Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Shades wrote:In this case, they have demonstrated the allegation of bias using the moderator's own work. marg herself uttered the two forbidden words, so that's all they needed.


No they did not demonstrate an allegation of bias using the moderator's own work. Show me where it was demonstrated.

As for her signing off on the "Danny Boy", she did sign it.

Earth to you, Shades. People can read this thread. There is no demonstration of bias on this thread. None.

As for needing to see Ray's quote in context regarding "Keeping to the rules isn't the point". It's on this thread.

The thread you haven't followed.

That may be true, but there could've been a better way to keep it on topic. Pretend it was me who had taken on the responsibility of keeping it on track: Would I have made the same decisions and said the same things, do you think? What would Dr. Shades do?


What difference does it make if a moderator does just exactly what you would do?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Jersey Girl wrote:No they did not demonstrate an allegation of bias using the moderator's own work. Show me where it was demonstrated.

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson" + the two unforgivable words.

As for her signing off on the "Danny Boy", she did sign it.

If I alter one of your posts to say, "I have converted to Mormonism and am madly in love with Ray A," and then sign it, does that make it okay?

Earth to you, Shades. People can read this thread. There is no demonstration of bias on this thread. None.

"Danny Boy"--->"Mr. Peterson" + the two unforgivable words.

As for needing to see Ray's quote in context regarding "Keeping to the rules isn't the point". It's on this thread.

The thread you haven't followed.

Thank you; that response was far more likely to get me to comment on Ray's accusation than providing a link would've been.

What difference does it make if a moderator does just exactly what you would do?

It makes the difference between earning the community's confidence vs. losing the community's confidence. Case in point.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Shades,

She didn't change the "Danny Boy" to "Mr. Peterson".

Me: What difference does it make if a moderator does just exactly what you would do?

You: It makes the difference between earning the community's confidence vs. losing the community's confidence. Case in point.

Me: No, it doesn't. Monkey Mod, case in point.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_marg

Re:

Post by _marg »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Is it easier to let your mods be screwed over than it is to do justice to their work?

marg didn't get "screwed over," I simply refereed the two sides and made the call that I thought was appropriate.


You made a decision before talking with me...I would just like to note.

The issue is whether or not undue moderator bias occurred, not what I said in a reply to Ray.

Sometimes complainants have a point, other times they don't. This is a case where they do indeed have a point.


That's interesting Shades so where's the evidence of mod bias from me against critics, in favor of Dale?

Is this it Shades?
"Danny Boy------> Mr. Peterson"

Remember Shades I'm being accused of bias against critics.

I changed those words retroactively, but first I contacted Bryon who never responded to my pm. Never opened it up, I eventually deleted it. In pm I was requesting him to look at the change and hopefully agree with me to keep Daniel instead of Danny Boy and then I or he would remove the ad hom notice. But no one noticed it, that certainly was never on the radar screen of anyone. I brought it up.

So what else is there...a warning to Mikwut who previously himself acknowledged being insulting to Dale and apologized?

Frankly it was disappointing to see you made a decision publically without speaking to me first, without trusting me. For some reason I thought you had observed a little bit of Rays tactics of the whole month previous in our exchanges and would appreciate the absurdity of Ray's post, but I guess that's not fair to assume that of you, there are many threads and posts I'm totally unaware of.



That may be true, but there could've been a better way to keep it on topic. Pretend it was me who had taken on the responsibility of keeping it on track: Would I have made the same decisions and said the same things, do you think? What would Dr. Shades do?


So tell me Shades what would you have done which would have made a significant difference?

You know Shades don't bother thanking me in private, asking me to stay and then piss on me later in public. I really don't care if I piss you off at this point. You are a rather spineless individual. Obviously 2 faced.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Re:

Post by _Dr. Shades »

marg wrote:The issue is whether or not undue moderator bias occurred, not what I said in a reply to Ray.

Think of it this way: What if I started a new thread that said, "From here on out I will be deleting any posts that disagree with me or contradict my opinion in any way." Let's also say I never, even once, follow through on my threat at any point thereafter.

Now, would people never lose confidence in the message board, since they could never gather evidence that I was biased, or would they immediately lose confidence in the message board due to what I posted?

That's interesting Shades so where's the evidence of mod bias from me against critics, in favor of Dale?

The evidence is that you used the two forbidden words. As we saw with the above exercise, the words were the evidence. The words alone caused loss of confidence. People didn't need to amass evidence for loss of confidence; the loss of confidence was already a reality, whether we like it or not.

Remember Shades I'm being accused of bias against critics.

Critics of the Spalding/Rigdon theory, to clarify.

I changed those words retroactively, but first I contacted Bryon who never responded to my pm. Never opened it up, I eventually deleted it. In pm I was requesting him to look at the change and hopefully agree with me to keep Daniel instead of Danny Boy and then I or he would remove the ad hom notice. But no one noticed it, that certainly was never on the radar screen of anyone. I brought it up.

What would Dr. Shades do? The answer is that this is the Terrestrial Forum, so "Danny Boy" is acceptable.

So what else is there...a warning to Mikwut who previously himself acknowledged being insulting to Dale and apologized?

Probably not. But, like I said, there didn't need to be anything else.

Frankly it was disappointing to see you made a decision publically without speaking to me first, without trusting me. For some reason I thought you had observed a little bit of Rays tactics of the whole month previous in our exchanges and would appreciate the absurdity of Ray's post, but I guess that's not fair to assume that of you, there are many threads and posts I'm totally unaware of.

To this day, I have never, not even once, clicked on the "Pearl Curran" thread.

So tell me Shades what would you have done which would have made a significant difference?

I wouldn't ever, EVER, have uttered the two forbidden words.

You know Shades don't bother thanking me in private, asking me to stay and then piss on me later in public.

You weren't "pissed on," you merely "lost" this particular round. No big deal. On any message board, there is an eternal tug-o'-war between moderators and participants. That's natural. Administrators must make judgments according to what they see as best for the board. No matter what happens, somebody is going to feel shafted. That's just the nature of the beast.

I really don't care if I piss you off at this point. You are a rather spineless individual. Obviously 2 faced.

Of course. I'm "spineless" and "obviously two-faced" to whichever side I decide against. In this particular case, if I had insisted that the general community sit down and shut up, I'd be "spineless" and "obviously two-faced" in their eyes instead.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

Post by _EAllusion »

Has anyone pointed out that "Mr. Peterson" is vaguely insulting to a person with a Ph.D.? The formal address ought to be Dr. Peterson. Wasn't one of FAIR's Orwellian moves autoediting "Mr. Peterson's" to "Dr. Peterson's?" I've always regarded doctors who correct people when called mister and insist on being called doctor as kinda smug, but the idea that marg changed the reference to Mr. Peterson in order to remove offense is funny nonetheless.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

Post by _Jersey Girl »

EAllusion wrote:Has anyone pointed out that "Mr. Peterson" is vaguely insulting to a person with a Ph.D.? The formal address ought to be Dr. Peterson. Wasn't one of FAIR's Orwellian moves autoediting "Mr. Peterson's" to "Dr. Peterson's?" I've always regarded doctors who correct people when called mister and insist on being called doctor as kinda smug, but the idea that marg changed the reference to Mr. Peterson in order to remove offense is funny nonetheless.


What's funnier than that, EA, is that some of the people commenting on this thread (such as you at the moment) haven't read the threads and mod actions being referred to.

How do I know?

Because she didn't change it to "Mr. Peterson".

It's always best to check things out, don't you think?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_marg

Re: Re:

Post by _marg »

Dr. Shades''] quote="marg wrote:.

That's interesting Shades so where's the evidence of mod bias from me against critics, in favor of Dale?

The evidence is that you used the two forbidden words. As we saw with the above exercise, the words were the evidence. The words alone caused loss of confidence. People didn't need to amass evidence for loss of confidence; the loss of confidence was already a reality, whether we like it or not.


Ok that's fine but I do believe the motivation of Ray, (because he wrote the post before I replied hence he's going by actions not that post)..was an attempt to win previous arguments, because he felt he couldn't argue any other way.
_Ray A

Re: Re:

Post by _Ray A »

marg wrote:Ok that's fine but I do believe the motivation of Ray, (because he wrote the post before I replied hence he's going by actions not that post)..was an attempt to win previous arguments, because he felt he couldn't argue any other way.


I wrote that post because you confirmed with your own words what I saw previously.
_marg

Re: Re:

Post by _marg »

Ray A wrote:
marg wrote:Ok that's fine but I do believe the motivation of Ray, (because he wrote the post before I replied hence he's going by actions not that post)..was an attempt to win previous arguments, because he felt he couldn't argue any other way.


I wrote that post because you confirmed with your own words what I saw previously.


Ray you aren't being honest that post less than 1/2 hour after telling me you weren't going to continue to discuss with me NDE's. Your argument against me for NDE was you are biased, closed minded and ignorant. In our argument of NDE's you brought up the S-R theory and said in different words that I should be dismissed because I was biased, closed minded and ignorant for the S-R theory. In other words Ray, that's how you argue. Not issue, you attack the person. You weren't succeeding with me in discussion with the NDE's you shut down with that, and you wanted to declare that I'm biased and how better to do so than claim I moderated biasedly.

There is really is no evidence of mod bias. I was aware the S-R needed protection, I'm still aware of that, and Dale is an extension.

Quite frankly Ray, I'm an extremely honest and objective person. I don't feel threatened by differing opinions at all. I never take it as a personal afront. I don't take your claims that I'm biased, closed minded as a personal afront because I know I'm not. You on the other hand view it as an insult when someone challenges your beliefs.
Post Reply