posted
That's a tough line to draw, Rakeesh. Seems like the standards you suggest would end up banning too much. I could certainly see them applying to intelligent design, or something like steven's claims about Dr. Price and raw food.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I'm talking about people who go for patterns, like Ron. People who do things like say, "She said this, and that's why it's a serious issue," and talk about it at great length, and insinuate that people who don't agree are lazy, ineffective Americans and that's why we've got a terrorist sympathizing President who might be a Mooslim on our hands.
And then, when it gets pointed out, "No, she didn't say that, not at all," and it gets pointed out over and over again, he's just gone. Steven doesn't do that like Ron does. Where is he? I haven't seen him around. Where's the talk about Intelligent Design that crops up around Hatrack with regularity?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:or something like steven's claims about Dr. Price and raw food.
Actually since steven has admitted that this was all an elaborate attempt to troll hatrack, that's not actually a good example of something we wouldn't want banned.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Wow, really??
Well, I think that steven actually believed the Dr. Price stuff, but he has said that his purpose in joining the community and the aim of his posts on it was to destroy it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think that steven actually believed the Dr. Price stuff...
Really? That wasn't my impression at all. I'm not feeling ambitious enough to find the relevant posts though.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron may be frustrating, but he is entertaining. It's not like we are having any real problem with countering his claims...I personally do not feel he should be banned.
Rakeesh...if you feel so strongly about Ron, maybe a more moderate solution is to not engage him.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel strongly about him now, I'll admit. Well, in Internet terms at least. And not responding to him would be more moderate, it's true. Wouldn't get him gone from here, though.* Hence my wondering aloud if the repeated insulting liar might be shooed off.
*Yes, yes, if everyone did it, that'd work. Wishes were fishes we'd never go hungry.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly disagree with you that Ron's behavior -- annoying though it is -- is a bannable offense.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I doubt it, it is possible that we are helping Ron accept something he would rather not accept.
Of all the discussion boards on the net, this one is one of the more civilized and well rounded I've run into. Which is why I always come back to it.
If he didn't get some value out of trying (and failing) to prove something to us, he wouldn't come back.
Ban people who spam or constantly swear or...I don't know, something less entertaining. Ron's not that bad.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really am not sure if this behavior, if it were to continue once it was warned - if it merits a warning - would be a bannable offense. I think it should be, obviously, at this point, but I'm not sure if it is. I really am asking for the question to be considered, not by us the posters but by active moderation, something we didn't always have `round here.
Yeah, Ron's not as bad as constant profanity. I'm not saying Ron's the worst. But it's not just the dishonesty that is offensive, it's the dishonesty when it comes coupled to the 'and if you disagree, you're a lazy American who is abusing your franchise-and by the way, Jesus loves me'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this about banning and moderation now? Yes, we regularly ban people for being cretinous idiots in discussion, otherwise your forum becomes a hive of hilarious nonsense that drives the serious posters away to talk about it disdainfully in other forums ('god, Hatrack, I'm so glad I haven't looked at that place in years') and your forum becomes ridiculous ('god, Hatrack.'). It works out fantastically. Bans are a good thing. It's nothing big. It's just telling a person to take a break for a week or so, shutting off their posting when they've obviously taken it too far or if they're not going to follow instructions. Hardly the end of the world. Most of the time, you don't have to ban at all, you just stand up and tell someone that "you need to stop doing this." and "you need to no longer involve yourself in discussions about this topic, because you derail it hopelessly every time."
Or, in Ron's case, let me give you a paraphrased and custom-fit example: Dear Ron. Your attempts at argumentation are absolute literary wreckage, and it often takes the thread weeks to find the way out. Every time you do this, you stumble around, make amply disprovable repeat claims, then end up modifying the particulars of your original argument so that the most egregious lies and mistruths are smoothed away. You retreat at full speed from the items that can't be supported, while simultaneously claiming that your argument hasn't changed. And then, apparently to fill the space left by the original falsehoods, you suggest that the game is actually worse than you originally claimed, and blame any other disagreeing poster for simply being unable to take you, God, and/or your argument 'realistically' or with a truly 'open mind.' This is Calvinball of the worst sort, and we need not play.
You don't need to be stabbed with the hanging Sword of Moderatorclese just yet, but here's what you absolutely need to do: quit explaining to the forum writ large or other individuals or nebulous hazy conceptualizations in your head like 'liberals' or 'atheists' how their disagreement with you — no matter how well articulated — is the result of their fallow, shameful inability to be reasonable at all, and explaining at length how other people would see the obvious truth of your statements if they weren't ignorant gullible closed-minded sheep (with more and more regularly, insisting on making the issue of disagreement with you religious; sometimes even going so far as to state that your detractors are harming the work of God and being tempted by devilish influences.).
I mean stuff like this:
quote:Anyone who claims there is not still an issue is being dishonest.
quote:They were dismissed irrationally, with the primary arguments being insult and ridicule, that only showed an unwillingness to deal with the issues responsibly. The evidence is still there, and no one has convincingly refuted any of it.
quote:This is just the way you deal with my arguments and cited evidences when you can answer them in no other way but to engage in character assassination. May God be the witness between us of who is telling the truth and who is a liar and being deceptive and duplicitous. I confidently await God's judgment.
Stop it. You shouldn't need a moderator to tell you not to pull this crap. Even if Hatrack has humorously let you get away with it, to its own peril, for years.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, your pretended cleverness is pretense only. Your judgmental attempts to mischaracterize my position only display what is in your own heart. It should be obvious to any objective reader that I care a lot more about truth and honesty and fairness than you do.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not hearing anything from you addressing the ENTIRE conversation of bout obama's birthplace, Ron. Yknow, that thing we've been talking about and linking to?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, as I have made it clear before, it extremely offends me for anyone to dare to call me dishonest.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, as I have made it clear before, it extremely offends me for anyone to dare to call me dishonest.
That's pretty telling, isn't it? Insults only actually bother us if we already believe that might be accurate. What if I started saying you were prone to running Bernie Madoff style scams? You'd stare blankly at me, because you know the idea is silly.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have repeatedly spread lies that are easily correctable by a brief amount of research. Ceasing that activity would probably help.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's more, the lies you've been spreading have been researched *here* and shown to be lies. Recently in response to direct challenges from you when you suggested it hadnt been done.
You've earned being called dishonest, Ron. It's a reputation you've worked hard to build up over years. You're still building it now by not addressing the thing you were lying about-what was actually said by Ms. Obama regarding the President's birthplace. She didn't say what you claim she did-we've shown you she didn't. But *still* you persist in claiming integrity, and even more strangely outrage that someone would 'dare' impugn it.
Your credibility is almost nil. The daring thing to do would be to suggest you were being thorough and honest. It would be daring because it's so obviously absurd.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, your pretended cleverness is pretense only. Your judgmental attempts to mischaracterize my position only display what is in your own heart. It should be obvious to any objective reader that I care a lot more about truth and honesty and fairness than you do.
quote:quit explaining to the forum writ large or other individuals or nebulous hazy conceptualizations in your head like 'liberals' or 'atheists' how their disagreement with you — no matter how well articulated — is the result of their fallow, shameful inability to be reasonable at all, and explaining at length how other people would see the obvious truth of your statements if they weren't ignorant gullible closed-minded sheep.
A helpful hint: if you want to insist that my cleverness is pretense only and a mischaracterization of your position only, don't respond to it with a perfect, validating example of that characterization. Like, for instance, retreating at full speed and blaming my disagreement for simply being unable to think 'objectively.' Hey, remember this?
quote: You retreat at full speed from the items that can't be supported, while simultaneously claiming that your argument hasn't changed. And then, apparently to fill the space left by the original falsehoods, you suggest that the game is actually worse than you originally claimed, and blame any other disagreeing poster for simply being unable to take you, God, and/or your argument 'realistically' or with a truly 'open mind.'
It's like I just put my fist out and held it in place, and you rammed your face full-speed into it repeatedly while telling me I've never landed a punch.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I did back up what I said by providing a link to a video you could watch and hear for yourself when Obama's grandmother said "Barack nate dhalani." Maybe she changed her story later, after someone told her what the issues were. But she did say what she said on that video. How can you deny it and claim to be honest?
I always back up what I say, and merely claiming you have refuted me or disproven what I said in the past does not make it so. In truth, people who continually prove themselves to be dishonest should not matter if they call me dishonest.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Since providing the link there have been multiple criticisms of the video, suggesting that it doesn't in fact show her saying what you say she's saying. You hear a voice attributed to her, but you don't actually see her speak the words. Other parts of the video (about being "present" at the birth) refer to the tape-recorded interviews which have already been explained. No one has been able to find any other sources corroborating the claim that she said what the video claims she is saying, suggesting that the video may be a fabrication.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, I did back up what I said by providing a link to a video you could watch and hear for yourself when Obama's grandmother said "Barack nate dhalani."
No, you can't. You can hear a voice saying it. There's no actual point at which you can 'watch and hear' her saying that for yourself. As you've had pointed out to you already.
I would even bet you don't actually have a video where you can watch her saying that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you. Almost everything you say is unutterably silly. And you are also wrong (as usual, too). There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you hold everyone to standards you A) make up on the fly, B) do not even come remotely close to meeting yourself and C) are ridiculous.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf_, your points A, B, and C are false. But you know you are making false charges anyway, don't you?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I would like to point out that our discussions regarding China never turn into this and haven't for years.
IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, as I rarely involve myself in most anything you do here but most certainly lurk more than post, please actually consider what I am about to iterate.
If you were to view your last one hundred or so posts, what do you think the ratio would be of posts meant to insult others versus posts without discouraging statements?
If my guess as to what the answer would be is correct, how do you see this as a positive use of your time?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you. Almost everything you say is unutterably silly. And you are also wrong (as usual, too). There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
That's not true, you can't. There is no point in the video where those words are synced with footage of her speaking.
Your fellow birther, McRae, noted this in the email Samp quoted -- along with the face that "Barack nate dhalani" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Furthermore, there's no evidence in the video of who was interviewing her, what questions they asked, or where the full, unedited record of the interview might be found. This means, as I pointed out earlier, that she very well could've been responding to a question about her son, Barack Sr.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you know you are making false charges anyway, don't you?
To what end Ron? What would be the point if true? What would I gain?
Seriously, how can you maintain your perfect sanctity and honesty in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, brought to you by so many different people with varied ideologies?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
No, there's not. Link me a video where you see and hear Obama's grandmother say that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
The video is 1:59 long.
At 0:35 you hear this phrase (or something like it) with a family photo displayed on the screen and the subtitle "Barack is a son of this village."
At 0:43 that clip is repeated, again with the photo and subtitle.
At 1:00 the clip is repeated a third time. Again with the photo and subtitle, but also with the text "Barack was born in this village" overlayed on it.
There are no further sound clips after this halfway point in the video.
All three clips are repeats of an isolated snippet from what was apparently a TV broadcast. You never actually see her say the words nor is any context provided for those remarks to determine whether she was speaking about the President or his father or if any other statements that she made at the time clarified her meaning. Finally this video seems to be the only source which claims that these words describe a literal birth event.
Ron, as a sign of good faith here, would you acknowledge that we do not in fact 'see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."' in this video?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, seriously, there is no point in the video where you both see and hear her say it. It is also a clip without context so you have no assurance whatsoever that she is talking about the Obama who is president.
It also makes some legally untrue claims at the end, so there is no reason to trust the video as evidence!
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I advanced the question of moderation not because Ron believes in this binds or skirts belief, but because he routinely calls people liars when they challenge him on it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any other forum I take part in would moderate Ron Lambert frequently for being so detrimental to debate. I guess that is part of why I think this place is so perversely captivating, but it is at the expense of your forum being a train wreck whenever people like him come by. Did nobody really get their fill with Malanthrop?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For the record, I advanced the question of moderation not because Ron believes in this binds or skirts belief, but because he routinely calls people liars when they challenge him on it.
posted
I personnally find them entertaining in thier varied attempts to inflame others, and am confused by those who get caught up in it.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I personnally find them entertaining in thier varied attempts to inflame others, and am confused by those who get caught up in it.
I don't understand. What's confusing? Who is?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not right now, but other instances over my time here when the trolls get fed by the indignation of usually calm and controlled people. Wether they have the moniker of Clive Candy, Malanthrop or Ron Lambert I find thier useless intent a bit funny.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Did nobody really get their fill with Malanthrop?
nor with Reshpeckobiggle, Bean Counter, or any of the other slags before them. Neutrally I can say this place is habituated Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Not right now, but other instances over my time here when the trolls get fed by the indignation of usually calm and controlled people. Wether they have the moniker of Clive Candy, Malanthrop or Ron Lambert I find thier useless intent a bit funny.
Thank you. To be more clear, I meant to say (I was on my mobile), "...Ron believes in this birther business or skirts belief..." and to go on to say that even when it's proven to be lies, discounting the possibility of completely unprovable arch conspiracy, will continue to outright state people who challenge him on it are themselves dishonest, lying, and lazy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Not right now, but other instances over my time here when the trolls get fed by the indignation of usually calm and controlled people. Wether they have the moniker of Clive Candy, Malanthrop or Ron Lambert I find thier useless intent a bit funny.
What?
They are trolls, useless and trying so hard to be controversial but pointless all the same.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Thank you. To be more clear, I meant to say (I was on my mobile), "...Ron believes in this birther business or skirts belief..." and to go on to say that even when it's proven to be lies, discounting the possibility of completely unprovable arch conspiracy, will continue to outright state people who challenge him on it are themselves dishonest, lying, and lazy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK Sam, I shouldn't have resorted to use of a blatant insult. This is not typical of the way that I debate people, but you have long passed the point where I respect you at all as an intelligent debater.
As you can see, I was making a pun on your insulting remark that something was over capaxinfiniti's head. In all honesty, your intellect is very limited, and your self-discipline is almost non-existant. It is obvious that you compensate for your intellectual shortcomings with insult and derision. This is what you ALWAYS do. This is a true and accurate description of your attempts at debate.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
