Well, Poptech, at least you’ve stuck around to defend your arguments, which is more than most CT crackpots do.
The oversized text, though… well, you can but I wouldn’t.
I would have figured the presence of the word crackpot to be sufficient for comprehension. It’s not exactly vague or positive.
Complaints about moderation go in About This Message Board. I’ll move this for you from the Pit.
Gfactor
Administrator
Yeah, but I haven’t slept in… damn.
Oh, we’ve come full-circle back to: “In a previous discussion here a moderator stated lies and created fraudulent charges against me to censor my thread to this section of the forums.”
You may not “support any conspiracy theory,” but, at least in the realm of message board posting, you act like a conspiracy theorist: offering controversial and adverse criticism of governmental policy and action via a wall of links and neglecting to make a lucid, articulate, reasoned argument for your position, which you don’t even state. Typically, the links are one-sided (surely you can find counter-arguments?), allegedly supporting the OP. This is eerily similar to many “9/11 was an inside job” “arguments” I’ve encountered from conspiracy theorists. In regards to this thread, your claims remain unsubstantiated; classical CT behavior.
You’re setting yourself up for another cryptic pitting, you know?
After a while the handcuffs and ladies lingerie stop giving that thrill. You gotta get your kicks where you can, ya know?
Moderator tomndebb fabricated lies about what I stated and my motives and when I refuted all of them he just repeated them and used the lies and fraudulent claims to move my thread.
He insisted I provided evidence to support the my claim that people believed no peer-reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming and when I did irrefutably by linking to U.S. Senator John Kerry’s own words he fabricated a new magical criteria that “scientists must be against my position for it to be a valid argument”!
Someone please explain how an argument can be invalid if a standing U.S. Senator’s own words is a source I am arguing against?
It’s the age-old question: Does the SDMB attract bad mods? Or do good mods turn bad under the influence of the SDMB?
I think all of Poptech’s questions have been answered in depth in the thread and in private messages, which makes this thread kind of academic.
If by “fabricated lies” you mean “eviscerated your stacked strawmen with surgical precision”, I would agree. Otherwise, not so much. And the moving thread thing? Mods get to do that.
I know that I was a much better person before I started to mod here. Can’t speak for tomndebb. Although, I have to say that he’s gonna keep me out of heaven(whatever that is) because I caused him to moderate on this board. I feel so guilty. :rolleyes:
Wait so criticizing potential future government policy is conspiratorial? Are you serious? My argument was explicit and I stated my position. I provided links to what I was arguing against when requested.
The 911 conspiracy theory analogy is ironic as I have written explicitly against these theories,
What strawman would that be?
No they haven’t. You have further stated new lies about me insulting other posters. Please name who I insulted and when.
Well, so far, you’ve said that tomndebb and Marley23 have posted lies, which isn’t very nice.
In just the current thread? Most of the following comments were not modded as personal insults but they’re nonetheless derogatory of individual posters or of the group that was arguing with you:
No they were factual statements. So Marley why are you ignoring similar comments made by the other posters towards me?
That IMHO is why this guy is continuing to fail.
The problem here is that this is really a different issue. It is OK to criticize future government policy, the problem is that instead of concentrating on that he is posting sources that attack the science itself. Sources that are wrong or misleading and that do not shy away from directly saying that the scientists are involved in a conspiracy.
The sad thing was that I did agree that Kerry was wrong there, there are indeed papers that are skeptical of AGW, we just disagree on how many and how relevant they are. But the fact is this: criticizing future government action does not mean that one should necessary dump the science or the scientists.
For example: I believe that bio fuels from stuff that could be used for food are really a horrible idea. Many Cap and trade plans offered are looking to be unjust if implemented. So there are many reasons why one can oppose future government policies, attempting to discredit the science is really an unnecessary and reckless step on the way to convince others…
Specially in a board that even attracts scientists like jshore!