David B. is a sanctimonious, condescending, pompous ass.

The BBQ Pit
1

Several days ago, after ignoring multiple posts from me because of some undefined unreasonableness, David posts:

Oooooh, goody! I get a second chance to meet David’s standards of reasonableness. And the fact that he’s hoping he won’t regret this shows him to be SO open-minded about all this. And he’s willing to respond to my (implied one & only) “legitimate” question! How nice of him! But wait, what about the other questions I’ve asked?

  1. How are your views about Christmas different than a fundamentalist Christian’s view towards Halloween? (At that point, David wasn’t even responding to posts asking if he did observe Halloween. He does. He considers it just a bunch of kids dressing up in costumes. But to a judge who considers Santa Claus a lark, he says “Fuck You”)
  2. Would attempts to work with the school in advance of the program have helped to make them more inclusive?

Who the hell is he to get to decide what is and what is not a legitimate question? And why should it take some “special” dispensation for him to be willing to exchange posts with me? And what about his accusations that I’m just here to parrot a friend of mine (who he’s also conveniently ignoring)? I guess the fact that I wasn’t invited to this thread bashing the Christian society that tramples the rights of atheists & Jews by David, but rather was invited by Melin (also out in Coventry because her repeated posts showing the inconsistency of David’s position) necessitates this special act of tolerance by David.

Oh, but it’s Christmas. A time to eschew skepticism, and cynicism, and see the innocence and good in one another. To look at the world with the eyes of a child and re-experience wonder & magic. So I posted back in good faith, and even answered his accusations with honesty & candor, and waited for David to respond. But, alas, it is not to be. Something in my posts has offended his Lord Moderator, and I am once again I find myself relegated to the wilds of Coventry, never to be listened to by him again. Oh, the horror.

He talks about straw man arguments, and yet exploits the fact that he is Jewish as his reason for not participating in the Christmas season. But he’s not willing to share any of his Jewish heritage with his son’s pre-school class. (Apparently, it’s the schools responsibility, not his. How convenient.) Not his Jewish faith, for he has little, or none, and we’ve all agreed that religion is out-of-place in a publicly funded pre-school, but he is apparently unwilling to share his Jewish culture. So, he objects to his son’s pre-school’s way of handling the holidays, but is unwilling to do anything except complain to change that. Is it really the exclusion of Jewish traditions, then, that galls him so and triggered this rant? No, I believe that the real reason is much simpler than that. It is the fact that erstwhile normal, reliable, sound-thinking adults voluntarily suspend rational thought and enter a world of wonder, whimsy, and fantasy and encourage their children to do likewise that is an anathema to this hard-hearted skeptic.

You know, we all have our little pseudo-religions (mine is logical consistency), complete with demons, windmills, and thou-shalt-nots. David’s pseudo-religion is skepticism, and he styles himself as it’s high priest. But is he really all that skeptical about everything? Or just of the things that foolish people believe like psychic hot-lines, alternative medicine, Christianity (especially as practiced by fundamentalists), and creationism? Which, of course, after several posters explained their view that creationism & evolution weren’t mutually exclusive, he decided to define in his terms:

just as he felt he had the authority to decide what symbols of Christmas were and were not of Christian origin in the “Christmas in Schools” thread.
But what about evolution? Does that receive some special exclusion in that it doesn’t have meet the same strict standards to which he holds other things? In one thread, he challenges:

Isn’t that the OPPOSITE of how skeptics are supposed to work? Nothing is accepted until completely proven? But evolution is proven, you might say, pointing to the emergence of more & more antibiotic-resistant bacteria. And I agree that the natural selection portion of Darwin’s theories have been proven and are fact. But the origin of the species portion (that divergence of species is the ultimate outcome of natural selection) has not been proven as fact. True, we’ve only been watching for a little over a hundred years, but how many new species have emerged? Has anyone proven that a series of small mutations explains the differences between humans & chimps, and their common ancestor? No, there are gaps for which we don’t have fossil records for the in-between organisms. But when Phaedrus asks:

David answers:

Instead of applauding someone expressing a healthy skepticism for a scientific tenet with some weak underpinnings, David B. flames the guy. Now Phaedrus may not be anyone’s idea of a model poster, but isn’t a moderator supposed to encourage discussion & work to create an environment in which posters are encouraged to post reasonably? Does David do this? No, he first adopts a patronizing attitude in pointing out all the flaws in what anyone has to say that is wrong (= not in agreement with David). If this doesn’t work, he simply labels the poster as unreasonable & banishes them to Coventry. And if they keep coming back despite his disdain for them & gain support from other posters, he then whines about their not coming to discuss issues (read: learn & adopt David’s viewpoint) but of trying to win arguments! Who’s deluding who here?

And this person has been chosen to act as a moderator. As such, he’s supposed to facilitate discussions, not figuratively eliminate people with opposing viewpoints. Can he participate in the debates as a poster? Absolutely. Does he have the responsibility to try to make everyone express themselves reasonably? Yes. Should he call on all posters to eliminate ad hominem attacks? Yes. Yet he not only participates in such attacks, he initiates them.

And then wonders why some of us consider him a pompous bag of wind.

Sue from El Paso

Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.

2

Your comments re: David notwithstanding (FYI- I’m with you on this), I’m not convinced that all “alternative medicines” are necessarily foolish. My own personal experience is this: my mother was an ER RN for 30 years, my father was a surgical supplies salesman for 40 years, and despite all the “traditional medicine” indoctrination I’ve witnessed and believed in over the years, I have to say it’s not ALL about cutting, medicating, or irradiating. I’m no poster child for the chiropractic or accupuncture schools, but I can tell you this - “traditional” medicine said that the reason for my weak/numb/tingling hands, arms, and feet was due to either the onset of Muscular Distrophy or a brain tumor. Guess again! The scary symptoms were a result of simple (multiple) pinched nerves in my neck and back, which chiropractic has COMPLETELY resolved, to my utter satisfaction and amazement.

I’m not going to say that “alternative” medicine is THE answer, but it’s definitely ONE of them, IMHO.

As for David - well, you know, he’s a jerk.

StoryTyler
“Not everybody does it, but everybody should.”
I Spy Ty.

3

I should add that, even though my mother thinks “alternative medicine” is a bunch of hooey, she has discovered in the last two or three years that (“mysterious” and unrecognized as it is by traditional medical types), acupuncture greatly relieves her arthritis and bursitis pain, and she recommends it to everyone.

Interestingly enough, she still consideres chiropractic treatment as some form of voo-doo rip-off. I suppose it can be, but not in my experience…

Just sign me “Chiropractic faithful for life.”

And yeah, David’s still a jerk, but whaddya gonna do?

4

Come on now. Be honest. Open up & tell us how you really feel.

“Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you.”----Jung

5

Just to clarify, since after reading Tyler’s post, I’ll agree one segment of mine might be misinterpreted:

I meant foolish, as deemed by David. I am a Christian, and in several posts, I have quite supportive of alternative medical practices in some situations, and with cooperation with your doc. In fact, this was the topic at hand several months ago, when I was first treated to “debate” David-style.

I don’t believe in psychic hot-lines, unless you’re talking about as in investment…

Sue from El Paso

Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.

6

I don’t know if either of you know my long running battle with David over evolution. It is a long sad story. I am not defending David but he is human, aren’t we all? Does he act badly at times? Yes, don’t we all? Are our faults similar to his? Some of us, yes, others, no. The point is that this board would be a lot better off without some of his actions. I feel that it is one of the “downsides” to the SDMB. I haven’t participated in other message boards and after this I don’t think I will. From what I have heard they are WAY worse, so for now I’ll take the good with the bad. David’s actions as a moderator have been laudable, this statement is made by a person who he poked fun at for sharng about the loss of his Mother, Sister, and only child (daughter) in the midst of a discussion about evolution.

As far as his use of the word “fuck” in the OP, I feel he was upset about a matter that concerned his little boy and I have been known to use worse language than that when it came to my child, even to the point of threatening physical violence. Was it the proper forum for such language? No, but it was understandable to me.

Further, David is human, prone to err as we all are. A mistake that some of us make, myself included, is to think that just because a moderator of a board has a position of authority he is (or should be) above reproach morally or ethically. He is not. He is human. I understand where you are coming from Majormd and all of your points are valid, for me I wil take the good with the bad regarding David Bloomberg, after all, like me, he IS human.

Yours,

Phaedrus

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

7

I think David, being a minority, feels like he’s swimming against a very strong current, namely Christianity.

It must be hard to be Jewish (or agnostic, etc.) especially at Christmas time. It’s especially maddening when the damn Christians won’t be convinced that they are a bunch of mindless idiots. :slight_smile: Or worse, they don’t care!

So don’t be angry, Sue. Smile! Be glad that you aren’t spending your life banging your head against the wall. After a while, it must get old.

For David B. I wish the new year will bring you the gift of serenity.

8

Sue, a further note: When I posted, I hadn’t read the last part of your post in the OP here, so I guess you do know about my battle with David, it was a long one, I guess most posters of the Great Debates section probably knew about it and yeah you are right about everything you said in reference to him, in fact I couln’t have said better myself.

Still in all, the last post stands as far as my opinion of him and his behavior.

And I"M NOT A MODEL POSTER?!?!?!? Whaddya mean? :wink:

Sue, I hope you recognize that during 99% of the Flat Earth thread and ALL posts I posted at during that time I adopted a persona to prevent myself from caring about the people I met here and caring too much about them. I live a very solitary existence and have had so much loss in my life lately I didn’t want to get too close. I just wanted to make my points, not have anyone respect or like me, and get the hell out of here. In some sense even that didn’t work, I have grown fond of more than a few here. Perhaps you think my ruse a poor excuse (many do) but it was my reason and I am entitled to MY reasons for MY actions, I’ll take the consequences for them whatever they may be.

You are thoughtful and articulate, I hope David doesn’t scare you away. We need more posters like you to keep him honest.

Nice to make your acquaintance!
Yours,

Phaedrus :slight_smile:

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

9

PunditLisa: Yes, you are right. It must be hard being an agnostic with atheistic leanings during a time of year when multitudes of people are buying gifts for one another and having a celebration that YOU by your own actions and beliefs have separated yourself from ALL the festivities. People all over Christendom are loving each other and Jesus, their Lord and Saviour. It must hurt and gall them at the same time. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian should love the atheists, after all Christ died for them too. It is not the people who are well that need a doctor but those who are sick.

Yours,

Phaedrus

For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.

10

David was very nice to me in the one interaction that I had with him in the thread which Majormd is referring to, so I have no direct complaint about how he treats me (maybe he was being kind to a usual-lurker-turning-poster?). I thought it was kind of funny that he would answer me when I asked the same question Melin asked, but then he argued that her question wasn’t reasonable. I thought it was – that’s why I asked it, too.

I have noticed the tendency that is the subject of the OP, though. David seems to have no tolerance for anyone who doesn’t accept what he says as gospel. His treatment of Majormd and Melin on the Christmas in the Schools thread was just childish – and I confess I laughed when Melin taunted him with it. The reasons he gave for why he was sending the two of them “to Coventry” don’t really seem to match up with what I have read. It seems more likely that he just didn’t like somebody pointing out inconsistencies in what he was saying, and so decided to stop talking to them.

But it is an emotional issue, and perhaps he has let the emotions get the better of him. As someone else pointed out, he was reacting to his little boy having been hurt – maybe that brought out the little boy in him, too.

Goldie

11

Hmmm. What happened to “patronizing weasel?”

12

You rang?

13

It’s all very simple, do not bring up heated, controversial topics, make emotional statements on the Great Debate board, as David B has done, and then not debate. Don’t ask hard question and expect soft answers.

If you cannot stand the heat of discussion, then don’t bring up topics to discuss and then refuse to discuss them.

Y2K, BFD

14

Don’t worry, mjollnir, having read and responded to the thread in question – where David has blythely announced who he will or will not deign to respond to – I can assure you that David’s status as the reigning patronizing weasel of the Board remains unassailed.

Jodi

Fiat Justitia

15

Mjollnir

Nickrz

::standing up and applauding:: Bravo, Nickrz!

-Melin
(still chuckling)

16

Gee, it’s been a long time since anyone’s called ME a “sanctimonious, condescending, pompous ass.”

And I have a higher horse than David B. does, too . . .

17

Yeah, and I’m a mere fucking ignorant twat. (Maybe Krispy is right… maybe we SHOULD get paid for this)

18

You know Jill, it might not be the best thing for you to add that to the letterhead of your business stationery…

19

I hate to add a “me too”, but…

Nick… Good comeback. Made me snort beer. :slight_smile:

20

Well, Dr. F., JillGat could add the initials to her stationery – JillGat, F.I.T. – y’know, sorta like “Ph.D.” It would sure sound impressive, until someone asked what they stood for. And then she could make something up: Finite Intelligence Tester? Freedom Insurrection Terrorist? Hmmm . . . needs work.