DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Mr.Samsa]

I missed the fact of theropod leaving, but can't help thinking it being related to the question for banning bob-whatshisname for earlier convictions followed by the rest of the membership disagreeing with that.

To be fair, if he were held to the same standards as the rest of the membership Theropod would have been banned or on a long-term suspension by now anyway.

[Fallible]

I try to refrain from being one of those sandwich board 'the end is nigh' peeps, but the part of me which considers demanding an ignore feature as being like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic grows a bit bigger every day.

[Robert_S]

I try to refrain from being one of those sandwich board 'the end is nigh' peeps, but the part of me which considers demanding an ignore feature as being like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic grows a bit bigger every day.

Quite frankly, you were doomed from the start.

1.3. not discuss personal sexual issues and not post (or link to) anything pornographic

Now I can see limiting porn links, but all that repressed sex talk has been seeping out, poisoning the atmosphere of RatSkep since day one.

You should have put in an NSFW section and dropped that phoney respectability that was foisted on the community by Dawkins.

[Surendra Darathy]

It's not so much that you mange to post stuff without violating the FUA, it's more that unless you are being especially careless, they let you get away with massive amounts of trolling. Still sometimes they sanction you for quote mining and such, which suggests to me that even you, the Great Line Walker, can't manage to work out sometimes where the line actually is. Either that's because their application of the rules is slapdash, or...GASP! SHOCK! HORROR!...you might not be quite as clever as you assume yourself to be. Or a combination of the two, obviously. OR! Maybe it's all a part of your cunning plan to look like a really-o truly-o genuine poster as you troll. I do find your style incredibly painful and sometimes incomprehensible. That of course can always be blamed on me for just being a bit thick - however I have managed to comprehend some of the most dense and cryptic texts known to man and be frequently and rigorously tested for that ability, so the chances that some puffed up klaxon's internet posts are beyond my ken are quite small.

If you were into being frequently and rigourously tested on anything that can be rigourously tested, you'd be elsewhere, testing yourself with actual clients instead of psychoanalysing anonymous writing samples that don't inform you when someone's taking the piss. Just lately, I've been selected as a Community TA for a course in the Johns Hopkins SPH specialisation on data mining and modeling at Coursera, a volunteer job that actually helps people instead of labeling itself 'helping professions' in an irony-meter-shattering fit of self-congratulation. Coursera is my current alternative to fucking with easily-irritated chatroom habitués who treat 'rational skepticism' as a substitute religion. Why don't you sign up and see if you have any chops for something besides dense and cryptic texts?

Oh, and did you notice, I didn't actually find it necessary to resort to CALLING you a "puffed-up internet klaxon"? Where's your vaunted rules-lawyering now? I don't consider you thick because you claim not to understand what I write; I consider you thick because you fail to display any tools to substitute for tedious and banal name-calling when the going gets a little rough. You and Mr.Samsa are in the same boat, there. Go on, then, and get back to teaching pigeons to play chess, making up your own rules as you go along, the better to engage in the rules-lawyering that governs your analysis of dense and cryptic texts.

What does a psychotherapist do when she discovers she's being trolled by her client? She takes the money and runs, but comes back next week for more. The lesson here is that the diagnosis of boredom is avoided in order to increase revenues.

[Mr.Samsa]

Seriously Cito, can you honestly tell me that you thought that comment was coherent? It makes absolutely no sense, except for the first part where you describe how you managed to suck your own dick or something.

[Babel]

That has to be one of the best examples of irony I've ever read.

[Hermit]

If you were into being frequently and rigourously tested on anything that can be rigourously tested, you'd be elsewhere, testing yourself with actual clients instead of psychoanalysing anonymous writing samples that don't inform you when someone's taking the piss. Just lately, I've been selected as a Community TA for a course in the Johns Hopkins SPH specialisation on data mining and modeling at Coursera, a volunteer job that actually helps people instead of labeling itself 'helping professions' in an irony-meter-shattering fit of self-congratulation. Coursera is my current alternative to fucking with easily-irritated chatroom habitués who treat 'rational skepticism' as a substitute religion. Why don't you sign up and see if you have any chops for something besides dense and cryptic texts?

Oh, and did you notice, I didn't actually find it necessary to resort to CALLING you a "puffed-up internet klaxon"? Where's your vaunted rules-lawyering now? I don't consider you thick because you claim not to understand what I write; I consider you thick because you fail to display any tools to substitute for tedious and banal name-calling when the going gets a little rough. You and Mr.Samsa are in the same boat, there. Go on, then, and get back to teaching pigeons to play chess, making up your own rules as you go along, the better to engage in the rules-lawyering that governs your analysis of dense and cryptic texts.

What does a psychotherapist do when she discovers she's being trolled by her client? She takes the money and runs, but comes back next week for more. The lesson here is that the diagnosis of boredom is avoided in order to increase revenues.

Brilliant illustration of what Fallible just described you as being.

the Great Line Walker
not be quite as clever as you assume yourself to be
style incredibly painful
and sometimes incomprehensible
puffed up klaxon

Even Audley Strange, who described his own posts as sometimes bordering on the incoherent, was better than that.


By the way, I wonder if some milk monitor at RS would ping a post that called another forum member a "puffed up klaxon"?

[Fallible]

It's not so much that you mange to post stuff without violating the FUA, it's more that unless you are being especially careless, they let you get away with massive amounts of trolling. Still sometimes they sanction you for quote mining and such, which suggests to me that even you, the Great Line Walker, can't manage to work out sometimes where the line actually is. Either that's because their application of the rules is slapdash, or...GASP! SHOCK! HORROR!...you might not be quite as clever as you assume yourself to be. Or a combination of the two, obviously. OR! Maybe it's all a part of your cunning plan to look like a really-o truly-o genuine poster as you troll. I do find your style incredibly painful and sometimes incomprehensible. That of course can always be blamed on me for just being a bit thick - however I have managed to comprehend some of the most dense and cryptic texts known to man and be frequently and rigorously tested for that ability, so the chances that some puffed up klaxon's internet posts are beyond my ken are quite small.

If you were into being frequently and rigourously tested on anything that can be rigourously tested,

Yep, this is the second type of Cito de Penie post - not the incomprehensible type, the 'make shit up and act like it pertains to reality' type. I didn't say that I'm 'into' being tested on anything at all that can be rigorously tested, you've just interpreted what I said in a way that you think allows you to judge my presence on an internet forum. If you weren't either thick as pigshit or so intent on looking for an avenue down which to jizz out your hurt fee fees, you'd realise this is clear.

you'd be elsewhere, testing yourself with actual clients

WTF are you rambling about? If I was into being rigorously tested on anything that can be rigorously tested, I'd be somewhere testing myself with clients? Aside from having deliberately mangled my comment (which was that I have been frequently and rigorously tested on my ability to understand dense and difficult texts) as me saying that I like being frequently and rigorously tested, in what way is me testing myself in some nebulous way with 'clients' rigorous? Aren't you supposed to be opposed to woo?

instead of psychoanalysing anonymous writing samples

I'm not a psychoanalyst and your posts don't have a mind attached to them in any sense.

that don't inform you when someone's taking the piss.

'I was taking the piss, you just didn't get it!' Uhuh. You sure do get awful wound up for someone who's just taking the piss and fucking with religious folk.

Just lately, I've been selected as a Community TA for a course in the Johns Hopkins SPH specialisation on data mining and modeling at Coursera, a volunteer job that actually helps people instead of labeling itself 'helping professions' in an irony-meter-shattering fit of self-congratulation.

Say it once more with feeling, Cito. Tell us all how you're Really-o Truly-o Actually 'Helping' People in a Much Better Way than anonymous writing samples that don't inform you when someone's taking the piss. Then explain how your butthurt chest-beating about your Real Helping is supposed to relate to my ability to decipher walls of text far more valid and groundbreaking than anything you can manage to plop out. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that literally the whole world is desperate to discover the point you are so earnestly trying to impart to us all.

Coursera is my current alternative to fucking with

Is that what you think is happening here? That you're fucking with people? Deidre, love - you're not the 'giver' in this particular bacchanalean scenario. You think you are, that's why you troll so much. It's just a bit sad that you don't realise you can't troll unless someone else enjoys responding to it just as much as you enjoy doing it. What is actually happening is that you are enabling others to find enjoyment in constantly making fun of you.

easily-irritated chatroom habitués

Tell us more about these easily-irritated chatroom habitués, but this time I'd like you to do so with far less feeling.

who treat 'rational skepticism' as a substitute religion.

Yeah - there are some right religious pricks over there. Let us laugh at them together.

Why don't you sign up and see if you have any chops for something besides dense and cryptic texts?

Oh, you think that the dense and cryptic text thing is literally the only thing. That explains a lot. Yeah. It's not. I mentioned it because it was pertinent to the topic of your fucking rat's nest of a posting style. Why that post of mine in particular got you so riled up to the point where you felt you had to start telling us about all the Really Real and Properly Worthwhile things that you do and demand that other people sign up to your Cito-Approved and One and Only Really Real and True Test of Helpiness, especially when the concept of your posts being a total fucking mess is hardly news to you, is somewhat unclear. If you were Really into Helping People in a Much Better Way you'd be out doing it RIGHT THIS MINUTE rather than beating your chest at anonymous writing samples which don't inform you when someone is taking the piss. I think you need to step away from the fee fees, Cito, because they're leading you to say all sorts of stupid things.

Oh, and did you notice, I didn't actually find it necessary to resort to CALLING you a "puffed-up internet klaxon"?

Gosh no, you didn't! Huh...I guess that must be because you're much better at avoiding personal attacks than I am. Perhaps you are just imparting messages way above my ability to grasp them. Maybe you are just much cleverer than I am at avoiding insulting people.

I consider you thick

Oops, never mind.

Your whole post is a giant personal attack, and yet you think you can manage much better than me not to resort to making such attacks. Is it any wonder people consider you to be a fucking joke?

Where's your vaunted rules-lawyering now?

I don't know what to tell you here, honestly I don't. I can't remember ever having boasted about any rules-lawyering. Could you have me confused with someone else? I should probably draw your attention to the fact that we're not on RatSkep now. I say, WE'RE NOT ON RATSKEP NOW. Yes, Barbara will be around with your suppositories in a minute. I say, SHE'LL BE HERE IN MI...never mind.

I don't consider you thick because you claim not to understand what I write; I consider you thick because you fail to display any tools to substitute for tedious and banal name-calling when the going gets a little rough.

If I may employ the art of gross understatement for a moment, I don't think you quite grasp the situation, Deidre. You consider me thick because I fail to display tools I display every day? I think perhaps you are so keen to consider me thick that you've mislaid the knowledge that I've never received a single warning on RatSkep, despite being not exactly the mods' favourite, mainly because I am very good at managing to not personally attack people or otherwise come to the mods' attention (I'm good at using tools to substitute for tedious and banal name-calling). You, on the other hand, I seem to recall have found yourself being out on your arse a time or two, indicating that it is in fact you who could not manage to adhere to the rules clearly laid out for you when the going got a little tough. Indeed the only reason you're not in Mr.Samsa's situation now is that your constant trolling isn't dealt with. Now be a good scientist ( ) and factor in all relevant data instead of only that which supports your vapid opinion.

You and Mr.Samsa are in the same boat, there.

I know this is the narrative you're going with, but I'm afraid it's not as simple as 'you and Samsa are stupid and wrong!'

Go on, then, and get back to teaching pigeons to play chess, making up your own rules as you go along, the better to engage in the rules-lawyering that governs your analysis of dense and cryptic texts.

Oo, you used words I used! I think you were trying to make fun of me. Unfortunately what happens when you just string made-up happenings and unrelated words together is that you can sometimes sound like someone whose fee fees are so badly hurt that in their fevered rush to formulate the put-down to end all put-downs, they don't realise they've completely forgotten what the discussion was even about and end up posting something that looks like a cow ate it, processed it through all their stomachs, shat it out, ate it again, sicked it up, ate it a third time, shat it out and then stood and watched as it was run over by 3 Eddie Stobarts in quick succession.

What does a psychotherapist do when she discovers she's being trolled by her client? She takes the money and runs, but comes back next week for more. The lesson here is that the diagnosis of boredom is avoided in order to increase revenues.

You forgot to put 'In Cito Land' at the beginning. That's the only possible explanation for the arse-achingly massive ignorance on display here.

[tattuchu]

Isn't that something? I just submitted my note to terminate my membership there.

RS

Because Samsa (supposedly) insulted Cito? Or because Samsa was suspended for a year?

Neither. I quit before Mr. Samsa's latest episode, and my reasons are my own.

RS

Okay. Then why bring it up if you don't want to talk about it?

[tattuchu]

surreptitious57 wrote:

...Rat Skep has more members and a more serious level of discourse and a stricter moderation policy...

Do those factors correlate, and if they do, do they have to correlate in all cases?

Yeah, I can't say I'm seeing the correlation. And I don't see more members discussing things seriously if they're not allowed to speak their mind and they have to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone or breaking rules which appear to be designed in such a way they they are impossible not to break. How can you have serious discussions when members are treated like children?

[Robert_S]

Fallible 1
Darathy 0

[LucidFlight]

Yeah, well... I don't care how rigorous your testicles are, you're all a bunch of poopy-heads and I hate you all.

[Doubtdispelled]

What is actually happening is that you are enabling others to find enjoyment in constantly making fun of you.

Ah, thank you Fall. You've just reminded me of the little exchange on RS which gave me and Stingy quite a lot of enjoyment.

It all began here, you may well remember it.......

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1720182

[pErvinalia]

{wibble}

What is actually happening is that you are enabling others to find enjoyment in constantly making fun of you.

[theropod]

Isn't that something? I just submitted my note to terminate my membership there.

RS

Because Samsa (supposedly) insulted Cito? Or because Samsa was suspended for a year?

Neither. I quit before Mr. Samsa's latest episode, and my reasons are my own.

RS

I don't know whether you are angry in real life, but you post very angry over there. Probably a good thing for your mental health to walk away.

It's probably a good thing for both myself and ratskep, but again, my reasons are my own. I do, however, delight in the armchair psychoanalysis you have displayed above. Since you have apparently read every single post I made there perhaps you point out the anger in my contributions to the "Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife" thread. I must have been in such a blind rage that I've forgotten what I posted.

RS