I did but I couldn’t see why your first interpretation was justified, and against that background what came after didn’t seem necessary.
Except that people keep misstating them, and makuing abusive attacks on me.
A lot of people believe the misstatements. Including you, I suspect.
People who really want to can always go and look up your objections to Randi. They aren’t hard to search for. I spent considerable time debating you and I’m more than happy for people to form their impression of your objections simply by going back and looking them up.
Jesus, what a bunch of fucking fascists. The guy has an opinion you don’t like about a fucking celebrity & you all go ape-shit. Just ban him & spare us your pseudo fair mindedness.
His opinion of the fucking celebrity is not so much a problem; his pathological inability to shut up about the celebrity in all situations whether appropriate or inappropriate, however, is. That said, I agree with you on your proposed solution.
You misspelt “insulting”.
…and herein lies the problem in microcosm. I don’t think that is a fair characterisation. You presumably do. So we can re-hash the whole thing, or…
I am completely and utterly happy for anyone interested to go back and read the relevant threads and to form their own impression as to what is or is not a fair characterisation of what I said and what went on in them. That would suit me just fine. That would be dandy. More than happy with that. I’ll provide links to anyone who wants them. I’d be proud to. I don’t have a thing to hide, mis-characterise, revise, mis-state or similar.
I’m sure the same is true of you, Peter. I’m sure you don’t want to hide, mis-characterise, revise, mis-state or similar anything that went on in those threads. So we don’t need anything more than to just refer to the threads themselves, do we?
Is there any mileage in permitting Peter to participate in a specific new thread about the integrity of Randi’s challenge process? Seems to me that it might help unbottle a bit of pressure, and maybe Peter has something fresh to say.
I think the bar would have to be set quite high for debating standards for all participants, so it remained on topic and didn’t descend into personal attacks or arguments about ‘what you really meant when you said this-and-such’ or ‘yes, but your logic means we should kill babies’ or whatever.
What harm could it do? A single thread in GD, all standard rules still apply, and it can just be locked off if it gets out of hand.
Unless the mods don’t mind the time and energy necessary to constantly be dousing the flames.
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
-George Santayana
Not only has he been warned not to discuss it. But then he’s warned about his previous warning. Then he has to ask again if he can discuss this in ATMB. Then look, another thread in ATMB about this subject. Anyone care to learn from repeating history here?
3/11/13 3:44a ET…
Maybe Uri Geller is a great white whale?
Well, I guess a GD thread would be okay, as long as we are allowed to Pit PM for his participation in it. If he truly avoids the Pit, there shouldn’t be a problem with people antagonizing him there. And, if he doesn’t and starts debating in the Pit thread, the GD thread can then be shut down.
I should have guessed that Fenris had already thought of my idea. He’s not unintelligent.
The mods are discussing this behind the scenes. Your opinions have all been heard, and are being considered.
I’m confused, is my cat allowed to maim other posters or not?
After discussion among the staff, it’s been decided that bringing up Randi in a pertinent thread, even in direct response to Peter Morris, does not run afoul of the “no goading” corollary to the rule. You may quote Peter’s posts and refer to Randi in your discussion of them. Peter however may not in response discuss Randi, because the onus is on him to abide by the rule.
However, this should not be abused. Don’t taunt Peter by saying something like “neener neener, I brought up Randi and now you can’t reply.” If Peter says he can’t respond to a point because of the restriction on him, don’t badger him about it.
We recognize that this rule puts Peter at a disadvantage in threads in which Randi may come up, but them’s the breaks. We considered extending to the rule to exclude him posting in threads on the paranormal in general, but decided not to do so. It would be preferable if Peter avoided such threads, but he’s free to do so as long as he abides by the restrictions.
The restriction about no baiting/no goading continues to apply in non-pertinent threads. We’re not going to warn someone for innocently mentioning Randi in a thread. However, as previously noted, most instances of this so far have been posters deliberately tweaking Peter on the subject. Don’t do this.
Believe it or not, we prefer not to ban posters if we can work out some way to avoid it. Peter Morris is generally a reasonable poster except on this single subject. The present rule has worked pretty well since it was instituted two years ago. Posters have been able to have discussions about Randi without them being derailed, and Peter has been able to post on other subjects. We would like to keep it that way. Please cooperate.
If people are “making abusive attacks on you,” then report them for the moderators to address. If people are misrepresenting you, you are free to address that in the Pit. (If you choose not to participate in the Pit, that’s your own affair.)
I and the other moderators have spent a great deal of time (way too much, really) reviewing your posts and discussing this matter. Our assessment is not based on what other people have said or “misstated” about your objections to Randi, but on what you yourself have posted.
Clarification request: can he bring up Randi when doing so? You know, just in the Pit?
And I’d like to add that the intent of the original restriction was to prevent threads from being hijacked when Peter Morris posted his anti-Randi tirades every time the man was mentioned. We didn’t (and don’t) want other posters to be inconvenienced by this response to Peter Morris’ behavior. So if Peter Morris causes further problems I know I’m not going to have much patience with him and I doubt the rest of the staff will either.
Moderator Warning
wedgehed, we expect that discussion be kept civil in ATMB. This kind of post is out of place here. This is an official warning. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
Moderator
By the letter of the law, only if they’re chipmunks. By my rough guesstimate of the spirit of the law, this may be extensible to other ground and arboreal squirrels. But I’m not a moderator, and this is not moderation advice.
More to the point, though, how do you keep your cat from maiming other posters? A cat wouldn’t care if you get banned… it’s a cat! Not visibly caring is what they do second best, after hacking up wet disgusting hairballs in high-traffic areas in the middle of the night.