary to the overall conversation.

Nothing would change for you if I was a moderator, IHAQ.

Regards,
MG

The only person here with the ability to take away your ability to speak is Shades, and you've already told us you felt he treated you fairly. You're confusing being outnumbered with being "canceled." If you want to see actual "cancel culture" in action, it's in full practice at another board.

[Shulem]

Cruel words? Sir, I could go back and write a book containing the crap words thrown my way and moderators and/or the ‘woke’ participants didn’t have much if anything to say about it.

So there you go.

Regards,
MG

Writing a book about words, or even crap words? That sounds awfully intriguing. Mind getting on that, right away? Should be hitting the best seller list about this time next year.

How about OLIMLAH? That's a crappy word. Reducing a god to the level of a slave and chopping off his nose while doing it is really crappy if you ask me. Wouldn't you say, MG?

Want to talk about it up in the Celestial Forum?

[MG 2.0]

Obvious to some, that is. I’m not volunteering because I come and go when I feel like it. I think Shades, for one thing, is looking for those folks that can be consistent. I wouldn’t be. Truth be told, I would be as even handed and respectful of the right of free speech and expression as anyone here. Probably more so. But that wouldn’t do well by you, I understand.

My experience with free speech here has been dismal. The woke crowd overpowers and almost literally drowns out and suffocates those that have an opposing point of view. Cancel culture is alive and well among the critics. That being so, I still respect the right of critics of the church to say their piece. It’s necessary to the overall conversation.

Nothing would change for you if I was a moderator, IHAQ.

Regards,
MG

The only person here with the ability to take away your ability to speak is Shades, and you've already told us you felt he treated you fairly. You're confusing being outnumbered with being "canceled." If you want to see actual "cancel culture" in action, it's in full practice at another board.

There are various means and methods by which speech can be shut down on a board such as this. And yes, Shades has been an outspoken supporter of free speech.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

The only person here with the ability to take away your ability to speak is Shades, and you've already told us you felt he treated you fairly. You're confusing being outnumbered with being "canceled." If you want to see actual "cancel culture" in action, it's in full practice at another board.

There are various means and methods by which speech can be shut down on a board such as this. And yes, Shades has been an outspoken supporter of free speech.

Regards,
MG

Look, I've seen you go 1 on 4 and 1 on 5 on and on and on and on. Unless someone is showing up at your house and dragging you away from your computer, nobody here is interfering with your right to speak. You're confusing being outnumbered with being canceled. And even when you are outnumbered, no one can shout you down.

[Sledge]

Oh let's not, I don't need a private discussion. And yes, I edited my post just before you posted this, because I was pretty sure you would pick up on the word 'following' in order to bypass the larger issue. Which you did.

And I am judging you by your output here. You didn't hold anyone to the fire. You know the plagiarism charge was well established and proved. Ask Shades if you can't admit you already know it, he spent a tremendous amount of time splitting out derailments from others who were also friends with Peterson. If your friendship with Peterson prevents you from dealing with facts, that's another negative.

You claimed multiple accounts of plagiarism, I asked for one (just one) and you could not produce anything. I held you accountable for that, as a private, non-moderating citizen here.

So I understand why you're angry with me.

But as a moderator, my personal opinions wouldn't matter. Only the rules.

[Lem]

Oh let's not, I don't need a private discussion. And yes, I edited my post just before you posted this, because I was pretty sure you would pick up on the word 'following' in order to bypass the larger issue. Which you did.

And I am judging you by your output here. You didn't hold anyone to the fire. You know the plagiarism charge was well established and proved. Ask Shades if you can't admit you already know it, he spent a tremendous amount of time splitting out derailments from others who were also friends with Peterson. If your friendship with Peterson prevents you from dealing with facts, that's another negative.

You claimed multiple accounts of plagiarism, I asked for one (just one) and you could not produce anything. I held you accountable for that, as a private, non-moderating citizen here.

So I understand why you're angry with me.

oh brother. You're going to stick with your fake story? Did you look at the archive thread? You know, the one with the example of plagiarism? Did you ask Shades if he thinks there was plagiarism? And why on earth would you think a person would feel obligated to re-produce material when someone is trolling them on the topic? It's a proven fact that Peterson plagiarized multiple times and you know this. Reproduce the thread yourself if you want to make a specific objection, other than this transparent and blatant nonsense.

No, I'm not angry, and even though I've stated that before, you keep inserting it into the conversation, even though when I first objected to your bid for moderator I didn't even remember that was you! You think you are distracting by inserting random stuff into the conversation, but you're not, you're just digging yourself deeper. so, let's get back to the topic, your bid for moderator:

You asked to be judged by your output here. You know the plagiarism charge was well established and proved, and the fact that you continue to double down on it, and use it as a way to deflect from my opinion about you is very clever distraction, but in the end, it continues to add to the lack of confidence in you. Another important point, If your friendship with Peterson prevents you from dealing with facts related to this well documented plagiarism issue, what other problems will you have when you moderate? Res Ipsa already noted overcoming bias is a challenge for moderators, and how you handle your bias isn't making a good impression.

And going back to your other comments, I still consider your standing comments on SeN to be relevant. You specifically commented on and stereotyped this board, Shades, and participants here, multiple times. Again, not a good sign that you can see past your bias.

Shades will make the decision of course, but in my opinion, I have no confidence that a poster with Sledge's background can be trusted in a moderator position.

[Dr. Shades]

You'd like to do what?

"nominate Shulem as moderator"

Can't U read?

Jesus.

What was Rule #1 in the opening post, the one that was double-sized, bolded, and underlined?

[Shulem]

"nominate Shulem as moderator"

Can't U read?

Jesus.

What was Rule #1 in the opening post, the one that was double-sized, bolded, and underlined?

Quit being dumb. You're talking to the mighty Shulem.

I never said anything about rule breaking. I simply said, "Can't U read?" after you asked what was it he wrote. What you read is what he wrote so why are you asking what he said?

duhh

[Sledge]

oh brother. You're going to stick with your fake story?

Anyone can read the thread where you produced exactly nothing to back up your claim. You should just own it and move past it.

Did you look at the archive thread? You know, the one with the example of plagiarism? Did you ask Shades if he thinks there was plagiarism? And why on earth would you think a person would feel obligated to re-produce material when someone is trolling them on the topic?

How this works is the person making the claim is supposed to back it up. You were not able to back up your claim.

It's a proven fact that Peterson plagiarized multiple times and you know this. Reproduce the thread yourself if you want to make a specific objection, other than this transparent and blatant nonsense.

It isn't my job. You made the claim.

You asked to be judged by your output here.

You know the plagiarism charge was well established and proved,

No, I did and do not know that. All I know is you made a claim that you were unable to back up. You cannot read my mind.

Another important point, If your friendship with Peterson prevents you from dealing with facts related to this well documented plagiarism issue

My online friendship with Dr. Peterson in no way affects my ability to potentially be a moderator. I have not denied any facts, only claims that were not backed up with any real evidence.

what other problems will you have when you moderate?

I never learned how to cook boeuf bourguignon; what other problems will I have when I try to cook instant ramen?

Res Ipsa already noted overcoming bias is a challenge for moderators, and how you handle your bias isn't making a good impression.

My personal biases are irrelevant to my ability to be a moderator--which is a dispassionate rule enforcer.

And going back to your other comments, I still consider your standing comments on SeN to be relevant.

You can consider whatever you want, but I've already owned what I said and asked for a little grace and forgiveness. I was indeed trolling Shades. Stuff I've posted elsewhere has exactly no bearing on my ability to be a dispassionate moderator here.