So he gets away with violating the spirit of the restriction after violating the letter of the restriction.
Excuse me for being cynical, but this restriction seems a tad empty and impotent.
On the contrary, I think it’s perfectly fair. Violating the letter of the law is a clear warnable offense. The spirit? That’s more nebulous and I can see PM getting a freebie on that. However, now that Colibri has expressly stated that yes, even violating the spirit of the law is actionable, PM doesn’t get to use ignorance of that law by pretending to be a “who, me? Mention Randi? Why I never!” wide-eyed innocent.
A solid call by Colibri IMHO. Thanks (from a pure onlooker to these threads, though one who enjoys them greatly as I’m a big Randi fan).
The following was included in the rule regarding Peter given by Marley23:
- the staff has decided that Peter Morris is no longer allowed to discuss James Randi*
This is what Peter said in the GQ thread:
“On one occasion he sued someone for claiming that his act includes tricks taken from the back of cereal packets. The issue there was his skill as a performer. It was not about whether his tricks are real or fake.”
That “someone” is James Randi. Calling a specific person “someone” instead of using his name is still discussing that person.
Then Peter posted the following as a cite:
Then Peter posted this:
"he attacks not only my abilities but also my originality. That is defamation aside from any paranormal issue. After all, spoon bending is my professional trademark. "
The “he” there is James Randi.
Okay, but it will be easier if you answer my first question in my last post (after “WTF?”).
If we post information that regards Randi with the intent of refuting something Peter has claimed, isn’t a mod going to consider that engaging him in direct argument?
OK, but I would also like you to understand that Peter should already realize that not naming a person while still mentioning them is not okay.
(That post is not concerning Randi, but rather an insult to me in a not-pit thread where he tries to hide the insult by not naming me).
I’m just wondering how many ‘warnings’ there are going to be with this.
I’ve already indicated that you may do so. Peter may not respond to anything you post concerning Randi, so he’s at a disadvantage. For now, just don’t quote his posts or respond to them directly.
I admit that this is not an ideal solution, and I can understand your frustration. We are currently discussing in the mod loop if we should modify or clarify the rule in some way. Please be patient.
Again, I don’t know how to interpret “respond to them directly” in context to what else you’ve written, but since the mods are discussing this, I’ll be patient as requested.
I think we can work with this. Let’s see how it goes. I appreciate the mod’s efforts.
x-ray vision, look at the positives. PM can’t say diddly about Randi even obliquely. We can talk about Randi as long as we don’t engage him directly with the information when he is on the same thread. So this will have others talking Randi around him, and let’s hope it doesn’t come off as goading because in the past the very mention of Randi around him has triggered seismographs. But even if it does trigger a response from him, and they don’t see it as goading, I don’t think they will be wanting to spend that much more time on one particular poster for much longer without doing something more drastic.
What I mean is that you could say something like, “With respect to [some issue about Geller that Peter has mentioned] Randi has convincingly refuted it with the following evidence…”
I realize this is awkward and as I said we are discussing alternatives.
And while we’re at it, JDT wasn’t banned for his posts, but because he sent an e-mail virus to all of the mods (and I think to several other posters, too).
My suggestion would just be to ban PM from posting in any thread about Randi or anyone he’s refuted. Nor can he respond to any tangents about the subject. If he can’t bring it up, there’s nothing for the rest of us to refute, so we don’t have to worry about honest refutations being mistaken for goading.
Except maybe the one Pit thread Fenris suggested. Not a GD thread, though, because we only need one thread for PM to post his theories. Besides, you can debate in the Pit; it’s just that the rest of us can also get our our aggression at the stupidity of PM’s ideas. It’s win-win, really.
I’m easy, that would work for me too, besides, I need to work on my skills on how to insult someone properly.
Note, when I say anyone that Randi has refuted, I basically mean the subject of charlatans and charlatanism in general. So there’s no room for him to claim he didn’t know that Randi had refuted the guy.
Just for clarification, mods, am I permitted to respond to this thread?
There have been a lot of wildly inaccurate statements made about me, and a general misunderstanding of the Randi situation.
The Randi situation? Like the Kyser Soze situation?
You are allowed to dispute our decision to place this restriction on you. What you are not allowed to do is to open any general debate about “the Randi situation.”
Seethis post by Marley23 in the thread in which the original rule was stated.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Yes. I’ll make this clear ahead of time, though: ATMB is not Great Debates and we’re not going to do a pro and con on James Randi and JREF in that forum. You’re allowed to argue against our decision if you see fit.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, my prediction is PM will not drop this.
I’m not seeing the problem. The first part of Colibri’s rule concerns what PM may not do. The second concerns what other posters may not do and is thusly:
If PM says something that can be rebutted by reference to Randi and another poster does so then:
1/ that isn’t a breach of the first sentence since the other poster is merely making a justified rebuttal, not goading.
2/ that isn’t a breach of the second sentence, because that is only a restriction on posting about Randi where he is not pertinent to the subject of the thread, which clearly he would be if mention of him comprised a relevant rebuttal.
I don’t think you’ve thought your objection through.
PM never posts in the pit. Your idea has merit 
But the trouble is, the Randi situation, and the restriction are so closely interwined that it’s impossible for me to protest about the latter, without mentioning the former.
Basically, I want to say “Randi does [X,Y, and Z], and I should be allowed to post about it, because [ long list of reasons]”
My hands are kind of tied here. I basically dare not protest.
At least give me permission to state, briefly, my objections to Randi. Provided that we don’t argue my objections, but the ban.
I don’t think you’ve read all the posts in this thread.
See post 45. We can’t “ask” Peter about Randi. In that same post I interpret that as "the rest of us can’t mention Randi in a rebuttal to whatever claim about Geller Peter has made. "
In post 46 Colibri says that I “should be able to post the information without directly engaging Peter Morris.”
So, a justified response including mentioning Randi can be made as long as it doesn’t directly engage Peter Morris. Do you see why I was questioning that? If I rebut what someone says, I am engaging him in conversation That is reiterated in post 50 where I can’t see how the second sentence doesn’t contradict the first.
In post 60, Colibri affirms that my understanding in post 56 is correct.
In post 68 Colibri clarifies that we can rebut Peter with a mention of Randi, but we can’t quote Peter or use his name, however, we can rebut Peter’s claims as long as we don’t make it obvious that it is Peter’s claims or comments that are being refuted. Colibri acknowledges that this is awkward and that the mods are discussing alternatives and I acknowledge that I am satisfied with this.
Sorry, no. You’ve already stated your objections to Randi at enormous length in various threads. Nothing productive would be gained by restating them here.