|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 8, 2010 13:13:42 GMT
At the beginning of this thread I announced that Michael was banned for irrational and time-wasting posts. I have now deleted his posts for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jan 11, 2010 10:19:13 GMT
You have just insinuated that I am a deliberate liar. I did not such thing. You are putting words in my mouth. All I said is that it is an amazing coincidence that I was banned at just the very time that: 1) the person who wanted me to be banned got the power to do so 2) the person who got power to do so was actively engaging in banning at the time it happened. All I have said is that this is an amazing bit of timing. What I mean by this is: It was an amazing bit of timing. That is all. Anything else you read into that is purely your own thoughts and not mine. If anyone else chooses to come to that same conclusion based on the timing, that is also their business.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2010 11:23:10 GMT
Hazelireland has been disingenuous once too often. From now on he IS banned, and I take full responsibility for that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2010 11:43:43 GMT
I have deleted two posts by a spammer called "lxj" from the "Elections 2009" thread. I have also deleted a minor exchange between Guillaume and Michael G about it, since the deletion of the posts makes it unclear what they are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2010 12:13:46 GMT
Let me clarify the difference between the sort of debate I mean to encourage on this forum, and the sort I mean to discourage. The sort I mean to discourage I call "sophist". This is based on the assumption that the other discussants are to be seen as opponents rather than fellow-searchers, and what matters is not getting closer to the truth but winning the debate by any means necessary (obfuscation, making the other person look foolish by ridiculing him, demanding that the other person provide evidence for assertions while at the same time refusing to do so yourself, refusing to spell out your assumptions or make clarifications, personal abuse and insults). Ultimately it rests on the view that there is no such thing as objective truth and everything comes down to power relations. This mindset is not confined to atheists; I am sorry to say that I know of many Catholics and Christians who engage in it, because in their hearts they see God as arbitrary Power and by identifying with Him they aspire to arbitrary Power themselves. The second I call Socratic. This starts from the assumption that none of us know everything, that we are all to some degree ignorant, that this ignorance can be diminished by the use of reason and that the aim of discussion is to approach closer to the truth even if we continue to disagree. Again this is not something that is specifically Christian or Catholic; I have more respect for an honest atheist who has the humility to acknowledge that truth exists and that he is ignorant in some respects (even if we disagree on the question of whether one of those truths is the existence of God) than I have for the sort of bigots who infest the Ignis Ardens forum, for example.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2010 12:51:34 GMT
I have removed william Hause's looney and incoherent posts in "Truth or superstition?" (Michael G had already banned him.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2010 14:56:20 GMT
I added Hazel to the "banned" list, which he wasn't on before. - That is what I mean by "banned". Hazel seems to have found some way round this, so any more posts he makes will be deleted individually, starting with the post to which this is a reply.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2010 16:51:24 GMT
I have been deleting some looney posts, mostly by royalosiodhchain, from old threads. I have also deleted a few insulting and supercilious atheist posts while retaining others which showed some semblance of argument.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 12, 2010 23:27:38 GMT
I haven't banned Hazelireland yet, though I am seriously considering it because he regularly resorts to sophistry (doesn't answer straight questions, won't respond to questions about his own views) and has repeatedly called me a liar. Michael G may have banned him or he may have wandered off. Just for the record, I didn't. I haven't banned a member for months.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 13, 2010 14:30:18 GMT
Hibernicus, I have to say, the banning of hazelireland seems quite harsh to me.
I know you are the administrator and the last word lies with yourself, but this particular case does appear to be a personal issue with you.
Many of his contributions were quite insightful in my opinion and it has not gone unnoticed that both of you did not see eye to eye on many issues and ended up with each of you being as bad as the other.
This is just my tuppence worth for the record. I sincerely hope you take this observation in the spirit in which it is intended.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jan 14, 2010 15:50:06 GMT
Delighted to join in this forum actively again now that a few of our guests are not in a position to abuse their welcome.
Keep up the good work, Hib.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2010 15:59:53 GMT
Hazelireland stuck up another post, which I have now deleted, in which he predicted that having posts deleted on the basis of one person's subjective judgement of what was interesting would do more to destroy the forum than he ever could. how kind of him to admit that that was what he was trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 14, 2010 16:01:38 GMT
Hi askel.
Its good to have you back and I look forward to your contributions.
It may be worth your while, if you get a chance, to review some of the posts that were made in your absence to see what has been happening on the site, altough some have now been deleted.
Although some of the trolls and their "contributions" have been removed, its my personal opinion that hazelireland did not fall into the same category as michael, saint stephen, redmond et al.
I only make this observation in reply to your previous post as it seems to convey the message that all that have been banned were banned for the same or similar reasons and all their transgressions comparable. Its quite a sweeping statement to be frank.
I just wish to state, for my part, that I feel this was not the case.
However, this is only my opinion and everyone is, of course, entitled to express theirs also.
Once again, welcome back.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2010 16:10:27 GMT
OK Harris - I see where you are coming from and you have expressed yourself courteously and reasonably. I didn't ban hazel because I disagree with him but because he showed over and over again that he was not interested in having a reasoned debate. He refused to clarify his position when he was asked; he evaded direct questions while repeatedly calling me a liar. I admit that I have sometimes descended to his level (as when I engaged in the affectation of pretending that he was a sockpuppet created by jokers from Opus Dei to make atheists look ridiculous) but that was because when trying to conduct a discussion with someone who resorts to namecalling and evasion I get frustrated easily. I agree that some of hazel's posts were interesting and had substance. That is why I have not deleted them en bloc as I did with ezigboututu but intend to go through them over time and keep the ones that are any good. The format of this board makes it easy for a wrecker to reduce a discussion to a shouting match. That is what Royal/Gabriel etc did, what ezigboututu did, and what hazel did and that is why they are no longer with us. Since Hazel and I appear to rub each other the wrong way, I would suggest thaat if he has anything reasonable to say he should say it on the numerous atheist discussion boards where I am sure he will be hospitably received, instead of disrupting this one. I hope this explanation is satisfactory; you were perfectly entitled to ask for one.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2010 16:11:23 GMT
Thanks for the compliment, Askel. The more reasonable posters we have, the livelier the board will be.
|
|