That was very naughty
el...@priest.com
evolutionists. You were wrong.
You can't stop the truth.
GoodBye everyone.
jillery
?????
Boikat
> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> You can't stop the truth.
What does that have to do with adman?
>
> GoodBye everyone.
Toodles.
Boikat
chris thompson
Was adman banned?
Chris
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<b8d0efa4-d0cd-4391...@w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 16, 11:03ï¿œpm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 9:25ï¿œpm, el...@priest.com wrote:
>>
>>> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
>>> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>>
>>> You can't stop the truth.
>>
>> What does that have to do with adman?
No a bloody thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>> GoodBye everyone.
>>
>> Toodles.
>>
>> Boikat
>
> Was adman banned?
>
Not so far as I know. I see that he was _very_ active on the 12th, 13th, and
14th, and in one thread at least he certainly seemed to _want_ to be banned,
but I didn't see any indication that he was.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
David Hare-Scott
What makes you think he was banned?
David
Ilas
4391-b9a3-0...@w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
That was Adman, wasn't it? (elder@ I mean, not Boikat). Going on headers
anyway.
Ron O
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b8d0efa4-d0cd-
> 4391-b9a3-0803d3550...@w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:03�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 16, 9:25�pm, el...@priest.com wrote:
>
> >> > You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> >> > evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> >> > You can't stop the truth.
>
> >> What does that have to do with adman?
>
> >> > GoodBye everyone.
>
> >> Toodles.
>
> >> Boikat
>
> > Was adman banned?
>
> That was Adman, wasn't it? (elder@ I mean, not Boikat). Going on headers
Maybe he is just having trouble posting? He has been using two
accounts to post, but he has been doing that for months. Unless one
of the other incompetent new posters is also an adman account, I
wouldn't expect him to be blocked.
Ron Okimoto
Augray
<739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
>You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
>evolutionists. You were wrong.
Rather, it shows the character of Adman. Mocking someone for no
apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
foolish.
>You can't stop the truth.
I'm sure that if Adman were to *apologize*, he'd be let back in an
instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
reasons.
>GoodBye everyone.
Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
Friar Broccoli
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:14:33 -0500, chris thompson wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:03�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 16, 9:25�pm, el...@priest.com wrote:
>
> >>> You can ban adman, david iaingreig. It shows the character of many
> >>> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> >>> You can't stop the truth.
>
> >> What does that have to do with adman?
>
> No a bloody thing.
>
>
>
> >>> GoodBye everyone.
>
> >> Toodles.
>
> >> Boikat
>
> > Was adman banned?
>
> Not so far as I know. I see that he was _very_ active on the 12th, 13th, and
> 14th, and in one thread at least he certainly seemed to _want_ to be banned,
> but I didn't see any indication that he was.
This is the last communication between the DIG and ASI that I could
find:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b082fce7e7df9c3e
Creationists trying to get themselves banned from TO, is pretty
standard.
I've never seen the DIG ban anybody for bad mouthing him, and he
always says something before he bans them.
Friar Broccoli
On further reflexion, maybe:
"Do drop me a note sometime."
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/dd835ada3cc9f0d7
was a banning notice.
Kalkidas
news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Why would ASI be banned? He's not a troll. He doesn't threaten anyone. He's
just passionate about his positions.
Boikat
> <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
>
> news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> > evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> > You can't stop the truth.
>
> > GoodBye everyone.
>
> Why would ASI be banned? He's not a troll.
You must have a private definition of "troll". But, being a troll is
not a bannable offense. You should already know that.
> He doesn't threaten anyone. He's
> just passionate about his positions.
He's a arrogant prick.
Boikat
Kleuskes & Moos
RIght. He's a loudmouth idiot and a liar. Nothing T.O. regulars aren't
used to. I'm still not convinced DIG actually banned him, and
certainly not for those reasons.
So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
raven1
I see no indication that adman has been banned.
Ilas
> <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
> news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
>> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>>
>> You can't stop the truth.
>>
>> GoodBye everyone.
>
> Why would ASI be banned?
No idea, but I think "elder" is Adman
> He's not a troll.
Yes, he is.
> He doesn't threaten anyone.
No, he doesn't.
> He's just passionate about his positions.
No, he's not. He's passionate about getting a rise out of people. His
"positions" come way behind that.
Will in New Haven
And he does have a sense of humor at times. I'm pretty much against
banning ANYONE.
--
Will in New Haven
Kalkidas
news:Xns9D229A58...@195.188.240.200...
Oh rubbish. He doesn't ever try to "get a rise out of" me, even though I do
not agree with his particular version of creation. He does meet insult with
insult, but that's something all of us here have engaged in, some more than
others. That's not "trolling".
jillery
> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote innews:hlh00n$ano$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
So, are you saying instead of suffering passionately behind his
positions, his positions suffer from a passionate behind?
Ilas
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D229A58...@195.188.240.200...
>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
>> news:hlh00n$ano$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> Why would ASI be banned?
>>
>> No idea, but I think "elder" is Adman
>>
>>> He's not a troll.
>>
>> Yes, he is.
>>
>>> He doesn't threaten anyone.
>>
>> No, he doesn't.
>>
>>> He's just passionate about his positions.
>>
>> No, he's not. He's passionate about getting a rise out of people. His
>> "positions" come way behind that.
>
> Oh rubbish. He doesn't ever try to "get a rise out of" me, even though
> I do not agree with his particular version of creation.
Why would he? It's the mirror images of Nashton he's after, along with the
few rational ones that can't help reacting, and you're neither I'm afraid.
Although I think he has taken some of your idiocies and run with them, so
there's some small consolation.
Half of what he says, he doesn't mean. Personally, I liked the "we're half
alien" one best, that was a proper good'un.
> He does meet
> insult with insult, but that's something all of us here have engaged
> in, some more than others. That's not "trolling".
Oh, he's good, I'll give him that. Still a big fat troll though.
el cid
Why not look for yourself.
http://www.ediacara.org/~to/procmailrc
You can see who is banned.
Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
chris thompson
That's not a bannable offense either.
He has on occasion engaged in hate speech though, and DIG has banned
people for that in the past.
Chris
chris thompson
> On Feb 17, 10:08 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:55 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> > > > evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> > > > You can't stop the truth.
>
> > > > GoodBye everyone.
>
> > > Why would ASI be banned? He's not a troll. He doesn't threaten anyone. He's
> > > just passionate about his positions.
>
> > RIght. He's a loudmouth idiot and a liar. Nothing T.O. regulars aren't
> > used to. I'm still not convinced DIG actually banned him, and
> > certainly not for those reasons.
>
> > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
>
>
> You can see who is banned.
> Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
But [M]adman is just tagged for easy kill filing.
Chris
Friar Broccoli
Thanks I didn't know that was possible.
Did you find this file using your T.O. secret decoder ring?
el cid
RAM
Yes, and that's where you find his head.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Feb 17, 10:08�am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:55�pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> > > > evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> > > > You can't stop the truth.
>
> > > > GoodBye everyone.
>
> > > Why would ASI be banned? He's not a troll. He doesn't threaten anyone. He's
> > > just passionate about his positions.
>
> > RIght. He's a loudmouth idiot and a liar. Nothing T.O. regulars aren't
> > used to. I'm still not convinced DIG actually banned him, and
> > certainly not for those reasons.
>
> > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
>
>
> You can see who is banned.
> Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
Thanks...
Friar Broccoli
> chris thompson wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 11:25 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 10:08 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
> >> > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
>
> >> Why not look for yourself.http://www.ediacara.org/~to/procmailrc
>
> >> You can see who is banned.
> >> Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
>
> > But [M]adman is just tagged for easy kill filing.
.
> No, banned. Line 48-54. The tagging is in line 144-150 but I suppose it
> has now become unnecessary.
>
> Thank you, DIG.
Since someone has thanked DIG for this, I feel compelled to say I
consider this action completely inappropriate. If we ban people like
this, we are no better than creationist sites that ban people they
disagree with. Besides, ASI did nothing other than discredit
creationism, so we have effectively lost an ally.
el cid
More people should share your outrage at the capricious nature of
moderation that allows for this or much worse breaches of what
many consider to be the spirit of moderation under which talk.origins
ought to operate.
It does not matter that moderation was approved for very restricted
purposes, the moderator is free to ban someone simply because they
feel the person is making too many off-topic posts. Further, they
could ban you for complaining about people being banned.
I suggest you draft an RFD to end moderation of talk.origins. I
will support you, and not because I think there's been any serious
abuse of power. Rather, I think there are other ways to deal with
the spam and cross-posting issues and people should have to work
with those methods.
Desertphile
> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> evolutionists. You were wrong.
You weren't banned.
> You can't stop the truth.
Banning adman would stop (well, slow down) lies, not "stop the
truth."
> GoodBye everyone.
"GoodBye" isn't a word.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mitchell Coffey
DIG appears to have taken to banning people for disrespecting the
FAQ. This may seem an eccentric use of power, but there is much to be
said for people recognizing the legitimacy of DIG's authority. The
newsgroup over the last month as cleaned up remarkably, having fallen
to its worse state sign the establishment of moderation fifteen years
ago.
Note, as one always should, that DIG's sanction involves no repression
of anyone's ability to participate in T.O. The fact that the people
in question almost certainly won't participate further is only because
they are not in fact interested in participation.
Mitchell Coffey
elder
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:36 -0800 (PST), el...@priest.com wrote in
> <739eaf0b-193e-4a45-89e8-aec8c0959...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> >evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
> foolish.
>
> >You can't stop the truth.
>
> instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
> with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
> reasons.
>
> >GoodBye everyone.
>
> Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
> important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
> closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
Apologize?
I am going to break my word and bypass this ban just one more time. I
have always followed the rules here.
david iain greig cursed at wf3h with the word "fuck" for posting
something off topic. I then showed him on the TO website that wf3h's
post could in fact be considered on topic and gave the reasons why.
david iain greig then said he has nothing to do with the TO web site.
So why is he moderating a talk origins server? Why bother to post
usenet rules on the TO website then?
From my perspective, there are no regulars on T.O that are so
disruptive as to get a ban. Save the bans for spammers and the
disruptive kids.
I will not apologize. It was david iain greig that cursed at wf3h
about something that was borderline off topic at best. Furthermore, If
I have to kiss anyone's ass to speak my opinion they will be waiting a
very long time.
Go read the "death penalty II" thread for yourselves and decide. If I
did something other then disagree with david iain greig and state the
reasons why in my usual style, then, by all means, I will respect
everyone's decision.
But if you find that all I did was come to wf3h's defense with what I
though was 'official talk origin rules', then it is david iain greig
that should apologize, not me. I will not hold my breath.
To those of you that were honest in this tread, my thanks. Some of you
I will genuinely miss.
--adman
el cid
Can't say the feeling is mutual.
I don't know if you consider it ass-kissing or not, but I expect
that if you read the FAQ and respond to DIG that you read the FAQ,
you will be unblocked.
It isn't that everyone needs to read the FAQ but piping off as
a net.cop AND proudly announcing that you have not read the FAQ
is enough of an abuse to justify the banning of someone who is
mostly trolling anyway. Tolerance does not need to go as far as
it usually does and can be mistaken. You are allowed to get away
with a great deal, as are many others but while high mindedness
lets people get away with much, high handedness can be the price.
jillery
It would be nice if this situation was clear cut. Like most things,
there are several important issues involved. To my knowledge DIG has
not yet posted a statement, and I will sort things out for myself if
and when he does.
Augray
wrote in
<789f3e2a-735c-4fe4...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>On Feb 17, 6:37�am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:36 -0800 (PST), el...@priest.com wrote in
>> <739eaf0b-193e-4a45-89e8-aec8c0959...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
>> >evolutionists. You were wrong.
>>
>> Rather, it shows the character of Adman. Mocking someone for no
>> apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
>> foolish.
>>
>> >You can't stop the truth.
>>
>> I'm sure that if Adman were to *apologize*, he'd be let back in an
>> instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
>> with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
>> reasons.
>>
>> >GoodBye everyone.
>>
>> Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
>> important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
>> closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
>
>Apologize?
>
>I am going to break my word and bypass this ban just one more time. I
>have always followed the rules here.
That's certainly debatable, given your multiple aliases when you first
posted here.
>david iain greig cursed at wf3h with the word "fuck" for posting
>something off topic. I then showed him on the TO website that wf3h's
>post could in fact be considered on topic and gave the reasons why.
And to be honest, I think it's *quite* debatable that wf3h's post was
"original, entertaining, and/or downright brilliant".
>david iain greig then said he has nothing to do with the TO web site.
And that's true.
>So why is he moderating a talk origins server?
Because he's the *moderator*. The TO web site is an independent
entity.
> Why bother to post
>usenet rules on the TO website then?
They're *not* usenet rules, and in fact the passage you quoted seems
to be something originally written by (I suspect) Mark Isaak (MI). The
only rules that matter here are those in the FAQ that's posted
semi-monthly.
>From my perspective, there are no regulars on T.O that are so
>disruptive as to get a ban.
That's nice. But it's the moderator's opinion that matters here.
>Save the bans for spammers and the
>disruptive kids.
>
>I will not apologize.
So, speaking the truth is of secondary importance to your pride? I'm
not surprised.
>It was david iain greig that cursed at wf3h
>about something that was borderline off topic at best.
And as I mentioned before, that's debatable.
>Furthermore, If
>I have to kiss anyone's ass to speak my opinion they will be waiting a
>very long time.
So, you consider an apology to be kissing ass?
>Go read the "death penalty II" thread for yourselves and decide. If I
>did something other then disagree with david iain greig and state the
>reasons why in my usual style, then, by all means, I will respect
>everyone's decision.
Here's the bits in question:
----------------------------------
oh lookie here.
We have a netkop.
----------------------------------
You mocked the moderator. Now, whether it was fair to ban you for that
is, to use a well worn word, debatable. But imagine that you walked
into a trial and mocked the judge. What do you think that reaction
would be? This situation really isn't that different.
>But if you find that all I did was come to wf3h's defense with what I
>though was 'official talk origin rules',
You did more than that, and your "defense" was ill-conceived. Rather
than debate the merits, or lack thereof, of wf3h's post, you mocked
the moderator, waved rules he didn't write in his face, and told him
how to do his job. Not exactly tactful.
>then it is david iain greig
>that should apologize, not me. I will not hold my breath.
I wouldn't. He doesn't need you, but to post here, you need him. He's
holding all the cards, so you'll have to be more rational in your
approach if you want to post here in the future.
LT
> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
>
Post-and-run blowhard idiot.
LT
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> You can't stop the truth.
>
> GoodBye everyone.
anyone who even uses "adman" and the "truth" in the same post, is quite
welcome to leave ANYTIME.
JohnN
> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> You can't stop the truth.
>
> GoodBye everyone.
Hope springs eternal.
JohnN
David Hare-Scott
OK he is boing blocked. I missed it until it was pointed out (adman has
given us a holiday before) but K&M's point remains - why exactly? A
statement by DIG is notable by its absence.
David
John Wilkins
<2b881456-7c80-489b...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, el
cid <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote:
Or, just read the frigging FAQ DIG posts every month, hiding this in
plain sight.
DIG's bannination is always preceded by warnings to stop whatever
behavior leads to the ban. I have no reason to think he has ever banned
someone arbitrarily or without warning. Granted, I would rather people
were not banned, but given that they are, consistency is required, and
employed.
Eric Root
> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> You can't stop the truth.
>
I don't see how the truth is affected by not renewing Bozo the Clown's
contract.
> GoodBye everyone.
Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Feb 17, 8:55�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> > > You can't stop the truth.
>
>
> > Why would ASI be banned? He's not a troll.
>
> not a bannable offense. �You should already know that.
>
> > just passionate about his positions.
>
>
> Boikat
ASI is definitely a troll, but that isn't enough to get someone banned.
Mike Lyle
objectionable content, and some use different names and addresses for
innocent reasons.
--
Mike.
Klaus Hellnick
> On Feb 16, 11:03 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 9:25 pm, el...@priest.com wrote:
>>
>>> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
>>> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>>> You can't stop the truth.
>>
>>
>>
>>> GoodBye everyone.
>> Toodles.
>>
>> Boikat
>
> Was adman banned?
>
> Chris
>
As far as I know, his constant nym shifting was simply exposed.
Mike Dworetsky
Ddin't DIG specifically say he wasn't concerned about it as long as Adman
specifically and publicly stated this was happening in order to get around a
googlegroups restriction on numbers of postings?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ron O
> In article
> <2b881456-7c80-489b-b267-3e7ff7a36...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, el
It doesn't look like a banning offense in the Death penalty II
thread. adman was stupid enough to tweak DIG using two different
accounts, but he has been using those accounts for months. Several
people have complained, but most of us knew that it was adman,
[M]adman, uriel etc.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
> On Feb 17, 6:37�am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:36 -0800 (PST), el...@priest.com wrote in
> > <739eaf0b-193e-4a45-89e8-aec8c0959...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
> >
> > >You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> > >evolutionists. You were wrong.
> >
> > Rather, it shows the character of Adman. Mocking someone for no
> > apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
> > foolish.
> >
> > >You can't stop the truth.
> >
> > I'm sure that if Adman were to *apologize*, he'd be let back in an
> > instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
> > with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
> > reasons.
> >
> > >GoodBye everyone.
> >
> > Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
> > important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
> > closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
> Apologize?
> I am going to break my word and bypass this ban just one more time.
What "ban?" So far, nobody has produced any evidence you have been
banned.
(CUTS)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
el cid
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:08:45 -0800 (PST), elder <el...@priest.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 6:37 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:36 -0800 (PST), el...@priest.com wrote in
> > > <739eaf0b-193e-4a45-89e8-aec8c0959...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
>
> > > >You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> > > >evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> > > Rather, it shows the character of Adman. Mocking someone for no
> > > apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
> > > foolish.
>
> > > >You can't stop the truth.
>
> > > I'm sure that if Adman were to *apologize*, he'd be let back in an
> > > instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
> > > with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
> > > reasons.
>
> > > >GoodBye everyone.
>
> > > Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
> > > important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
> > > closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
> > Apologize?
> > I am going to break my word and bypass this ban just one more time.
>
> What "ban?" So far, nobody has produced any evidence you have been
> banned.
>
> (CUTS)
Other than the procmailrc file which shows he is banned, and the
12 responses to the post that pointed to said file.
elder
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was No warning. He just did not like the fact that I stood up to
him.
Did you bother to go see for yourself before you made the outrageous
claim:
"bannination is always preceded by warnings"?
It is frightening that some people are actually allowed to teach the
young minds of today.
elder
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey DIG
What do you call this if it is not a "serious abuse of power"?
He used the word "fuck" which was completely inappropriate for someone
holding a position of authority.
I was showing him the rules of posting that are ON the talk origins
web site. A set of posting rules that the moderator ignores and then
bans me for pointing out that he is not following those rules ----THAT
is an abuse of power IMHO.
But let's face the truth. He baned me for personal reasons. He got his
little girlie panties in a wad because I publicly called him on his
cursing and his incorrect decision on the rules. Is he suppose to be
some kind of god and everyone should fear him on the rare occasion he
shows up?
Is Talk Origins like one of those kiddy chat servers where everyone
should tremble when the IRCop shows up?
If that is all it takes to get a ban here, then the mod is pathetic as
well as immature. There are real reasons to use his trigger finger.
This was not one of them.
Talk origins has now been relegated to being nothing more then like a
kiddy chat server.. with no way to appeal the decision.
I have to break the rules and evade the ban to get my side heard.
So screw him. I will not apologize when he is clearly at fault. Maybe
the guy was having a bad day. I don't care. Why take your personal
problems out on the regular members of this news group that discuss
topics here every day. He shows up once in a blue moon.
I can come up with 10,000 email addys and 20,000 ip addresses if
necessary. But I will honer the rules at TO and not evade the ban,
once my side has been fully heard by the others.
I have done no other posting beyond this thread for that reason
elder
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 12:08�pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> chris thompson wrote:
> >> > On Feb 17, 11:25 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 17, 10:08 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
>
> >> >> Why not look for yourself.http://www.ediacara.org/~to/procmailrc
>
> >> >> You can see who is banned.
> >> >> Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
>
> >> > But [M]adman is just tagged for easy kill filing.
>
> >> has now become unnecessary.
>
> >> Thank you, DIG.
>
> > Since someone has thanked DIG for this, I feel compelled to say I
> > consider this action completely inappropriate. �If we ban people like
> > this,
>
> that, authority) to do so, for any reason he likes. We can only be
> thankful that he doesn't do it very often and that when he does it,
> talk.origins the newsgroup is always improved.
>
> This is not a democracy and David is as enlightened a despot as we could
> hope for, if we also allow him to be human.
>
> > we are no better than creationist sites that ban people they
> > disagree with.
>
> Perhaps for being disagreeable. And a huge waste of people's time and
> attention.
>
> > Besides, ASI did nothing other than discredit creationism, so we have
> > effectively lost an ally.
>
> does not credibly represent it. Creationists could still say: but I'm not
> like that and I don't think like that - and they'd have a point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyone is human. But it is evident the guy was having a bad day and
decided to dump it on me. W3fh was the one he was bitching and cursing
at. I did nothing to warrant a ban, other then disagree with his dumb
ass.
Is talk origins like one of those kiddy chat servers where everyone
has to tremble when the guy shows up? We are not kids here. We are
adults.
The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more
importantly, he does not know who I know.
jillery
I appreciate your frustration, but if you would consider: here you
are.
Mike Dworetsky
OK, if you are banned, why am I able to read your messages?
el cid
As someone with no authority, fuck you.
> I was showing him the rules of posting that are ON the talk origins
> web site. A set of posting rules that the moderator ignores and then
> bans me for pointing out that he is not following those rules ----THAT
> is an abuse of power IMHO.
He pointed out that the talk.origins web site is an independent
entity that arose long long after the usenet group. He pointed
out you could find this out from the FAQ (as well as from knowing
basic things about usenet and the internet). The rules you cite
are not his rules, as you would know if you read the FAQ.
You claimed to have not read the FAQ. On top of your other
behavior, that got you punted. It was an aggregate effect.
Write back saying you have read the FAQ that is posted twice
every month and even your goofy butt might get unbanished
--- except you've shifted to a new account to get past the
ban. That doesn't bode well. I would not let you back in,
but nobody is counting my vote.
> But let's face the truth. He baned me for personal reasons. He got his
> little girlie panties in a wad because I publicly called him on his
> cursing and his incorrect decision on the rules. Is he suppose to be
> some kind of god and everyone should fear him on the rare occasion he
> shows up?
Very clearly he banned you for the modality in which you
proclaimed to have not read the FAQ. Just not reading it
is not enough, not reading it and having abused some of
the guidelines it announces, and then being dismissive of
it is enough.
> Is Talk Origins like one of those kiddy chat servers where everyone
> should tremble when the IRCop shows up?
Missing the point.
> If that is all it takes to get a ban here, then the mod is pathetic as
> well as immature. There are real reasons to use his trigger finger.
> This was not one of them.
Breaking the rules and then announcing you've never read the
rules --- while complaining about the rules being broken: that
is enough to get you banned. Read the rules, not the ones you
have mistaken for the rules, the real ones.
> Talk origins has now been relegated to being nothing more then like a
> kiddy chat server.. with no way to appeal the decision.
You're off in fantasy land.
> I have to break the rules and evade the ban to get my side heard.
No, you had to write back and say you'd read the FAQ. No crawling
on your knees involved. You may have worsened your situation by
knowningly breaking the rules since. It doesn't take a brain
surgeon to see this.
> So screw him. I will not apologize when he is clearly at fault. Maybe
> the guy was having a bad day. I don't care. Why take your personal
> problems out on the regular members of this news group that discuss
> topics here every day. He shows up once in a blue moon.
False righteous indignation is not pretty.
> I can come up with 10,000 email addys and 20,000 ip addresses if
> necessary. But I will honer the rules at TO and not evade the ban,
> once my side has been fully heard by the others.
In addition to trying to be heard, you have to listen.
Read the FAQ. Understand that the talk.origins website
is an independent entity not controlled by DIG.
Robert Camp
> On Feb 17, 12:51�pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 12:08�pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>> chris thompson wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 11:25 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 17, 10:08 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
<pins>
>>
>> Again, there is no "we". And madman can't discredit creationism because he
>> does not credibly represent it. Creationists could still say: but I'm not
>> like that and I don't think like that - and they'd have a point.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Everyone is human. But it is evident the guy was having a bad day and
> decided to dump it on me. W3fh was the one he was bitching and cursing
> at. I did nothing to warrant a ban, other then disagree with his dumb
> ass.
>
> Is talk origins like one of those kiddy chat servers where everyone
> has to tremble when the guy shows up? We are not kids here. We are
> adults.
>
> The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more
> importantly, he does not know who I know.
Ah, veiled threats...that ought to bring everyone around.
RAM
> On Feb 17, 12:51锟絧m, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > >> chris thompson wrote:
> > >> > On Feb 17, 11:25 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Feb 17, 10:08 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > >> [..]
>
> > >> >> > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
>
> > >> >> Why not look for yourself.http://www.ediacara.org/~to/procmailrc
>
> > >> >> You can see who is banned.
> > >> >> Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
>
> > >> > But [M]adman is just tagged for easy kill filing.
>
> > >> No, banned. Line 48-54. The tagging is in line 144-150 but I suppose it
> > >> has now become unnecessary.
>
> > >> Thank you, DIG.
>
> > > Since someone has thanked DIG for this, I feel compelled to say I
Who gives a rats ASSinine who you know they could do one damn thing
anyway.
raven1
wrote:
>The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more
>importantly, he does not know who I know.
Living in Brooklyn, one learns very quickly that if anyone issues a
veiled threat like "do you know who I am?" or "do you know who I
know?", the correct answer is always "nobody".
Boikat
> On Feb 17, 12:51锟絧m, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > >> chris thompson wrote:
> > >> > On Feb 17, 11:25 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Feb 17, 10:08 am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > >> [..]
>
> > >> >> > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
>
> > >> >> Why not look for yourself.http://www.ediacara.org/~to/procmailrc
>
> > >> >> You can see who is banned.
> > >> >> Currently, allseeingi is being blocked.
>
> > >> > But [M]adman is just tagged for easy kill filing.
>
> > >> No, banned. Line 48-54. The tagging is in line 144-150 but I suppose it
> > >> has now become unnecessary.
>
> > >> Thank you, DIG.
>
> > > Since someone has thanked DIG for this, I feel compelled to say I
> > > this,
>
> > But "we" do not ban people; DIG bans people. He has the means (and with
> > that, authority) to do so, for any reason he likes. We can only be
> > thankful that he doesn't do it very often and that when he does it,
> > talk.origins the newsgroup is always improved.
>
> > This is not a democracy and David is as enlightened a despot as we could
> > hope for, if we also allow him to be human.
>
> > > we are no better than creationist sites that ban people they
> > > disagree with.
>
> > I don't believe that madman was banned because of any disagreement.
> > Perhaps for being disagreeable. And a huge waste of people's time and
> > attention.
>
> > > Besides, ASI did nothing other than discredit creationism, so we have
> > > effectively lost an ally.
>
> > Again, there is no "we". And madman can't discredit creationism because he
> > does not credibly represent it. Creationists could still say: but I'm not
> > like that and I don't think like that - and they'd have a point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Everyone is human.
Except for trolls, like you.
> But it is evident the guy was having a bad day and
> decided to dump it on me. W3fh was the one he was bitching and cursing
> at. I did nothing to warrant a ban, other then disagree with his dumb
> ass.
>
And showed yourself to be your usual arrogant schmuck. You should
have minded your own business, instead of acting like you were some
"honcho".
> Is talk origins like one of those kiddy chat servers where everyone
> has to tremble when the guy shows up? We are not kids here. We are
> adults.
Then why don't you act like an adult instead of behaving like an
arrogant and spoiled child? That's how you behaved, and that's how you
were treated, and AFAIAC, should still be treated.
>
> The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me.
Your attitude speaks for itself.
> But more importantly, he does not know who I know.
Who gives a rats ass? "Who you know" doesn't give you the right, or
the horse power, to act like a grade-A jackass.
Grow up.
Boikat
Mitchell Coffey
[snip]
> The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more
> importantly, he does not know who I know.
Thank you David, this looks like fun!
Mitchell Coffey
TomS
<al2rn59prln63j8cj...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
There is a story about a very self-important man who pushed ahead
in a ticket line at an airport, saying, "Don't you know who I am?"
The ticket agent got on the public address system, saying, "Ladies
and gentlemen, could you please help us. We have a customer here
who has amnesia. Is there anyone here who can identify him?"
--
---Tom S.
Be not ashamed to inform the unwise and foolish, and the extreme aged that
contendeth with those that are young: thus shalt thou be truly learned, and
approved of all men living.: Sirach 42:8
Inez
I don't know if what he did was fair or not, but here you are posting
to the group. It seems unlikely that forcing you to change handles
qualifies as "serious" even if it is an abuse of power. Get over
yourself.
chris thompson
You're a hemorrhoidal roach- a pain in the ass and impossible to kill.
I have no problem with you being banned, given your activities.
However, I side with DIG in his policy: if you act like even a
subadult human and apologize and promise to abide by the rules, you
will be allowed back in.
However, that stipulation seems expressly designed to keep people like
you out. It calls for a maturity of behavior of which you seem
incapable.
Chris
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Since I am reading your post you have obviously not been banned. Do
you have trouble with reality in other areas?
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D229A58...@195.188.240.200...
>
>
>
> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote innews:hlh00n$ano$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >> <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
> >>news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com..
> >> .
> >>> You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> >>> evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> >>> You can't stop the truth.
>
> >>> GoodBye everyone.
>
> >> Why would ASI be banned?
>
>
> >> He's not a troll.
>
>
> >> He doesn't threaten anyone.
>
>
> >> He's just passionate about his positions.
>
> > "positions" come way behind that.
>
> Oh rubbish. He doesn't ever try to "get a rise out of" me, even though I do
> not agree with his particular version of creation. He does meet insult with
> insult, but that's something all of us here have engaged in, some more than
> others. That's not "trolling".
You and he agree on lots of things, the main one being opposition to
reality.
elder
> the horse power, to act like a grade-A jackass.
Like your foul mouthed self?
elder
wrote:
You want me to grovel for something that is clearly not my fault.
Sometimes being an adult is sticking to your guns and holding the line
when you are right. Mediocrity is your way Chris. Nothing changes.
There are rules on the Talk Origins web site. Why have them if they
are effectively worthless? Why made the T.O. rules if they are
worthless? Why is being baned based on the whim of these power
tripping admins with root access?
Be an adult and answer.
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
elder
He can't really stop me. He will have to ban me each and every day
with a new email and/or IP addy. If I am determined enough, maybe 4 or
5 times a day.
But I will not do that. Why?
Because I follow the rules. But THAT get's ya banned around here! ...
[chuckle]
He is the one that broke the TO rules. OR whom ever made the TO rules
is full of bologna
I am only bypassing the ban -in this thread- because control freaks
like him should be pointed out.
Is he here everyday discussing the issues with everyone everyone else?
Does he even give a shit? Or does he blow in here every few weeks just
to terrorize the regulars on his power trip ---only to leave for a few
more weeks?
elder
Living in Brooklyn you would be taking a chance on getting shot as
well.
elder
> On Feb 17, 2:08�pm, elder <el...@priest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 6:37�am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:36 -0800 (PST), el...@priest.com wrote in
> > > <739eaf0b-193e-4a45-89e8-aec8c0959...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
>
> > > >evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> > > apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
> > > foolish.
>
>
> > > instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
> > > with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
> > > reasons.
>
> > > >GoodBye everyone.
>
> > > Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
> > > important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
> > > closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
>
> > Apologize?
>
> > have always followed the rules here.
>
> > david iain greig cursed at wf3h with the word "fuck" for posting
> > something off topic. I then showed him on the TO website that wf3h's
> > post could in fact be considered on topic and gave the reasons why.
>
> > david iain greig then said he has nothing to do with the TO web site.
> > So why is he moderating a talk origins server? �Why bother to post
> > usenet rules on the TO website then?
>
> > From my perspective, there are no regulars on T.O that are so
> > disruptive as to get a ban. Save the bans for spammers and the
> > disruptive kids.
>
> > I will not apologize. It was david iain greig that cursed at wf3h
> > about something that was borderline off topic at best. Furthermore, If
> > I have to kiss anyone's ass to speak my opinion they will be waiting a
> > very long time.
>
> > Go read the "death penalty II" thread for yourselves and decide. If I
> > did something other then disagree with david iain greig and state the
> > reasons why in my usual style, then, by all means, I will respect
> > everyone's decision.
>
> > But if you find that all I did was come to wf3h's defense with what I
> > though was 'official talk origin rules', then it is david iain greig
> > that should apologize, not me. I will not hold my breath.
>
> > To those of you that were honest in this tread, my thanks. Some of you
> > I will genuinely miss.
>
> Can't say the feeling is mutual.
> I don't know if you consider it ass-kissing or not, but I expect
> that if you read the FAQ and respond to DIG that you read the FAQ,
> you will be unblocked.
>
> It isn't that everyone needs to read the FAQ but piping off as
> a net.cop AND proudly announcing that you have not read the FAQ
> is enough of an abuse to justify the banning of someone who is
> mostly trolling anyway. Tolerance does not need to go as far as
> it usually does and can be mistaken. You are allowed to get away
> with a great deal, as are many others but while high mindedness
> lets people get away with much, high handedness can be the price.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The TO web site has rules. THOSE are the rules I was pointing out to
your netkop
Look, I have been associated with the Internet a very long time. These
Mods are given way too much ability to arbitrarily ban people. You
know this. I know this. I have been a Forum Mod and I have been an
IRCop-Admin. Why are you taking up for this guy. He was wrong. And
there is no way to appeal his decision.
He did not have a valid reason to ban me unless you consider
disagreeing with him a valid reason. If so, then usenet has become
nothing more then a kiddy chat server.
elder
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:08:45 -0800 (PST), elder <el...@priest.com>
> wrote in
> <789f3e2a-735c-4fe4-aeef-6a1ede0c8...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 17, 6:37�am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:36 -0800 (PST), el...@priest.com wrote in
> >> <739eaf0b-193e-4a45-89e8-aec8c0959...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >> >You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> >> >evolutionists. You were wrong.
>
> >> Rather, it shows the character of Adman. Mocking someone for no
> >> apparent reason, who has the power over your ability to post, is
> >> foolish.
>
> >> >You can't stop the truth.
>
> >> I'm sure that if Adman were to *apologize*, he'd be let back in an
> >> instant. His banning has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do
> >> with him being an idiot. Evolutionists have been banned for similar
> >> reasons.
>
> >> >GoodBye everyone.
>
> >> Or Adman could apologize. But I suspect that his pride is more
> >> important to him than spreading the "truth". And that's probably
> >> closer to the truth than anything Adman's posted. We'll soon see.
>
> >Apologize?
>
> >I am going to break my word and bypass this ban just one more time. I
> >have always followed the rules here.
>
> posted here.
>
> >david iain greig cursed at wf3h with the word "fuck" for posting
> >something off topic. I then showed him on the TO website that wf3h's
> >post could in fact be considered on topic and gave the reasons why.
>
> "original, entertaining, and/or downright brilliant".
>
> >david iain greig then said he has nothing to do with the TO web site.
>
>
> >So why is he moderating a talk origins server?
>
> entity.
>
> > Why bother to post
> >usenet rules on the TO website then?
>
> to be something originally written by (I suspect) Mark Isaak (MI). The
> only rules that matter here are those in the FAQ that's posted
> semi-monthly.
>
> >From my perspective, there are no regulars on T.O that are so
> >disruptive as to get a ban.
>
>
> >Save the bans for spammers and the
> >disruptive kids.
>
> >I will not apologize.
>
> not surprised.
>
> >It was david iain greig that cursed at wf3h
> >about something that was borderline off topic at best.
>
>
> >Furthermore, If
> >I have to kiss anyone's ass to speak my opinion they will be waiting a
> >very long time.
>
>
> >Go read the "death penalty II" thread for yourselves and decide. If I
> >did something other then disagree with david iain greig and state the
> >reasons why in my usual style, then, by all means, I will respect
> >everyone's decision.
>
> ----------------------------------
> oh lookie here.
>
> We have a netkop.
> ----------------------------------
>
> You mocked the moderator. Now, whether it was fair to ban you for that
> is, to use a well worn word, debatable. But imagine that you walked
> into a trial and mocked the judge. What do you think that reaction
> would be? This situation really isn't that different.
>
> >But if you find that all I did was come to wf3h's defense with what I
> >though was 'official talk origin rules',
>
> than debate the merits, or lack thereof, of wf3h's post, you mocked
> the moderator, waved rules he didn't write in his face, and told him
> how to do his job. Not exactly tactful.
>
> >then it is david iain greig
> >that should apologize, not me. I will not hold my breath.
>
> holding all the cards, so you'll have to be more rational in your
> approach if you want to post here in the future.
>
>
>
> >To those of you that were honest in this tread, my thanks. Some of you
> >I will genuinely miss.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll admit to "not tactful".
period.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a47450e6-e637-4f44...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
> The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more importantly, he
> does not know who I know.
And I'm sure that he doesn't care, either.
I know that I don't give a rat's ass.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d3ebeb63-c1e6-4444...@s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 18, 8:06ï¿œam, elder <el...@priest.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 5:12ï¿œpm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> <2b881456-7c80-489b-b267-3e7ff7a36...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, el
>>
>>> cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 12:19ï¿œpm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 11:25ï¿œam, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Feb 17, 10:08ï¿œam, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> ￜ"bannination is always preceded by warnings"?
>>
>> It is frightening that some people are actually allowed to teach the
>> young minds of today.
>
> Since I am reading your post you have obviously not been banned. Do
> you have trouble with reality in other areas?
>
He's a creationist. Do the math.
Inez
Except you're still posting. Quit whining and do what you want to
do.
el cid
The talk.origins website is not the usenet group talk.origins.
It was created long long after talk.origins.
DIG is not associated with the talk.origins website. DIG is
the moderator of the talk.origins usenet group and has a
prepared a bi-monthly FAQ that explains this. You should read
it. It contains the rules that matter for posting here. You
announced that you had not read it while complaining about
posting here. That was very stupid.
> Look, I have been associated with the Internet a very long time. These
> Mods are given way too much ability to arbitrarily ban people.
Perhaps but that is the nature of moderated newgroups. If you don't
like it, go blog.
> You
> know this. I know this. I have been a Forum Mod and I have been an
> IRCop-Admin. Why are you taking up for this guy. He was wrong. And
> there is no way to appeal his decision.
So read the FAQ like you should, as you would know you should
if you actually had learned anything from the experiences you
claim to have.
>
> He did not have a valid reason to ban me unless you consider
> disagreeing with him a valid reason. If so, then usenet has become
> nothing more then a kiddy chat server.
You announced you had not even read the rules for the
group while referencing a red herring. Read the FAQ.
Have I mentioned you ought to read the bi-monthly FAQ?
By the way, you might consider reading the FAQ that
DIG produced.
P.S. Read the talk.origins FAQ.
Sox
news:125573ce-cf86-4530...@b7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
In which case it would be useful to have a little reality attached to this
thread. There has thus far, IMO, been precious little of that.
It would be nice to know if Adman were, in fact, "banned", and for what
purpose. Reading through the entire thread to this point, I can summarize
what I know and what seems like reasonable guesses:
1. Not known, but it would appear Adman was (probably) banned and has been
posting only to this thread using some modest address shifting. That's what
he's stated and it would appear that for now he's following his own
self-imposed limitation on circumventing the "ban". If true, it would appear
all the comments along the line of "Adman can't be banned because I see his
posts" are a product of not paying attention.
2. It's not clear why he was banned. Reading the bi-monthly FAQ (yes, I did
read it), there does not appear to be any procedure or need to "ban" anyone
except possibly for blatant spam. And that, I would add, should be limited
to those using the newsgroup to post advertisements or repeated off-topic
posts. It does not appear Adman violated that provision. I disagree with
darn near everything Adman says, but that does not constitute spam. Nor is
it violation of the FAQ.
A side comment is that I would hope that would not be applied to anyone
whose opinions the moderator disagreed with -- that is strictly my personal
view, but one I feel very strongly about. I don't like censors, no matter
what their motivation.
3. There is, however, a mechanism -- primarily automated software -- that
limits cross-posting. The FAQ notes that is limited to a (rightfully) very
small handful of sites. Other than those specific sites, it is aimed only at
excessive cross-positing. Where "excessive" is defined by the FAQ as more
than four and presumably enforced by the software, supplemented with
occasional manual intervention by the moderator. I'm having trouble seeing
where excessive cross-posting would result in anyone being banned. If the
software and other tools and procedures are even moderately effective, that
problem should take care of itself and simply not post anything excessively
cross-posted. So what the heck is the problem and why on earth would someone
be "banned" if their multiple-cross posts are not getting onto TO anyway?
If the above is an accurate summary, then I would have to say this is the
only instance I'm aware of where I would side with Adman. Being banned for
disagreeing with the moderator is not enforcing Usenet etiquette. It is an
egregious abuse of authority.
My 2 cents.
Caranx latus
<snip>
Well put. I'll add another 2 cents to that.
Boikat
I have zero tollerance for arrogant twits, like you. Especially when
they are trollish *ignorant* and arrogant twits, again, like you, Mr.
Cambrian mammal = Trilobite.
Boikat
Erwin Moller
Madman/ASI/elder/etc,
Congratulation!
This must be a great happening for you!
Look at all the extra attention it gave you.
And now you can also claim all evil Darwinists(c) are suppressing your
opinion!
What's more: now you can change your nick *again*!
Just great!
Congratulations and enjoy your moment of joy, because I don't.
Erwin Moller
PS: In my opinion Madman shouldn't be banned at all. He is a coward, a
spammer, a liar (often caught redhanded), and generally behaving like a
6 year old, BUT he is *our* Madman. Each community should have one! ;-)
Let him break a few rules.
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Ron O
The posting volume probably goes down by at least 50% when adman isn't
posting because he is about the only incompetent creationist left that
is willing to put the anti-evolution claptrap forward for any type of
discussion.
Without someone stupid enough to actually advocate the junk there
isn't much to discuss. For a while we could dig up some old adman
posts and laugh at them, but it wouldn't be the same.
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
I just think there should be a limit on how many new threads any
individual can start. In fairness Madman seems to have backed off from
his post-n-run behavior and actually started some dialog.
Compare him to Timothy Sutter, who, to my knowledge only posts on one
thread. He replies to most posters (with the usual non-answers) and
even frequently to himself - though though he very obviously ignories
my questions about *his* "theory."
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> -- C.A.R. Hoare- Hide quoted text -
Sapient Fridge
writes
I would agree.
Adman can be annoying, especially when he repeatedly posts stuff he
*knows* has been thoroughly refuted, but as far as I can see he hasn't
committed any bannable offences.
I also suspect that if we banned people for simply being annoying then
the group would probably become very boring very quickly.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Ron O
Do you think that Sutter actually writes out the junk in his responses
or is there some type of computer program that strings gobblygoop
together in response to certain key words or phrases?
It often reads like some automaton that doesn't understand what is
being output, and there is sometimes a lot of output. Has anyone
found the output to amount to anything? It is probably as low grade
ore as trying to interpret fortune cookie phrases substituted for his
responses. It seems that a lot of people are fooling themselves and
reading things into what he is saying when he isn't saying much of
anything.
There was that poster, I think it was Red and Blue or something like
that, that would post fortune cookie type responses. When he stopped
posting there was a claim and a web page put up that he was a college
class project that was doing some type of analysis of web responses.
Ron Okimoto
raven1
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 12:46�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:53:28 -0800 (PST), elder <el...@priest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more
>> >importantly, he does not know who I know.
>>
>> Living in Brooklyn, one learns very quickly that if anyone issues a
>> veiled threat like "do you know who I am?" or "do you know who I
>> know?", the correct answer is always "nobody".
>
>Living in Brooklyn you would be taking a chance on getting shot as
>well.
In Brooklyn, if someone is going to shoot you, they're just going to
shoot you. "Do you know who I am?" or "Do you know who I know?" are
*always* the mark of a pretender.
>
Ilas
news:c5ded7a5-2d8c-4ab8...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> He can't really stop me. He will have to ban me each and every day
> with a new email and/or IP addy. If I am determined enough, maybe 4 or
> 5 times a day.
>
> But I will not do that. Why?
Because even you can't be that sad?
Ilas
news:a47450e6-e637-4f44...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> The amusing thing is this. The guy does not know me. But more
> importantly, he does not know who I know.
John Gotti? No? Ohh. Tony Soprano, then? No? Err, Paulie Walnuts? I know!
Is it Fat Tony? It is Fat Tony, isn't it? Oh, come on, it is him, isn't it?
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:12�pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2b881456-7c80-489b-b267-3e7ff7a36...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, el
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 12:19�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 11:25�am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 17, 10:08�am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:55�pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > >>news:739eaf0b-193e-4a45...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com..
> > > > > > >.
> >
> > > > > > > > You can ban adman, david iain greig . It shows the character of many
> > > > > > > > evolutionists. You were wrong.
> >
> > > > > > > > You can't stop the truth.
> >
> > > > > > > > GoodBye everyone.
> >
> > > > > > > Why would ASI be banned? He's not a troll. He doesn't threaten
> > > > > > > anyone. He's
> > > > > > > just passionate about his positions.
> >
> > > > > > RIght. He's a loudmouth idiot and a liar. Nothing T.O. regulars aren't
> > > > > > used to. I'm still not convinced DIG actually banned him, and
> > > > > > certainly not for those reasons.
> >
> > > > > > So please, DIG, what's going on? Enlighten us poor posters...
> >
> > > > > Why not look for yourself.http://www.ediacara.org/~to/procmailrc
> >
> > > > Thanks I didn't know that was possible.
> > > > Did you find this file using your T.O. secret decoder ring?
> >
> > > Drink more Ovaltine.
> > >http://www.ediacara.org/~to/
> >
> > > Beyond this, I recommend reverse link searches.
> >
> > Or, just read the frigging FAQ DIG posts every month, hiding this in
> > plain sight.
> >
> > DIG's bannination is always preceded by warnings to stop whatever
> > behavior leads to the ban. I have no reason to think he has ever banned
> > someone arbitrarily or without warning. Granted, I would rather people
> > were not banned, but given that they are, consistency is required, and
> > employed.- Hide quoted text -
> There was No warning. He just did not like the fact that I stood up to
> him.
You have not produced any evidence that you have been banned. The
moderation script shows that it sets a flag that makes it easier
for readers to ignore you. Why don't you produce evidence you are
banned?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <Xns9D24A6BD...@195.188.240.200>):
Nah. It's Pee Wee Herman. Madman met him in some theatre in Sarasota.
Mike Lyle
> Sox wrote:
[...]
>>
>> If the above is an accurate summary, then I would have to say this
>> is the only instance I'm aware of where I would side with Adman.
>> Being banned for disagreeing with the moderator is not enforcing
>> Usenet etiquette. It is an egregious abuse of authority.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>
> Well put. I'll add another 2 cents to that.
Ka-ching! Well said. 6c so far.
--
Mike.
jillery
> 1. Not known, but it would appear Adman was (probably) banned
It is known Adman was banned.
> and has been
> posting only to this thread using some modest address shifting. That's what
> he's stated and it would appear that for now he's following his own
> self-imposed limitation on circumventing the "ban". If true, it would appear
> all the comments along the line of "Adman can't be banned because I see his
> posts" are a product of not paying attention.
I can't speak for Mike, but the point of my comment is that, despite
its symbolic and attention-getting value, the ban isn't enforcable
from a strictly practical standpoint. I don't presume to tell ASI or
anybody else how to feel, but one practical POV is to accept such
things as a natural and expected cost of being a newsgroup
provocateur. It could even be considered a badge of honor. In any
case, it's pretty clear to me who isn't paying attention, but then you
get what you pay for.
> My 2 cents.
Here's your change.
John McKendry
DIG does not regularly participate in the newsgroup, nor does he have
to, because moderation is not based on content. Personally, I think
DIG banned you too hastily, or at least with inadequate explanation.
But he did tell you how to get yourself unbanned; send him email.
His moderator's email address is talk-origi...@ediacara.org,
as you could learn by reading the twice-monthly FAQ on Moderation
and Posting to t.o., posted to this newsgroup on the first and
fifteenth of every month.
But you, with your absolutely unerring instinct for being wrong,
seem to be doing your level best to seize and hold the moral low
ground. When you are banned from a newsgroup, rightly or not, the
worst thing you can do is to change your ID to circumvent the ban.
Exactly what you're doing, in other words. The next-worst thing
you can do is to refuse to understand what you did that led to
your getting banned. The next-next-worst is to ignore advice and
information that might possibly get you reinstated. Such as, for
instance, the information that the t.o. website does not govern
the newsgroup of the same name, and the advice that you should
read the newsgroup FAQ.
Like it or not, usenet moderators have the authority to make
ad-hoc decisions about the welfare of their newsgroups. That's
the ultimate rule of usenet moderation. Nobody here can change
that. If you want to be the champion of truth and justice that
you think you are, rather than the swaggering blowhard you have
been so far, if you want to speak truth to power, there is
only one way to do it: tell it to DIG. Seriously. Send email to
talk-origi...@ediacara.org and make your case. If I were
you, I would start by asking why you were banned and what you
have to do to get reinstated.
Nobody here can unban you. All you can accomplish by complaining
here is to feed your own resentment, and even that only until you
get caught evading the ban, and get yourself more forcefully and
definitively booted.
John
Boikat
> On Feb 18, 10:54�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> He can't really stop me. He will have to ban me each and every day
> with a new email and/or IP addy. If I am determined enough, maybe 4 or
> 5 times a day.
So, aside from being a troll, you'd also become a spammer. How
quaint. But aside from that, since you're too busy throwing a pity
party for yourself, it should be pointed out that moderators for any
News Group, or other forum format, has the right to ban trolls at
their discretion.
Do the math.
<snip remaining inane bluster>
Boikat
Frank J
I recall reading that in the '90s, before I became a regular, there
was a program not unlike that. I still think, though, that the
simplest explanation for Sutter is that he is a fast typer and thinks
with a crude version of the "Gish gallop" that allows him to keep
formulating sentenses in lieu of "drawing blanks" and "waiting fot the
coast to clear" like most creationists and trolls. His "cascade"
replies may be analogous to "taking a breath", but could be a
conscious effort to not make the replies too long (yeah, right).
>
> It often reads like some automaton that doesn't understand what is
> being output, and there is sometimes a lot of output. �Has anyone
> found the output to amount to anything? �It is probably as low grade
> ore as trying to interpret fortune cookie phrases substituted for his
> responses. �It seems that a lot of people are fooling themselves and
> reading things into what he is saying when he isn't saying much of
> anything.
One thing you might notice about me is that I never say that anyone
doesn't "understand" evolution (or science or logic) even if I'm 99%
sure that they don't. That's because they all have a huge reason
(saving the world from another Hitler, Columbine, etc.) to *sound*
like they don't "understand."
I don't have the time or interest to check if it is accurate, or
possibly copied verbatim from a reference, but in at least one post he
wrote a lot about chiral molecules (nonsuperimposable with their
mirror image, etc.) and even took the time to draw a molecular
structure. Whether he understands it or not the goal is to make
lurkers think that he knows his science (and very well might) and thus
"knows better" than the "Darwinists." Without reading the entire post,
though, I can bet the ranch and the dog that, accurate or not, it is
nothing but a worthless argument from personal incredulity, and offers
not the slightest hint of what would be a better explanation.
>
> There was that poster, I think it was Red and Blue or something like
> that, that would post fortune cookie type responses. �When he stopped
> posting there was a claim and a web page put up that he was a college
> class project that was doing some type of analysis of web responses.
I don't think that Sutter is a Loki or Poe if that's what you mean. I
checked his past posts and saw something about the "5 loaves." It was
vague enough that I couldn't tell if he took it literally or as an
allegory. I Ieft a brief reply (to another poster) about it on his
thread, but he ignored that one too. If I get the interest I might
keep pressing on it. As you know I prefer to ask questions about
*their* "theory" if only to show the double standards they employ. If
he is that incredulous about "Darwinism" how can he not be even *more*
incredulous that some first century magician multiplied loaves and
fish, turn water into wine, etc.
Say what you want about their "ignorance," but most of these people
are shrewd enough to know not to make that double standard so obvious.
Even Ray, who's most willing to "spill the beans."
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
Devils Advocaat
Sounds a little like when Cohen the Barbarian said in Terry
Pratchett's "Interesting Times"
<quote>
Rincewind's a weasel, but he's our weasel."
</quote>
Desertphile
As far as I can see, he hasn't been banned.
> I also suspect that if we banned people for simply being annoying then
> the group would probably become very boring very quickly.
--
Desertphile
<69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:24�pm, "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote:
> > 1. Not known, but it would appear Adman was (probably) banned
> It is known Adman was banned.
He was banned many months ago for violating the one and only rule
in talk.origins: evading killfiles. He ignored the ban.
> > and has been
> > posting only to this thread using some modest address shifting. That's what
> > he's stated and it would appear that for now he's following his own
> > self-imposed limitation on circumventing the "ban". If true, it would appear
> > all the comments along the line of "Adman can't be banned because I see his
> > posts" are a product of not paying attention.
>
> I can't speak for Mike, but the point of my comment is that, despite
> its symbolic and attention-getting value, the ban isn't enforcable
> from a strictly practical standpoint. I don't presume to tell ASI or
> anybody else how to feel, but one practical POV is to accept such
> things as a natural and expected cost of being a newsgroup
> provocateur. It could even be considered a badge of honor. In any
> case, it's pretty clear to me who isn't paying attention, but then you
> get what you pay for.
>
> > My 2 cents.
>
> Here's your change.
Desertphile
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> You have not produced any evidence that you have been banned. The
> moderation script shows that it sets a flag that makes it easier
> for readers to ignore you. Why don't you produce evidence you are
> banned?
I recant: adman *HAD* been banned, many months ago, for evading
killfiles. That ban was never enforced.
raven1
wrote:
Would you like some cheese with your whine?