Moderators seem biased [Moved to the Pit for continued inter-poster bickering]

Likewise you closet cocksucker.

Well, you really got me with THAT one. Are you going to take my lunch money now? :stuck_out_tongue: And my thanks…in fact I AM a snazzy dresser and a wonderful human being. Perhaps you are more perceptive than I thought, even if you do seem to still be stuck in the 2nd grade…

-XT

And to think I wasted time on laborious experiments in the laboratory.

I never said you weren’t a wonderful human being and a snazzy dresser. In fact I implied that you were. I called you a closet cocksucker, which you are. There is nothing wrong with being a cocksucker, it is the shameful closet part of it that you should abandon.

You are really fixated on that, aren’t you? :stuck_out_tongue: Even the vaguely homophobic-esque qualities of your 2nd grade insults are pretty amusing, really. If you are holding your breath for me to get riled up by something as silly as ‘closet cocksucker’, or if you are deluded enough to think that I think there is anything wrong with it, then you are sadly mistaken…something that you are probably pretty used to, considering your various positions on things.

Buck up though, lil’ cow poke! While some of your positions aren’t likely to find fertile ground here on the 'dope, a dislike of me will probably endear you to at least a large percentage of posters on this board! So, you have that at least…

-XT

Which means

Those rules say:

Which is why I said:

Which means these comments:

Aren’t appropriate here. Please start a thread in ATMB if you wish to complain about moderator actions. No warning issued.

Gfactor
Administrator

The problem with Wikipedia is not “this one incident”. It’s the fact that every article I have ever read, on which I have some expertise, I find errors. Every article, no exceptions. Sometimes small, but frequently outrageously wrong info. There are many people who report this very phenomenon. I’m far from alone. A google search easily finds you many examples. Keywords “Wikipedia Sucks” should get you started. You will find people from ones like me (some poster on a message board who’s credibility is unknown) all the way to college professors on their official university websites saying “this is why you are not allowed to cite Wikipedia in my class”, with examples from their area of expertise.

The problem is their “publishing model”. Anyone can edit it, at any time, no expertise or knowledge of the subject required. Then, they have no mechanism whereby an actual expert on the subject looks it over, and no mechanism for locking info that the expert approves as accurate. The vast majority of the time someone looks over an edit to check for vandalism, it’s someone who knows little or nothing on the subject, and so can’t recognized that it was edited from good info to bad.

The way I always explain Wikipedia quality is to think of it as a collection of high school to college level research papers that have not yet been graded for accuracy. Interesting reading, maybe. A good starting point for finding out what kind of info you are looking for from reliable sources. If you just need a quick overview of who Joe Blow from Kokomo was, but nothing at all matters if you get a bit of wrong info, then fine. But if the accuracy if the info matters at all, forget it. You can’t be sure that anything in the article was right. All you can really expect is that most of what’s in the article is reasonably close to reality, but you can’t be sure which info that is. Consequently, it’s utterly worthless as a cite on facts. You can’t be sure the fact you’re pointing to is accurate, and neither can the person you are pointing it out to.

Fair enough.

What I’m fixated on is the hypocrisy of your closetedness. It’s okay to be gay, just don’t be so two faced about it! Go on, admit it here, to your friends and family. You are conservative, you are gay and won’t go on living a lie.

And stop involving 2nd graders in your fantasies. That is just sick.

Well, I would suggest that you do not concede error when presented with facts that reasonably prove that you are incorrect but you concede facts that are incontrovertible (because, really what else can you do?).

For example, you will concede that a court opinion that says X in fact does say X. But you will not concede that a map on wikipedia (a site that is subject to at least some level of peer review) is not reliable because the people who created the map are obviously biased because the folks who drew the map refer Israel as Occupied Palestine (not on the map that was linked but in other places). I think most reasonable people should see the map and admit their error or at least admit that it provides enough evidence that it shifts the burden of proof.

I didn’t understand the whole starvation/malnutrition argument (presumably it is more pertinent than the Lebanese bombing argument. I personally think it was unwise to debate the humanitarian crisis on your terms and try to prove that Gaza was experiencing a humanitarian crisis as YOU would define it and not as the red cross, amnesty international and the UN would define it.

Frequently you are pointing out real errors but all too often you overplay the significance of an error or rhetorical flourish.

I don’t think the argument was that chocolate was a necessity (once again my wife seems to think it is) but I didn’t understand that argument either. The point is that chocolate is not a military item and the only reason to deny chocolate is to show that you can.

If the point is that Israel has the right to create unpleasant conditions among the general population in an effort to get them to throw off the shackles of hamas then (A) it doesn’t seem to be working, (B) it smacks of collective punishment, and © the only way I can see this being permissible is if there is a state of war (and i suppose this is where the “is Gaza occupied or not?” argument comes in). I would guess that a lot of Israelis feel that they are at war with Gaza, there has probably been more violence between Israel and Gaza than there has been between North and South Korea over the last half century but Israel’s ability to exert enough control over Gaza that they can build a wall around it leads me to believe this is at least somewhere between a war and occupation.

You seem to label a lot of things as differences of opinion. I don’t really understand the whole starvation debate but you tend to propose a lot of invalid metrics. For example, you did not think that there can be starvation without death, you didn’t think you can have a humanitarian crisis when you have positive birth rates (I think you might have backed down from this argument when I pointed out that North korea has a positive birth rate but then you immediately replaced it with an argument that claimed that Gaza was doing a lot better than North Korea so there is not humanitarian crisis and then you accused me of comparing North korea to gaza, I didn’t understand that).

You don’t really graciously concede their invalidity (or concede anything really) unless it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is part of what makes it so annoying to debate with you.

For example when you linked to the San Remo manual, I looked at it, and while its not bulletproof evidence that Israel was acting legally when it boarded the Maru, it provides enough evidence that I felt that the cries of “BUT THEY DID IT IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS” were off base, perhaps the blockade as a whole was illegal but noone seemed to provide any evidence that this was the case so I just accepted that Israel was engaged in a legal blockade and therefore they were not acting illegally by boarding a vessel that was going to try and run their blockade (however I will note that a blockade is an act of war. If the situation is reversed, you would nitpick it to death in an effort to de-legitimize what appears to be a relatively legitimate cite.

Well if he did call you on it and in the VERY NEXT POST, you admitted that you were engaging in hyperbole (or speaking idiomatically, which I could see in the case of the flattened statement but not in the “all lebanese are terrorists” statement) then I don’t think Capt would have gone on for several pages trying to get more out of you.

Hypocrisy would be if I openly bashed gays while being gay myself. Your homophobia or fixation on my sexual orientation is sort of creeping me out, to be honest, and it’s really not relevant one way or another to, well, anything.

If you are trying to be funny, it’s not working out for you. :stuck_out_tongue:

No doubt I’m also red headed, left handed and an Anabaptist to boot (beside being vertically challenged with a hunched back tossed in for good measure). What does it matter, though? How is it relevant in any way, even in a Pit thread?

Run, don’t walk to the nearest psychologist and seek aid. My suggestion would rely heavily on electro-shock treatments and large mallet shaped objects forcefully interposed with your head on a regular basis, but I’m not a doctor nor do I play one on the SD, so you might want to ask for a second opinion…

-XT

Not going to get drawn into any of the sillyness going on in this thread, but I figured I’d point this out:

The original copy of the map did indeed use that exact term instead of “Israel”. It was changed to something a bit more innocuous when it was first posted on Wikipedia, in order to hide the bias of those who created it. Then the title was further changed to make it seem less extreme.

Its not closed but your style of argument is pushing me towards a style of argument that makes it difficult to keep an open mind. I think I still maintain an open mind when I debate with folks like Malthus because I feel like we are debating the issue, but when I engage you I do not feel like I am debating an issue, I feel like I am debating YOU. I feel like the debate becomes a zero sum game.

I’ve already addressed why you are distorting and mischaracterizing but keep doing it if it makes you feel better, people can just read the original post and figure out if you are fairly characterizing my statement.

That is not what I was claiming at all. I was asking why moderators who see you get into the mud time after time with a large population of poster continue to recognize a problem but fail to recognize that you are always a part of the problem. I don’t see a thread about malthus or even alessan.

Yeah and when he clarified IN THE VERY NEXT POST, that should have been the end of it. When he said I was speaking idiomatically, did you feel that he was continuing to propose that Lebanon had literally been flattened? Of course not, it looked like you continued down that road because you wanted to beat up his credibility with it for the rest of the thread.

I went into an extensive series of links showing that Xtisme asked “what would you have them do” (or something like that) and I gave a list of several things i think they should have done and among them was “drop the blocakde”

Later on you claimed that I am denying that Israel has the right to defend itself (which is silly) and when i asked you to back that up, you linked to the post where I gave Xtisme a list of things I thought Israel should do. Then I pointed out that you can’t get what you heard from what I said, you moved on to “Israel isn’t going to get a second bite at the apple”

The second bite comment was in connection with suggestions by you that the folks on the Maru are obviously not humanitarian because thy were not looking to modify or soften the blockade but get rid of it altogether. I said that Israel fucked up by having such a severe blockade in the first place and fucked up even more by ignoring all suggestions for a more humanitarian blockade and now that there are 9 dead people Israel is not going to get to reconstruct a new blockade that will be more humane. I wasn’t saying that Israel doesn’t have the right to blockade or that they don’t have then right to defend themselves. Things have changed since then and Turkey might not force Israel into a corner but at the time Turkey was going to provide military escort to blockade runners and that would have broken the blockade. Israel could not fire on Turkish ships and Turkey did not seem interested in half measures, now it looks like they might be.

So are you admitting that the only reason you dragged this out was so that you could beat up Capt about his credibility for the rest of the thread? Does your logic above extend to your claim that the North of lebanon wasn’t even touched? OR is that OK because you actually meant the North of Lebanon wasn’t touched except for the places that were touched, how do you distinguish what Capt said from what you said?

This is a mischaracterization of what I said and why I said it. You really have no shame in pursuing your goals do you?

I notice you haven’t answered the question. What was the timeline. Explain why the timeline undermines my narrative?

First it wasn’t as dramatic an exaggeration as you imply (do I need to link to the map again?). He was making a point about why he changed his mind about Israel, he wasn’t arguing about the Lebanese war, it probably affected a lot of people’s opinion of Israel especially here in the US where there is a feeling that part of the reason terrorists exist is because of israel and when we see Israel doing stuff like that we ask ourselves why we are in bed with israel.

Thanks i will do that. Maybe that will allow me to engage in honest debate with pro-Israeli posters without getting bent out of shape.

Capt said it, was called on it, said he was not speaking literally and the debate continued for PAGES. Not because there was a disagreement about whether or not Lebanon had literally been flattened but because Finn wanted to use the use of the word flattened to beat Capt over the head despite the fact that Capt said he wasn’t being literal.

Here is what he said:

“A band of terrorists attacked you. In response, you flattened the whole of Lebanon.”

Did anyone think that Capt was being literal? That Israel had not left one stone atop another in the whole of Lebanon? Probably not. Was there any doubt after Capt said he didn’t mean it literally? Of course not. Then why did the conversation go on for pages? Shouldn’t pst 125 in that thread have clarified everything?

[quote]
Do you see why objecting to people using propaganda-like loaded terms and over-the-top hyperbole is not a “pointless divergence”?{/quote]

Objecting to it is fine, dragging it out for pages after they clarify that they weren’t speaking literally (and no reasonable person would have thought they were speaking literally) is disruptive and irrelevant and especially annoying because the only reason Fin was doing it (and Capt kept defending himself) was because Finn was making inferences about Capt’s credibility baased on a statement that was an OBVIOUS hyperbole.

The electro-shock and mallets didn’t work out well for you, I think I’ll give them a pass, and not the same kind of passes you keep making at 2nd graders. Don’t you have to register with the local police for that?

Thats a bit silly.

I had heard that Staightdope was the most intelligent board on the internet and part of the reason was that the quality of the moderators and their ability to keep out the bullshit (which consequently attracts more thoughtful posters) and promote productive debate and discussions.

Hrmmm. OK. So how many times can I call you disingenuous or say “that’s dishonest” before you are actually calling me a liar. I think one of the things that get me defensive is when Finn insinuates that I am a liar or have some sort of agenda without actually calling me a liar or anti-semite. It seems like a tactic that is not intended to further debates.

Where are the rules in great debates, I don’t see a sticky (there’s one about suggested rule changes but I don’t see one laying out all the rules)? I assume that no hijacks and no trolling are part of the rules.

What does that mean?

That is what I mean when I talk about Finn refusal to admit error. He requires a standard of proof that makes debating very difficult. This is not the only thing that makes him annoying but apparently he is free to be annoying and apparently I am free to put him on ignore. I suppose that any decent points he makes will be repeated by other pro-Israeli posters (he makes a few from time to time but its hardly worth the aggravation).