Arrington Effectively Banned at The Skeptical Zone (and Then Reinstated)

_{Barry Arrington

November 26, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It seems like every day one of the denizens of The Skeptical Zone whines about what they perceive to be heavy handed moderation tactics here at UD. They say no one is ever banned at The Skeptical Zone and everyone is free to say whatever they like. I decided to test that and signed up to comment at The Skeptical Zone. All of my comments – every single one of them – were deleted. They effectively banned me after my very first attempt to post there. Here is what KN said to justify the deletion:

I am more than willing to be a bully in order to prevent a bully from taking over a space that I enjoy using for philosophical discussions. I’m not claiming any moral high ground here — I’ll leave that to Lizzie — but rather a “my boat ain’t the rutting town hall” approach. Any one here have a problem with that? Good. I didn’t think so.

I’ll let that speak for itself. I also assume that will be the end of the “everyone is so much freer to speak at The Skeptical Zone” blithering.

UPDATE: As the comments below show, Neil Rickert dug my comments out of the trash and re-posted them. First he pretended they had been “just moved” and were always visible. (See comment 1) When that subterfuge was no longer tenable he fessed up and admitted they had been trashed and retrieved.

SECOND UPDATE: Elizabeth Liddle has given me posting privileges at TSZ. I will contemplate on whether to use them.

Comments

You guys might want to know where that quote comes from (and how it widely used): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell's_rule It amounts to saying that absolute belief makes evidence irrelevant, so ought to be avoidedwd400_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

#20: Did barry really post that stuff ?Graham2_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

This is their blurb: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken." It's a quote from Oliver Cromwell. He included it in a letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. It's deeply ironic that they metaphorically speak this to IDists while consistently refusing to examine their own beliefs using this axiom. I believe they call that 'hypocrisy.'Barb_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

The hilarious thing is that, in science, unless a person is content to be a mere laboratory drudge with scant interest in the development of theory (nothing wrong with that, per se), it's sure to be as counter-productive to be too sceptical as it is to be insufficiently so. After all, ultimately, it's only rigorously-applied and narrowly-dedicated common sense, isn't it?.Axel_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

That baffled me, too, nullasalus. And then to resume on their their turf and on their terms.... I could never enjoy KN's endless, exquisite sophistries, but to my shame, I got to really enjoy watching the journeyman Elizabeth's predictable sophistries driving ultra smart people such as Kairosfocus, VJT, and a few others almost round the twist. I'm not sure, actually, if VJT did argue with her, but plenty of top-liners did. What's happened to Joe, lately? His style could be hilariously bellicose.Axel_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

The very name of that forum, “The Skeptical Zone” is synonymous with elitism.
I love their obnoxious little site blurb. What was it again? 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.'? Fantastic, for two reasons. 1, a pack of largely atheists of the crazier 'gnu' variety invoking Christ's name. 2, because that title says it all. 'Please, PLEASE, think YOU are mistaken. Us? ... Well no, we're right. It's everyone else who should consider they are wrong.'nullasalus_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Self-appointed skeptics are like the Singularitarians. They are a bunch of elitists. Elitists can never admit to being wrong. So why even debate an elitist? The very name of that forum, "The Skeptical Zone" is synonymous with elitism. The question is, who will be skeptical of the skeptics? The question leads to an infinite regress.Mapou_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

'The irony of a post-modernist, bloviating sophist calling anyone a pseudo-intellectual or anti-intellectual is delicious.' !!!! Reminded again of the utter vacuity (literally) of String Theory and the Multiworlds conjecture (please, be sensible, does it really rise to the level of a theory?), I found myself once again seeing a hilarious similarity between those atheist luminaries who conceived them, and the haplessly incompetent 'wizards and enchanters' of the court of Belshazzar, as illustrated so notably on the occasion of the Writing on the Wall at Belshazzar's feast. Also of the 'wizards and enchanters' known as the prophets of Baal, so roundly exposed by Elijah for the impostors they were. It would be fun to see them dancing wildly for hours on end, cutting themselves with stones, etc, calling on Lord Dirt or Lord Darwin. But seeing Michael Behe dispatching them all to the hereafter, might perhaps, be a tad excessive, I think.Axel_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

While I actually think Neil is a more reasonable commenter, let me just ask... Why in the world is 'Posting at The Skeptical Zone' even an issue? Why are you guys even doing it? I regarded the initial banning of TSZ people on the grounds that they denied fundamental laws of thought and logic as a great move. Clearly, that is not a group of people with whom productive conversation is really possible. But I never understood why, right after deciding that, a number of UD people decided it was a good idea to go to their site to continue debating with them. Is UD really that desperate for critics? You have to scrape not just the bottom of the barrel, but the bottom of that particular barrel? Let the parasites go hungry without their host. Consider stopping this TSZ interaction - find other people to engage in discourse with. It's not as if there's a lack of ID critics out there - you really have to pick the group for whom this is all extraordinarily personal, and has been for nearly a decade? Better yet, as the (to my knowledge) most major ID site around, THIS is how time is best spent?nullasalus_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Are you claiming that is the objective meaning of the word “banned”? If so, can you back that up?
In the context of blogging and web sites that allow comments, the consensus meaning of "banned" is "blocked from commenting". There is little objectivity when it comes to blogging, obviously!Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox: Awesome! I hadn't been over to check out the thread, so thanks for the link. And thank, KN, for the kind words! It is mutual. :)Eric Anderson_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

The irony of a post-modernist, bloviating sophist calling anyone a pseudo-intellectual or anti-intellectual is delicious.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Eric,
I will, of course, choose to believe that KN intended an unwritten parenthetical to his statement along the lines of: (“except for, of course, that Anderson guy. He was a pleasure to debate with.”)! :)
He did!Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

To me the disappointing thing about this episode is this: KN: “I refuse to engage with the pseudo-intellectuals (in fact anti-intellectuals) at Uncommon Descent.” I thought KN was an interesting and worthy debater her at UD, and that some mutual learning and respect resulted. I am sorry to see that it did not work both ways. I will, of course, choose to believe that KN intended an unwritten parenthetical to his statement along the lines of: ("except for, of course, that Anderson guy. He was a pleasure to debate with.")! :)Eric Anderson_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Being banned means being blocked from commenting, William.
Are you claiming that is the objective meaning of the word "banned"? If so, can you back that up?William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Since “banning” means that one cannot even visit the place they have been banned from, nobody has ever been banned from UD. They have only had their posting privileges suspended for the time being.
Being banned means being blocked from commenting, William. Who is complaining about being blocked from viewing UD? Nobody that I can see. And I don't consider it a privilege to be permitted to post comments on a web site. It is the web site that should be grateful that people take the time and trouble to comment. I'm very grateful that you, Barry and some others have made the effort to comment at The Skeptical Zone.Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

In my rabidly agnostic, anti-Catholic youth, I would have responded in exactly the same way. IMMEDIATELY, deleting Barry's posts, declaiming, 'How dare they post here after banning us from their website!' If you have my kind of dark sense of humour, when you've been there and done that, somehow seeing your juvenile folly replicated by others adds a certain piquancy to this otherwise drab and sorry affair. Cheered me up no end.Axel_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Since "banning" means that one cannot even visit the place they have been banned from, nobody has ever been banned from UD. They have only had their posting privileges suspended for the time being. See how that works, Neil? Alan?William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Dirt-worshipping is, as dirt-worshipping does. Figs do not grow on thorns.Axel_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Lies and evasions are instinctive with atheist polemicists, and since they are no more than an aggregation of molecules in their own eyes, with no objective moral code, why would some overriding faculty for censoring such instincts be allowed to come into play?Axel_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Apparently, to Neil, clicking the “delete” button is not indicative of a post having been deleted; it’s only been “deleted” if you have to do a restore from backup to get the post back.
Neil is correct, William. Authors, of whom there are more than 60 at TSZ, have the ability to move posts to trash which renders them "invisible". They cannot permanently delete comments and so Neil was able to restore them very easily. It has been made clear on several occasions that, while authors are able to move comments to trash, they must not do so. As I said, it is express TSZ policy that no comments are deleted. Unacceptable comments go into "guano". So this was a case of an author acting outside express policy. Unfortunate but the status quo is restored and no comment died. TSZ will try to ensure anything similar doesn't happen again.Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

“Lot’s of room for interpretation here.” Yeah, I can see how “just moved” could be interpreted to mean “put in the trash and then taken out of trash and put in the sandbox.”
It's understandable that you want to make hay with this, Barry, but no comments were harmed during this débâcle.Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Ah Apologies to Barry Arrington. It is express TSZ policy that comments are not to be deleted. I was unaware that Kantian Naturalist had deleted Barry's comments. He should not have done that. Comments deemed off-topic are moved to the "Sandbox" (a thread for general discussion) - now "Sandbox cont'd". Comments deemed outside comment policy (accusation of lying etc) are moved to "Guano". Hope all is now clear and I look forward to seeing Barry's further comments as the spirit moves him. All comments have been restored and Barry was never "banned".Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

WJM @ 22: Yeah, Neil's sheer chutzpah is a wonder to behold. "Lot's of room for interpretation here." Yeah, I can see how "just moved" could be interpreted to mean "put in the trash and then taken out of trash and put in the sandbox." Of course this is standard operating procedure for Neil. Get caught in an outrageous statement; don't fess up and apologize, double down. I've called Neil out on this before: Jerad and Neil Rickert Double Down And he learned it from Lizzie, the proprietress of TSZ: Liddle Doubles Down They are utterly shameless. Barry Arrington_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Apparently, to Neil, clicking the “delete” button is not indicative of a post having been deleted; it’s only been “deleted” if you have to do a restore from backup to get the post back.
I am not monitoring which buttons people click. I can only see the result. In this case, what I saw was that some comments had been moved to trash.Neil Rickert_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Apparently, to Neil, clicking the "delete" button is not indicative of a post having been deleted; it's only been "deleted" if you have to do a restore from backup to get the post back. Well, when you can define terms however you need to in order to make your case, I guess you can win just about every argument.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Lots of interpretation there, in comment #18. Seen from a moderators perspective, the initial TSZ comment by Barry had been flagged for moderation (after I had earlier released it from moderation). Several other comments (four, as I recall) had been moved to trash. They had never been deleted, though they had been made non-visible by the move to trash. As far as I know, the only people able to flag comments for moderation, or able to move them to trash, are the moderators and the author of the particular thread (in this case KN). I was not sure which, though I guessed it was most likely the author. When I later saw a comment by KN, I took it that he had probably clicked a "delete" button, which had moved the comments to trash. Still, they had only ever been moved. There was no restore from backup -- I'm not even sure if a backup was taken during the interim. For the comment that had been flagged for moderation, I moved that to sandbox. The move process automatically approves a post that is in moderation. For the comments in trash, I had to first click the "restore" button, which restores from trash. That put those back in the original thread. I then proceeded to move from that thread to sandbox, which is a tedious process -- I have to do it one comment at a time. No spinning from me. No brazening anything out. I just chose to omit lots of tedious detail. The detail is now here in this comment, and apologies to those who find the detail boring. I was certainly not attempting to deny what KN had posted in his comment about deleting (and I also moved that comment to sandbox). My first post in this thread was to point out that the posts were visible and had been visible in sandbox for over two hours, by the time Barry posted this thread. It also provided a link on where to find them. It was reporting the current state, not the gory details. But now that I am giving details, yes some of the comments were not visible for a few minutes. In accordance with the rules Lizzie has set for the TSZ site, I corrected this as soon as I was aware of it.Neil Rickert_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Barry #18
“I’m not spinning anything” Who are the readers going to believe, you or their own eyes
I imagine the readers will notice that your comments were deleted for less than an hour, that deleting them was accepted as a breach of TSZ policy, and that your OP was not posted until several hours after that. I guess some readers may be interested in what your very first post on TSZ said (my emphasis):
At PHV’s behest I came over here to check out this thread. Nice little echo chamber you have here. Boring. Mark Frank speaking of KN: “As always you are right about almost everything and express it very clearly.” KN: “I refuse to engage with the pseudo-intellectuals (in fact anti-intellectuals) at Uncommon Descent.” You don’t engage at UD because every time you spouted your sophistry you got your ass kicked up between your shoulders. You would much rather be here in your nice safe little echo chamber with your pet lickspittles (see Mark Frank’s comment above). Your pretense that you eschew a site beneath your efforts is a convenient camouflage for your cowardice.
If I had written that I would be glad if it were deleted.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Mapou: “You guys have got a lot of time on your hands.” I suppose if there is any benefit to insomnia, it is that. :-) Perhaps if I had more of a flair for the dramatic, I would say something like, “I am tireless in my zeal to expose the hypocrisy of the denizens of TSZ!!!” Barry Arrington_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Barry: “I decided to test that and signed up to comment at The Skeptical Zone. All of my comments – every single one of them – were deleted.” Neil: No . . . They [i.e., the comments] were just moved . . .” Then Neil admitted (in 14) that my comments were in fact deleted and then restored. The corollary to that admission is that when he said they were “just moved,” he was lying. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was mistaken, because his own comment 14 shows that he knew the facts and then affirmatively misrepresented them. Then Neil says: “LOL. I'm not spinning anything.” I have to hand it to you Neil. Even when you are caught in flagrante delicto you brazen it out. You remind me of the man caught in bed with another woman. His wife accuses him of adultery and he denies it. She says, but I saw you with my own two eyes, and he says, “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” “I’m not spinning anything.” Who are the readers going to believe, you or their own eyes?Barry Arrington_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply