Trotsky was right.

[onager]

The new DU3 seems to be on a downward spiral of massive suckage. And the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

That is all.

[laconicsax]

1. At least our group is still awesome...

Well as awesome as it can be in the post-trotsky Internets.

[GliderGuider]

2. Were you on alt.atheism on usenet in the mid-to-late 90s? Ever hear of BAAWA?

http://aplawrence.com/Personal/Philosophy/baawa.html

Tony Lawrence and Stix (PBUH) made it their glorious mission to afflict those who were already afflicted - those who showed the smallest religious tendency. It was awe-inspiring to watch, and to be a part of, as theistic blood ran in metaphorical rivers from the serrated edges of their tongues. As per example:

[pre]Stix Jan 26 1998, 3:00 am[/pre]

Nando Ronteltap posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Stix wrote:
>>Nando Ronteltap posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>Atheists. To believe there are no "gods," one must necessarily also lack
>>belief in the existence of "gods." Strong atheism - the belief that no
>>"god(s)" exist - is *additional* to "atheism," not a prerequisite.
>No Stix,

No Stix? *I'm* the strong atheist here, Nando. Surely I'd know that I started by lacking belief and progressed to believing in lack, wouldn't I?
> those who have no belief in any god, but have no judgement on
>whether or not gods exist, are not worth mentioning under the nomer
>atheism.

Says you. But that's *despite* being shown why you're wrong.
That you choose to ignore reasoning in favour of clinging to your incorrect pet definition is your problem.
> I prefer for words to actually be meaningful. You are giving
>two separate meanings for Atheism: 1 absence of belief in any god, 2
>belief that there aren't any gods.

No Nando, I'm giving the broad definition of "atheism" as "the lack of theism" which encompasses ALL those who don't believe in the existence of a "god," and I'm adding qualifying adjectives to express why someone lacks belief in the existence of a "god." Atheism states THAT someone lacks theism; the qualifying adjectives state WHY.
> I reject the first, and accept the last.

Yes but you're a penis, Nando.
> I don't know what you're talking about anyway, because it says
>so in the faq that atheism is characterized by a deliberate absence,
>not just absence.

Deliberate ABSENCE you dope. Get it? Absence of belief in the existence of "god(s)."
Christ, the way you carry on like a pork chop about this, anyone would think it was brain surgery.

Here, see if you can wrap your deluded little brain around it if I draw parallels to theism:

The title "theist" states THAT someone believes in the existence of a "god" but it doesn't state WHY, nor what "flavour" of theist they are.

Similarly, the title "atheist" states THAT someone lacks theism, but doesn't state WHY, nor what "flavour" of atheist they are.

For the reasons why, we stick adjectives in front of the base word; ie, Christian theist, muslim theist, pantheist, deist etc etc.

Ditto for atheism. Strong, weak, implicit, explicit, apathetic, disinterested, critical......are you getting the picture yet?

Accepting your delusion and excluding those who lack belief but don't believe in lack from the title "atheist" would be the same as only classifying those who believe in the existence of the christian deity as theists - and claiming that muslims et al aren't theists. Ridiculous.

If you believe a "god" exists, you're a theist.
If you don't, you're an atheist.

All atheists have one thing in common - they're not theists, hence the name. But they differ widely in why they're atheists, they differ widely in how much they care about the god-concept, they differ widely in conclusions they've drawn about the god-concept etc.

>>What *is* your major malfunction, Nando? If he's only surmising but still
>>doesn't believe a "god" exists, how the hell does that affect his lack of
>>belief in the existence of "god?" So yes, he can still be an atheist.
>>If, however, someone *believes* that maybe a particular "god" did it, he
>>doesn't lack belief in them, does he?
>But you can build an entire religion based merely on the possibility
>of some god existing hoping that it is true.

You're telling me?? That's *exactly* what you and all your death-cult buddies have done. Shit, most if not all of you bleaters don't even know what it is you believe exists, nor what it is you spend so much time arguing for the existence of.

Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Sometimes I really miss the good old days. But it's never too late to honour those who have gone before.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. Yea, he was

I used to spend quite a bit of time in the big forums (GD, LBN, etc), but it's become increasingly uncomfortable because if I see something offensive, I just can't be sure that a jury will actually take care of it.

Still, I'm having a grand time in the smaller groups where the majority rules shit doesn't reign supreme.

[laconicsax]

5. Yeah, the groups are much better than the forums.

Excepting for H&M, of course.

I never bothered with GD much on DU2 because I could tell that there was just a thin veneer keeping that place from looking absolutely vile. Now with that Moderator-veneer gone, GD has been shown to be what it is.

[progressoid]

6. Yeah,

I am getting that uneasy, 'I've come to the wrong party' feeling.

[Kolesar]

7. An alternate power structure of arbitrary "hosts" has been created

The environment forum has turned into a joke. Any casual visitor would be turned off. The nuclear industry is well represented there and they nuke the threads on principle. Hence, discussion ends, and an earnest visitor does not learn anything.

[PassingFair]

8. Especially "hosts" with an AGENDA.

That they are not even bothering to disguise.

[darkstar3]

9. I'm kicking this to the top, because in light of a certain H&M thread I think it's important.

I feel that we as a group are being made unwelcome, in violation of the SOP, in the Religion forum. And not just by a couple of hot-headed theist posters, but also by the actions (or lack thereof) of the hosts.

Is there a second?

[mr blur]

10. Seconded.

OK, I caused a fuss there yesterday and got the alert I expected and I can't really fault the jury. But I guess I gave in to the provocation and the situation should have been handled before it got to that point.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

11. Yes

The only threads locked by any Religion hosts in the Religion group are those that are uncomfortable to theists. It's pretty clear that nothing's going to be done about it.

[laconicsax]

12. The Religion hosts have a harder job than we do.

Because of the contentious nature of the group and clear divide, they don't have the ability to act as quickly or definitively as we do.

We tend to recognize the same issues at about the same time and quickly come to an agreement about what to do. The partisanship of some of the hosts in Religion will likely prevent a uniform acknowledgement that certain problems even exist let alone what to do about them.

It also doesn't make their job any easier when they don't share a consistent concept of what the group is for.

[darkstar3]

13. My problem is that, even when there is contention between hosts, SOME things should be crystal clear

[laconicsax]

14. Key word: "should"

[skepticscott]

15. Just had more proof of it

One of my posts was alerted on by someone claiming that calling somene's post a "hysterical rant" was "sexist". And the jury, of course, bought it, and one of them said explicitly "definitely sexist"

Sadly, lack of intelligence and clear thinking is not the exusive province of conservatives...

[FiveGoodMen]

16. That is pathetic.

[darkstar3]

17. And on a site where sexism is now nearly passe...

yeah, it wasn't about sexism.

[onager]

18. I saw that.

Couldn't believe it. If it's the one I think, I clicked "Show" and read your post. (I was not on the Jury. Most of my juries have been boring - either obvious trolls or over-sensitive types in GD.)

Maybe next time you'll have better luck if you use ALL CAPS. Cough...

I don't see how the Jury got sexism out of that. As a male, I gladly admit to occasionally getting hysterical. Usually when I see Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. At least, if "overcome with raging desire to punch in face" is hysterical.

[skepticscott]

19. If it's who I suspect

any number of her posts were also alerted on, and juries voted to keep every single one, while every post responding to her that got alerted on was hidden. Amazing.

Apparently some uber-feminist thought that the connect between "hysterical" and "hysterectomy" made the former blatantly sexist.

[darkstar3]

20. I was an alerter on one of her posts.

And I was on a jury for another. The results were disgusting. Guess which one I was?

At Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:52 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sounds to me like the person he's responding to needs to be judged. Self-Defense your honor!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There is nothing wrong with the post the person who commented on this persons post can not determine if this poster is a christian or not the poster what defending their comments.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Obviously the post is heated but so are many of the posts in this thread. The poster he/she was replying to called the poster out on their religion. So given the context I would let it go.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: hard to single out this one post when half the thread is just one big argument.....
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[skepticscott]

23. Here was the prize comment

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Direct dirty blow at another poster. He is dismissive of her, contemptuous. Personal attack. Definitely sexist. This isn't the place for petulant gossipy attacks on other posters. It's against the rules as I understand them to slime other posters.

And that was in response to:

A Certain Unnamed Person: I'm not going to justify that assinine comment with a response...

Darkstar3: Have you ever heard of Poe's Law?

Me (now hidden): Apparently, neither have the juries. every one of this person's posts has been left up, and even mild criticism of her hysterical rants is being hidden.

Truly amazing.

[laconicsax]

24. That one is a gem.

:shakesheadindisbelief:

[cleanhippie]

21. Yep, the poster that went on a rant and made the threat of going "street" on us did NOT get her post

hidden. I alerted on TWO of them, and the jury let is stand, with comments from several of the posters that I DESERVED it! What. The. Fuck.

Trotsky was right.


And for the record, I strongly objected to some of the names on the host list before they were anointed because I felt that they would be unable to be objective, and it turns out I was right all along.

[onager]

22. Yes, you were right.

And I wish I had objected more strongly myself. Especially to...uh, that might be a call-out, so I'll just say a certain Host Gone Wild. But it seemed to be a done deal at the time, so I didn't see much use.

It looks like some of the hosts have free reign, and have just been given their heads. Unfortunately, not on a platter.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. If it's the host I think you're referring to

I suspect she has become a serial alerter on posts that disagree with her narrow worldview. She uses that particular tool with deadly precision.

[onager]

26. Hey, we're psychic.

Your pronoun gave the whole thing away.

And with that host, we get TWO hosts for the price of one! What a deal, eh?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

27. Damn right, what a deal!

Someone call Randi - I think we just won his million dollars!

[laconicsax]

28. Personally, I don't understand why that poster wasn't PPR'd a while ago...

but that's a completely different topic.

[darkstar3]

29. Nobody minds the ramblings

from the diseased mind of a coked-out 14 year-old if they agree with the majority.

And if that's true, you can imagine how little people here are moved by the poster you're talking about.

[skepticscott]

30. I'm glad I read this

while it was still up. I'm sure it too will be alerted on before you know it.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Reminds me of this little diddy by Emily D

MUCH madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

[skepticscott]

31. And now, apparently, my post #15 has been alerted on

by, gee..wonder who??

Fortunately, this time the jury showed some sense (but only barely, the vote was 3-3). One of the jurors, who wished to remain anonymous, was kind enough to share this with me:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

defensive whining about a sexist post he made.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 11, 2012, 11:14 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "Hysterical" has long since ceased to have gender-specific connotations, and bitching about a jury call isn't against the rules anyway. Stop trying to harass people with idiotic alerts.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Some alerters here need to get over it. The PC crowd is impoverishing the discourse on DU with their whining through the abuse of the Alert system. Leave it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm voting to hide this because if you have a problem with a jury decision, the discussion is really supposed to be taking place in Help

I'm guessing THIS one will also be alerted on, so enjoy it while it's here!

[laconicsax]

32. Juror #6 doesn't seem to understand their job.

[Lost-in-FL]

37. That was dumb… Just imagine if you would have posted this picture.

[PassingFair]

34. I'm calling it quits for a while.

I think this place is sinking fast, and it distresses me.

I may come into this group on occasion, but I don't like
the way the juries and the host situation is playing out.

Any group can be attacked now.

I expect that the lounge will implode next.

Trotsky WAS right.

[onager]

35. We'll miss you! So I hope...

You do poke your head into this group now and then.

Even though I'm not sure how much I will be around, myself. I'm not using DU as much as I used to, and I think that trend will continue.

[PassingFair]

36. Thanks Onager...

I think I just need a self-imposed time-out.