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

[Fallible]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

914 virtually self-banned himself anyway, by not posting for a year or more.

He's back now, of course, and still treating the forum as if it was his own personal LiveJournal.

I can only guess the mods took pity on Fact-Man because of his age. Remember when he accused someone of making a troll drop and disappearing, when in fact, the OP had made more than 50 posts in the thread? Then criticised me for demonstrating that he was wrong? Of course, the fuckos who like to jump on me if I have an apostrophe out of place were nowhere to be seen when Fact-Man was lying through his teeth.

No, sorry, you're the only one feverishly compiling a list of every single instance of someone looking at you the wrong way.

[Strontium Dog]

I wouldn't expect you to remember it, you display a selective memory at the best of times.

[aspire1670]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Had the rules been applied fairly, 914 and Factman would have been banned along with Seth. Sure, those two got the occasional slap on the wrist, but they never received the level of scrutiny and attention from the mods that Seth did.

914 virtually self-banned himself anyway, by not posting for a year or more.

He's back now, of course, and still treating the forum as if it was his own personal LiveJournal.

I can only guess the mods took pity on Fact-Man because of his age. Remember when he accused someone of making a troll drop and disappearing, when in fact, the OP had made more than 50 posts in the thread? Then criticised me for demonstrating that he was wrong? Of course, the fuckos who like to jump on me if I have an apostrophe out of place were nowhere to be seen when Fact-Man was lying through his teeth.

No, sorry, you're the only one feverishly compiling a list of every single instance of someone looking at you the wrong way.

SD and his little list; he's the Michael Portillo of the internets. I wonder where he gets the energy to shoulder the burden of all the real and imagined sleights he has suffered in his unremarkable life?

[Fallible]

I wouldn't expect you to remember it, you display a selective memory at the best of times.

I'd be shocked by the way you mock a person's disability, but it's you, so this is entirely expected. There's only one person you feel compassion towards.

[rainbow]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

And they are right, and you are wrong. I was banned because I refused to surrender to the religious dogma of Atheism and Marxism, and you damned well know it.

Nope.Troll. 4 years later you're still trolling, like in this post of yours.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Get back under your bridge.

[Fallible]

Pot calling kettle black.

Get back under your bridge.

[Strontium Dog]

I wouldn't expect you to remember it, you display a selective memory at the best of times.

I'd be shocked by the way you mock a person's disability, but it's you, so this is entirely expected. There's only one person you feel compassion towards.

Who is mocking anyone's disability? Is selective memory a "thing" now?

I plead guilty to caring more about myself than I do other people. I don't believe that to be abnormal.

[aspire1670]

I wouldn't expect you to remember it, you display a selective memory at the best of times.

I'd be shocked by the way you mock a person's disability, but it's you, so this is entirely expected. There's only one person you feel compassion towards.

Who is mocking anyone's disability? Is selective memory a "thing" now?

I plead guilty to caring more about myself than I do other people. I don't believe that to be abnormal.

You're right. It isn't abnormal behaviour............if you're a sociopath.

[Strontium Dog]

You're right. It isn't abnormal behaviour............if you're a sociopath.

If you're saying you put the welfare of strangers over your own welfare, you're a fucking liar.

[Warren Dew]

I wouldn't expect you to remember it, you display a selective memory at the best of times.

I'd be shocked by the way you mock a person's disability, but it's you, so this is entirely expected. There's only one person you feel compassion towards.

Who is mocking anyone's disability? Is selective memory a "thing" now?

I plead guilty to caring more about myself than I do other people. I don't believe that to be abnormal.

It's not abnormal. Being honest about it is, though.

[Seth]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

And they are right, and you are wrong. I was banned because I refused to surrender to the religious dogma of Atheism and Marxism, and you damned well know it.

Nope.Troll. 4 years later you're still trolling, like in this post of yours.

It's only "trolling" because you don't like it. If I was saying the exact same thing about Catholicism and the Pope you'd be jumping for joy, you hypocritical ass.

[Seth]

I think he actually believes this shit. Not sure how that is possible.

It's possible because it's the truth, which anyone with a lick of sense (which doesn't include useful idiots like you) can easily see.

But we've seen what teabaggers are capable of.

Yes, reason, logic, common sense, loyalty, patriotism, altruism, charity, love, compassion and honesty, all traits utterly extinct in Marxists and their useful idiots.

[Seth]

I suspect GS is confused with the banning of Seth at RD.net vs ratskep. She's probably thinking of the rd.net event.

Yep. It'll be my fault she came wading in to correct me and fell flat on her face though, it always is.

Doesn't really matter, RDF and RatSkep are the same forum sans RD and his minion. It's populated by the same people and moderated by the same people. A distinction without a difference.

[Hermit]

Yep, i just found it. This post - http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... l#p1968568 makes it entirely clear that he thinks it's a big pharma con job. Samsa is right, Beatsong.

Megaphone does say that "these psychoactive drugs dispensed to treat this disorder don't do a fucking thing to cure it. Not a fucking thing" but though I strongly disagree with that opinion I see nothing hinting at conspiracy in it, unless of course profit motive equals conspiracy, but then he has never mentioned profit motive either.

So, once again I find myself being equivocal. Yes, Megadrone is wrong and yes, Mr. Samsa is misrepresenting him in regard to the conspiracy theory theory. At the same time Megadone is most likely correct in so far that drugging 10% of boys with Ritalin is a massive case of overprescription and Samsa is correct in pointing out that drugs like Ritalin do actually work. Neither Meg nor Sam is entirely right or entirely wrong, but in the heat of the debate nuances are easily ignored.

How is Metatron "most likely correct" that prescribing 10% of boys with ritalin is a case of overprescription? Off the top of my head, his figures weren't even accurate as he was confusing diagnostic rate with prescription rate, and ignoring the fact that the evidence strongly shows that ADHD is undertreated - precisely because of bullshit from worried mummies like Metatron who scare other parents away from medication, vaccines, and all those other nasty sciency-things.

If Metatron thinks there is a problem of overprescription then maybe he's right. But the point I kept emphasising in that thread was that he needs evidence to make that claim. Showing that (for the sake of argument) 10% of boys are treated with ritalin doesn't tell us anything. If (hypothetically) 20% of boys actually have ADHD, then we have a serious undertreatment problem. If only 5% of boys actually have ADHD then he might have a point about overprescription. The best evidence that we currently have tells us that there is no clear problem of overprescription and that there is in fact some decent evidence of a possible undertreatment problem (especially in girls where the disorder is hugely underdiagnosed and treated).

The problem is that Metatron doesn't believe in the existence of ADHD at all so for him there is nothing to treat. Even if only .05% of boys were given ritalin he would be making the exact same argument. It's anti-science at its finest.

For all I know the problem may actually be one of underprescription, but that's neither here nor there. My central point was that you have indeed misrepresented Metatron. In the three pages of posts preceding your interpretation of what he said, he never once mentioned conspiracy or even profit motive, nor did he even allude to either. I don't appreciate how you keep sidestepping the issue of your misrepresentation.

Will you please address it the question directly for once? It's been asked several times now, and you have evaded answering it every single one of those times. Is it because you can't think of a plausible sounding wording that might convince us that you have not misrepresented what Metatron said?

In a way your misrepresentation, real or imagined, is just another aspect of what I think is wrong with the way ratskep is run. Someone gets suspended, and may ultimately get permabanned for persistently misrepresenting what someone else has said? Fark. Next thing moderators may as well suspend, then ban people because they disagree with their views. Oh, wait...

[Beatsong]

My central point was that you have indeed misrepresented Metatron. In the three pages of posts preceding your interpretation of what he said, he never once mentioned conspiracy or even profit motive, nor did he even allude to either. I don't appreciate how you keep sidestepping the issue of your misrepresentation.

You're forgetting that if Mr Samsa says those three pages don't exist, then they don't. And if he says they say something that isn't there, they do.

He has magical powers like that.

In a way your misrepresentation, real or imagined, is just another aspect of what I think is wrong with the way ratskep is run. Someone gets suspended, and may ultimately get permabanned for persistently misrepresenting what someone else has said? Fark. Next thing moderators may as well suspend, then ban people because they disagree with their views. Oh, wait...

Who has been banned because the moderators disagreed with their views?