I find most of you sickening while such actions are taken. With one hand you complain about such action done by governments yet you are more than willing to employ them if you lose a debate. The double standard seems to be typical here.

Since you find most of the posters to be sickening, why do you persist in be sickened?

---

It is ignored for people who have been here the longest and even encouraged by the law keepers/moderators and is only done so and used when one of the old timers have had their lunch taken from them by a newer person here like myself.

I'll just make observation on this one.

I was accused of Baiting you.

Have you ever once glanced to the left and seen how long I have been here.

Obviously not.

And your comments that the mods are biased will probably see you taking another vacation.

I have known about the filtering in BOINC for a long time, I have users filtered that probably don't even try to post here any longer.

But in part of this case as I already pointed out I have had a thread I started locked. It has been locked all because of the posts of one disrupting user, after he had been on a forced vacation.

If I had filtered this user then I would have had to un-filter him to find out why my thread had been closed.

So basically the filter system in this case is totally useless.

So unless a better system can be thought up, like an option to "block user 34ns7xz from posting in this thread" and if that user wants to reply then they can start their own thread, and then that thread would be one locked, not mine.

So thanks for you efforts, but I don't see the suggestions as being helpful.

You're not the first & certainly not the last that has had posts/threads locked/hidden, so why this debate?

---

I have known about the filtering in BOINC for a long time, I have users filtered that probably don't even try to post here any longer.

But in part of this case as I already pointed out I have had a thread I started locked. It has been locked all because of the posts of one disrupting user, after he had been on a forced vacation.

If I had filtered this user then I would have had to un-filter him to find out why my thread had been closed.

So basically the filter system in this case is totally useless.

So unless a better system can be thought up, like an option to "block user 34ns7xz from posting in this thread" and if that user wants to reply then they can start their own thread, and then that thread would be one locked, not mine.

So thanks for you efforts, but I don't see the suggestions as being helpful.

You're not the first & certainly not the last that has had posts/threads locked/hidden, so why this debate?

Because as noted by others the thread was very polite, the final example being from "no-name"

Hmm.... many of us agreed earlier that the discussion was nice and civil. Then ID comes along and claims it's all "mouthing off", and in true ID fashion, completely ignores the evidence given and simply states there's no proof. No wonder we can't have any civil discussions with him around.

So was one of mine until someone introduced education. It was my reply that got my thread locked. Was that my fault? Did I moan?

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Too many inconsistencies. So do what others have to do. Accept it.

---

So was one of mine until someone introduced education. It was my reply that got my thread locked. Was that my fault? Did I moan?

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Too many inconsistencies. So do what others have to do. Accept it.

Why should we?

This last time---I wasn't the only one that told you all to stay on topic. One of your moderators did as well. It's one of the rules here....have a look to your left, while posting.

Funny, I don't see any rule that specifically mentions "staying on topic". I see a mention of thread hijacking, but the wording is rather broad and you seem to be using it in a very specific manner. Since you are not in charge of the forums, may I ask why you believe your usage is the correct one?

There is a rule that does pertain to off topic posts.
If you all read the politcal forums moderation at the top of the page you will see this as poted on 22 March 2013 by Fred. Just so you know.

Thanks James; yes, I knew of that post. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said "Funny, I don't see any rule that specifically mentions "staying on topic" in a hard-and-fast manner in which you seem to be applying it to every thread."

Funny, you have the rules placed right in front of you yet seem to want to ignore them for your own selfish reasons. Please note the rules kindly laid out for you.

This last time---I wasn't the only one that told you all to stay on topic. One of your moderators did as well. It's one of the rules here....have a look to your left, while posting.

Funny, I don't see any rule that specifically mentions "staying on topic". I see a mention of thread hijacking, but the wording is rather broad and you seem to be using it in a very specific manner. Since you are not in charge of the forums, may I ask why you believe your usage is the correct one?

There is a rule that does pertain to off topic posts.
If you all read the politcal forums moderation at the top of the page you will see this as poted on 22 March 2013 by Fred. Just so you know.

Regarding off-topic posts, I have instructed my moderators to allow conversations to wander like all good conversations do. If a thread owner does not wish to see off-topic posts, please state the rules for the thread in the opening post. Note that if a subject is mentioned by the thread originator and someone else comments on it, this is then considered "on topic".

Complaining in threads that posts are off topic only serves to further drag the conversation off topic. Please Red-X any posts that may be off topic for consideration, and if found off topic (as stated in the opening post's rules), it will be removed.

-Fred
SETI Forums Admin

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

So was one of mine until someone introduced education. It was my reply that got my thread locked. Was that my fault? Did I moan?

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Too many inconsistencies. So do what others have to do. Accept it.

Why should we?

Totally agree, but you'll find we don't have a choice.

---

Personally speaking I like threads that drift off topic or encompass much larger views on the topic, to me that is natural.

What I cannot stand is those that haven't got the decency to read the original post, and any links, before mouthing off with comments like "Other than mouthing off is there any proof to the topic of this thread?"

So was one of mine until someone introduced education. It was my reply that got my thread locked. Was that my fault? Did I moan?

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Too many inconsistencies. So do what others have to do. Accept it.

Why should we?

Totally agree, but you'll find we don't have a choice.

What you actually mean is you haven't found a way yet.

The rule for baiting is clear, no gray as said here. It is ignored for people who have been here the longest and even encouraged by the law keepers/moderators and is only done so and used when one of the old timers have had their lunch taken from them by a newer person here like myself.

Can you please quote the rule about baiting? And if you're going to post the one about no deliberately hostile or insulting posts, you should really take a look at more than a few of your own. "Deliberately hostile and insulting" seems to be based upon perspective, yet you seem to think anyone that disagrees with you is deliberately hostile and/or insulting.

If the old timers have lost the debate, they have the whole debate removed, regardless of someones first amendment rights. An avatar is sent in in some cases, someone here with more than one account and that avatar along with the winner of the debate are both removed, along with that person entire postings, all his/she postings all over the board, even the ones that have nothing to do with the start of the problem.

You keep going on about lost debates, first amendment rights, and you often proclaim "winning" a debate.

1) It is the viewership/readership that decides the winner - not the debaters. And each viewer might have a different perspective. Boasting that you've "won" a debate might come across as "baiting" us to argue with you more - in other words trolling the entire Politics and Science forums.

2) Your first amendment rights are only guaranteed in certain scenarios. Your first amendment rights cease as soon as you enter any private establishment. Since the SETI@home forums are privately run by the SETI@home project staff, you are required to follow their rules. If you think otherwise, I dare you to try taking the project to court and have your day before a judge.


It is this attitude of yours that people dislike. This is why this single thread has generated so much discussion about you. There's so much hypocrisy on your behalf that you cannot even begin to see it.

You accuse others of whatever your perceptions of them are without actually getting to know any of the people in these forums. You think that this forum is predominately Atheist, when it is not. You think everyone is against your free speech, when they are not. You've accused me personally of trying to get your posts hidden when I value free speech as much as you do, yet you didn't bother to get to know my opinions first.

You come in here with blanket accusations toward everyone. You play the victim card when you think everyone else isn't playing fair. You taunt and laugh in people's virtual faces during discussions and arguments - but you want them to treat you with dignity and respect. You're old enough to know that respect is a two way street and you've offered none toward anyone here other than those you've aligned yourself with (namely Guy and Darwin's Worm because all three of you have an anti-liberal agenda - which most of us aren't even liberals).


These are things you really need to heed and understand. Take a long look in the mirror first before you fire back with your usual garbage. Stop being a victim and start understanding that everyone here has their own views and opinions. Stop lumping everyone together and playing the victim.

Funny, you have the rules placed right in front of you yet seem to want to ignore them for your own selfish reasons. Please note the rules kindly laid out for you.

Again, please point out where it says that all posts within a thread must remain and adhere to a strict topic? James just pointed out to you Fred's viewpoint on the situation and yet you accuse him of ignoring them for selfish reasons. How does this not look like you're making stuff up as you go along? Who is the one that is ignoring Fred's posts for his own selfish reasons here? It certainly isn't any of us!

Too many inconsistencies.

That is the root of the problem. It is fixable.

---

So was one of mine until someone introduced education. It was my reply that got my thread locked. Was that my fault? Did I moan?

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Too many inconsistencies. So do what others have to do. Accept it.

Why should we?

Totally agree, but you'll find we don't have a choice.

What you actually mean is you haven't found a way yet.

That's the problem with the written/spoken word without sight of one's body language. At first glance reading your reply, it seems that you're calling me a baiter looking for a way around the rules....

...still trying to think of any other way to see it atm.

---

So was one of mine until someone introduced education. It was my reply that got my thread locked. Was that my fault? Did I moan?

I've said it before & I'll say it again. Too many inconsistencies. So do what others have to do. Accept it.

Why should we?

Totally agree, but you'll find we don't have a choice.

What you actually mean is you haven't found a way yet.

That's the problem with the written/spoken word without sight of one's body language. At first glance reading your reply, it seems that you're calling me a baiter looking for a way around the rules....

...still trying to think of any other way to see it atm.

Must admit that was badly put on my part. Apologies.

What I meant to say is, that you haven't yet thought of a way to not accept the inconsistencies.

Too many inconsistencies.

That is the root of the problem. It is fixable.

The question I propose to any of you complaining about inconsistencies is: how many of you bothered to email the Modlist or bring it to Fred's attention? If you want it fixed, you have to let somebody know.

What I meant to say is, that you haven't yet thought of a way to not accept the inconsistencies.

Everyone can start by reading my reply to Gary. Instead of making a spectacle about it on the forums, perhaps inquiring and understanding why something has happened might go a long way.

Sir's,

I have placed my thoughts. I need do no more than that.

I have seen the List of fallacies as I'm sure everyone else here has. I ask that you all do your best to stop using them. I am human and have used them too.

Even the above list has it wrong to a point. Law, established law, has it's place and so even the argument from antiquity can be correctly used. There are others...

I will make no accusations other than blanket accusations. You all take such things way too damn personal otherwise.

Other then that I only see the pot calling the kettle black here on this thread.

Thank you,
Robert

P.S. Cooth goes a long way if you ask me. Please try it.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I will make no accusations other than blanket accusations. You all take such things way too damn personal otherwise.

Your blanket accusations are often directed at the wrong people. That would be why they take them personal.

Other then that I only see the pot calling the kettle black here on this thread.

Perhaps the stopping point starts with you? Just a thought.

P.S. Cooth goes a long way if you ask me. Please try it.

You first. Your baiting everyone with "I win the debate and you just want to change the subject because you lost" is not very cooth-like. Nor is your "Bwahahahahahaa" when someone posts something you disagree with. Nor is your constantly acting like a Mod around here. Need I go on? Get the picture?

Yes, you're human and make mistakes. The forums are very tolerant of mistakes (I've made more than a few of my own). But when people give you feedback, you dismiss it or try to turn it around on everyone else here.