I'm afraid I am about to leave Wrongplanet.

Post Reply New Topic

God is not a person, it is an idea and has such a mass of contradictory suppositions and impossible attributes about it that it continually begs to be examined and criticized. But believers do not respond to reason and logic because these very useful approaches, if taken seriously, shake their very personal belief foundations. If you indicate that a good deal of religious belief is both illogical and harmful it is taken as a personal attack. I doubt this problem can be solved to the satisfaction of participants.

what's it called when you are not a moderator?

Merle

An immoderator.

Oh gah, mmstick.

I meant for him to come and learn more about how to handle having Asperger's and stuff. I didn't know he'd just use this as a place to post a bunch of conspiracy theories and then get mad and argue and whine whenever he wasn't agreed with. I was just trying to help and it didn't end up very well. Some people need to understand that they aren't above everyone else in the world.

I wish it could have worked out better.

The term for not being a moderator? I don't think there is a term for this, most people aren't moderators. I suppose we could use Sand's term, but I am not sure it conveys a lot.

It was a joke.

Oh, you know the OP? I guess if you know him, and you claim that this is what is going on, then I can justifiably agree with that. I dunno, I tried looking back at the old posts, but I couldn't see much that people said that was unusual given the claims made, perhaps insensitive, but many extreme ideas stand outside of the mainstream enough that many people do not respect them, or have much concept how to deal with them kindly. The attitude often becomes: "Wait, you believe THAT????". Worldviews are sort of interesting.

Sand, stop engaging in moderation. Your comment is off-topic.

now, you are being disingenious. It is called being a troll, or trolling. AG.

Merle

_________________________________________
troll:
Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.

hmmm, it may have been like that to you but I can say it wasn't the case for me and I can say that it doesn't seem it was like that to AG either, and well, apparentely you may have missed this post of mine that I made earlier:

Which means that I was showing some sympathy towards what the OP may have been feeling given some responses from what I have observed, though I am not familiar with him, it would have been contradictory if I was trying to mock him or conspiracy theorists, which that wasn't what I have in mind but as AG got it, I wanted o post something absurd, something that I doubt is seriously hold by any conspiracy theorist.


Hopefully, just one.


well, for a non-moderator, would be.... hijacking a thread?

Really, it seems that the moderator would also fit into the issue of hijacking the thread to go according to their agenda, that of moderation, not affirming to be actually the case, but given an accusation or insinuation, if you will, to our case, it seems this should fit as well.

Last edited by greenblue on 10 Apr 2009, 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Which reminds me, someone we all know have been accused of trolling recently in the PPR forum, which I happen to disagree with that.

Don't ridicule!

Public accusations of trolling are usually viewed as trolling, no?

SINSBOLDY IS BEING A TROLL



PS: I think we've already debated the analytic validity of the definition you gave for troll... I don't think it is really terribly useful in terms of trying to make any meaningful distinction.

It was in response to a question. The prefix "im" can negate a noun just as "un", "in", "a", "anti", and maybe more but each has a specific linguistic flavor. "im" attached to "moderate" is distinctly different from antimoderate or unmoderate or amoderate. "Inmoderate" just sounds peculiar to my ear. I consider the criticisms to my response immoderate.

Ok, well, I didn't post derogatory messages about a sensitive subject(few people are attached to the idea that 9/11 never happened), or attempt to bait a user to respond. In fact, only one person has commented in response to my post other than you, so you cannot claim I am hijacking. And I was being disingenuous because well... you are, and Orwell noticed that a while back.

Also, according to one of the WP mods, makuranososhi, the definition of trolling he gave was this. "So, to informally restate: a pattern of behavior that violates site policy and etiquette to an extreme and interferes, agitates, or insults individuals or groups with the intent of causing turmoil. I think that's inclusive enough? "

Well, here's the thing, you haven't been arguing a pattern of behavior so much. It is arguable that I violated no policy as well. I haven't agitated or offended many of the other posters who've responded, nor have I intended to cause turmoil. In fact, I don't think any reasonable person would argue that I am acting with great intent of causing turmoil, so much as responding to a disingenuous criticism.

Frankly, the behavior of other posters on this forum seems to indicate that you are behaving in a worse manner than I am. And I actually agree with Orwell in saying that if either of us is trolling, then you are the troll here. This isn't just one post, but multiple posts on your part, so a pattern. It is clearly an attempt to attack me, as if you wanted to do something constructive, you could have done so pretty easily with much less effort. You are violating forum etiquette by hijacking the thread to attack me. And nothing has resulted from your efforts other than turmoil. So, really, I don't know what to say, and neither makuranososhi nor the WP rules nor wikipedia seemed to indicate that a moderator cannot be in violation of the rules or engage in trolling.

mmstick,

You have fringe views and those views aren't well supported by science or people who are generally thought to be reasonable. As someone who very nearly lost a friend, and who knows people who did, in the 9/11 attack on the WTC, it is extremely difficult for me not to tell you to piss off, but you are entitled to your own views about 9/11.

Your views are not popular; your views are not supported by evidence found at the WTC or other 9/11 sites; the evidence and professionally/scholarly analysis are heavily stacked against your interpretation of events. It's good to have an open mind, but having an open mind also means being able to acknowledge that you may be wrong and that others also have their own ideas.

It's difficult to have empathy for other people in an emotional sense, at least for me, and I imagine you might be able to say the same thing.

Maybe focus less on having telekenesis and conspiracy theories and focus more on talking about how your ASD or suspected ASD affects you. Maybe try to get to know people here without talking about 9/11 or abilities that may or may not actually exist. I mean, I really like to talk about human skeletal remains and various indicators of particular traumas, but I don't do that at the dinner table.