removed by Alan

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

xris
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:08 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143143 wrote:
It is hardly expecting "perfection" to ask that at least one other observer take objective note of tendentious alterations to the public record of events in this forum.

Whether there exists a perfect Recording Angel is a question of theology, which I am not qualified to address, and am not trying to address.

What I do know is that:

We do have software for retaining traces of our conversations, which appears to work almost perfectly, but which has been programmed to allow alterations to the record.

And:

In this case, these alterations have gone far beyond editorial changes (to which in general I have no objection, and which I often make myself).

And:

Even we mere human beings can attend quite truthfully (even if not perfectly truthfully) to the reality of our dealings with one another (both online and offline, and both private and public); and that dire consequences attend a failure to do so; and that so far no-one but myself has attended to the alteration of the truthful record of what has been happening in this thread.

The silence on this matter, when I have repeatedly, reasonably, and accurately drawn attention to it, is no mere "imperfection".

Anyway, do I now understand you to be informing me that some official note has been taken of the actual problem - and not just my personal "objections" - on which I note you carefully refrain from expressing any opinion of your own, even though some of the empirical evidence for my statements has in fact surely passed before your eyes, while you have been following the thread?
Im no administrator nor moderator but I know by experience that we should see a certain conclusion. We agree with you to a degree but its not our **** thats sore , is it? What would have us do chain ourselves to the gates of heaven?
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:23 pm
@xris,
xris;143165 wrote:
Im no administrator nor moderator but I know by experience that we should see a certain conclusion. We agree with you to a degree but its not our **** thats sore , is it? What would have us do chain ourselves to the gates of heaven?

I think this is the third time I have said this:

No-one else has acknowledged the actual tampering with the public record.

In the case of Alan's post #1, this may quite simply be because no-one but myself (and Alan!) saw the original and remembers it. If so, fair enough. (In that case, however, judgement on my response to the original should still be suspended. It hasn't been.)

In the case of GoshisDead's tampering, that explanation cannot apply.

No-one has to chain themselves to anything. I would just like not to be the one person stating a plain empirical fact, one which has consequences for our personal interactions in this thread. (Indeed, it has given rise to almost the entire thread.)

Will you please explain to me in what way I have failed to make it clear that this simple and obviously reasonable acknowledgement of a significant empirical fact is what I want? Not perfection, not people chaining themselves to heavenly gates.

As well as it being a fact that the record has been significantly altered, it is also (still!) a fact that no-one but myself has attested that the record has been altered.

You can see, can't you, why I might be at least a tiny bit steamed about that?
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:38 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;143174 wrote:
I think this is the third time I have said this:

No-one else has acknowledged the actual tampering with the public record.

In the case of Alan's post #1, this may quite simply be because no-one but myself (and Alan!) saw the original and remembers it. If so, fair enough. (In that case, however, judgement on my response to the original should still be suspended. It hasn't been.)

In the case of GoshisDead's tampering, that explanation cannot apply.

No-one has to chain themselves to anything. I would just like not to be the one person stating a plain empirical fact, one which has consequences for our personal interactions in this thread. (Indeed, it has given rise to almost the entire thread.)

Will you please explain to me in what way I have failed to make it clear that this simple and obviously reasonable acknowledgement of a significant empirical fact is what I want? Not perfection, not people chaining themselves to heavenly gates.

As well as it being a fact that the record has been significantly altered, it is also (still!) a fact that no-one but myself has attested that the record has been altered.

You can see, can't you, why I might be at least a tiny bit steamed about that?
I can but this forum is not studied with a posse of marauding moderators ready to lynch the lawless. Normally we are well behaved bunch of heathens. The tide comes in and it goes out again..the sand is ready for many more foot prints. ENJOY..
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:45 pm
@Twirlip,
1) Tampering implies that there is a rule against editing as if the forum is not a community of free individuals expressing and/or retracting opinions at will, assuming that thos opinions and retractions abide by the rules of the forum to which we agreed.
2) This is a voluntary forum not a court transcript. If there is a court here it is the court of public opinion.
3) Count the posts that say edited in this thread. Pot and Kettle. As the lay public of the forum we have no proof of what was originally posted in any of our cases.

There your main gripe about post retraction has been addressed.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:55 pm
@GoshisDead,
Ive got to admit it, his right twirlip...for whatever reason you have shot yourself....
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:16 pm
@xris,
xris;143193 wrote:
Ive got to admit it, his right twirlip...for whatever reason you have shot yourself....

For goodness' sake! I have already made the distinction between reasonable editorial modifications and the wholesale fraud of deleting a post, replacing it with something entirely different, trying to pass the replacement off as the original, and making it impossible for any fair or neutral observer to make any objective judgement as to what has or has not actually happened.

I have already been completely explicit about this in an earlier message.

And anyone who can't see the distinction I am making is, in an important sense, mad (or, of course, dishonest, even with themselves).

Most online forums, certainly every single other online forum I have ever used in my eighteen years on the Internet, do not even allow any editing at all - and for good reason, as surely any honest person of good sense can now see, even if they could not before.

If used responsibly (as I and many others have used it), such a feature is beneficial. Here it has been used with extreme and mischievous irresponsibility.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 09:39 PM ----------

GoshisDead;143186 wrote:
As the lay public of the forum we have no proof of what was originally posted in any of our cases.

Your own mind gives proof of what you originally posted in articles #7, #10, #12, and #15 of this thread, regardless of any verdict reached by any other court.

(I also happen to possess objective evidence, verifiable with the administrators of the forum if necessary, of the original contents of articles #7, #10, and #12. Assuming you want to make some kind of battle out of this. If you do, I will win.)
 
Baal
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:55 pm
@Twirlip,
If you find yourself displaced by all this "Tampering" you are free to modify your own posts if you believe that this is all about a "Fair display of the truth" or some such.

Just as others are free to modify their own posts, whether it implicitly makes you appear stupid, you have the same right to return the favor. One who modifies his/her post is doing so because they have made an error, or because the differences were resolved or whatever. There is no reason to read in as to why someone change his/her post.

Now, instead of complaining and shouting about like a madman ("oh no! they changed their posts and made me look like an idiot!") why don't you remove those posts of yours which indeed make you appear to be bigoted and insensitive and consider the matter closed.

The best you are doing for yourself is, in addition to making yourself appear bigoted, you are portraying yourself as being incensed and obsessed with this issue. Is it really so offending to you that your own rhetorical devices backfired?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;143186 wrote:
1) Tampering implies that there is a rule against editing as if the forum is not a community of free individuals expressing and/or retracting opinions at will, assuming that thos opinions and retractions abide by the rules of the forum to which we agreed.
2) This is a voluntary forum not a court transcript. If there is a court here it is the court of public opinion.
3) Count the posts that say edited in this thread. Pot and Kettle. As the lay public of the forum we have no proof of what was originally posted in any of our cases.

There your main gripe about post retraction has been addressed.
There is precedent for a removed post being reinstated by an administrator. He (Justin) said it showed disrespect for time and consideration of those who answered the post to remove it. So he put it back.

Twirlip: do you feel your time and consideration were disrespected?
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:05 pm
@Arjuna,
To be honest its getting boring. I think I will retire.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:13 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjun:
They are the Admins they are free to repost if they feel the need. In fact they have already been reposted several times by Twirlip. S/he is accurate in what s/he reposted as far as I remember. Reposting them will in no way change what the posts left up say or mean.

It still stands to reason that the only way Twirls original post was not designed to incite, demean, or deride, was if Alan's original post dared him/her to do it. The parts of that post I find the most entertaining are in fact the parts that are direct attacks on Alan and not his post's content. The choice to single out His stylistic choices of capital letters etc... can in no way be construed as commentary on Alan's content. That is where this started. It was a simple kettle and pot call on this quote that seems to be getting out of hand.

Quote:
I am hopping mad at this transparent emotional manipulation,


As Baal noted -someone got caught in his own rhetorical attack and is pissed off about it -

So admins feel free to repost

Cheers,
Russ
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:16 pm
@Baal,
Baal;143240 wrote:
If you find yourself displaced by all this "Tampering" you are free to modify your own posts if you believe that this is all about a "Fair display of the truth" or some such.

Just as others are free to modify their own posts, whether it implicitly makes you appear stupid, you have the same right to return the favor. One who modifies his/her post is doing so because they have made an error, or because the differences were resolved or whatever. There is no reason to read in as to why someone change his/her post.

Now, instead of complaining and shouting about like a madman ("oh no! they changed their posts and made me look like an idiot!") why don't you remove those posts of yours which indeed make you appear to be bigoted and insensitive and consider the matter closed.

The best you are doing for yourself is, in addition to making yourself appear bigoted, you are portraying yourself as being incensed and obsessed with this issue. Is it really so offending to you that your own rhetorical devices backfired?

That you think that one falsification of history is best addressed by means of another falsification of history speaks volumes about you, as does your fantasy that this is all about me not wanting to appear stupid.

And for the umpteenth time:

That I wish certain objective facts about the history of this thread to be simply and honestly acknowledged by at least one other person does not make me "obsessed" or a "madman", any more than it means I am wishing for "perfection", or for everybody to be chained to the gates of Heaven. (A lovely image, although I am not at all sure what it means!)

And for someone who seems to think that rhetoric, however base, is an adequate substitute for fact and reason, it ill behoves you to seem to be condemning me for what you wrongly imagine to be mere "rhetorical devices".

I can say with absolute equanimity that I do not care how I appear in the mind of one such as yourself (as you reveal yourself to be in this post - perhaps you do not do yourself justice?); indeed, the worse I appear to you, probably the better it is for me.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 10:25 PM ----------

Arjuna;143243 wrote:
There is precedent for a removed post being reinstated by an administrator. He (Justin) said it showed disrespect for time and consideration of those who answered the post to remove it. So he put it back.

Twirlip: do you feel your time and consideration were disrespected?

The ground of my objection is that I am being subjected to prolonged and highly offensive criticism by several people in this thread (including several who obviously mean well, and several who obviously don't) for my response to posts which have been removed by their authors and replaced with other texts, so that I am not in a position to defend myself against the criticisms which have been made of me (and even, if necessary, to plead guilty to some of them). I don't really understand the phrase about "time and consideration"; it is a matter of the forum's historical record needing to be accurate in cases of dispute such as this. I am, if you like, a test case, and I certainly don't grudge the time I have spent (unless it all proves wasted, nothing is learned, and nothing changes for the better). Is that clear? (I'm getting somewhat punch-drunk, and perhaps should have been able to understand your question more easily.)
 
Baal
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:27 pm
@Twirlip,
So your first post in this thread was a great logical exegesis on the nature of the holy ghost, hmm? I don't think most people would assume this no matter what the "original post" contained.

As far as your mission to establish the truth etc:
As it currently stands, it is only you who are claiming that posts were somehow mangled and distorted. You have yet to prove this to other people.

Despite this being a philosophy forum where "logic"(sic.) and "though"(sic.) prevail, the onus is on you if you wish to state a claim that does not necessarily stand in harmony with facts as others see them. What may be a "Fact" for you is perceived by others as a fact only from you, revealed to you quite repeatedly by the voices in your head, or such is what people will perceive.

If you wish to bring this all into a form of "righteous justice" etc. then perhaps let's see if your claims stand up.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:30 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;143264 wrote:
Arjun:
They are the Admins they are free to repost if they feel the need. In fact they have already been reposted several times by Twirlip. S/he is accurate in what s/he reposted as far as I remember. Reposting them will in no way change what the posts left up say or mean.

It still stands to reason that the only way Twirls original post was not designed to incite, demean, or deride, was if Alan's original post dared him/her to do it. The parts of that post I find the most entertaining are in fact the parts that are direct attacks on Alan and not his post's content. The choice to single out His stylistic choices of capital letters etc... can in no way be construed as commentary on Alan's content. That is where this started. It was a simple kettle and pot call on this quote that seems to be getting out of hand.



As Baal noted -someone got caught in his own rhetorical attack and is pissed off about it -

So admins feel free to repost

Cheers,
Russ
Yes. It's not a democracy. I realize the administrators have lives to attend to, and I appreciate their making this forum possible.

If the entirety of the thread, including your posts, isn't available, then there's nothing here but unknowns. I think it would then be fair to withdraw all judgements on the posters positive or negative.

I've learned from this: always make the intent of a post as obvious as possible since we lack visual and tonal clues as to the intent. That would mean, for instance, which forum the OP starts in.

And of course, one of the greatest things about this forums is we try to balance some inhibition about what we think about a post with the honesty that typifies philosophy.

Thick skins are good until you realize you can't feel the rain on your face anymore. Balance, huh?
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:33 pm
@Baal,
Baal;143277 wrote:
So your first post in this thread was a great logical exegesis on the nature of the holy ghost, hmm?

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Do you?
Baal;143277 wrote:
As it currently stands, it is only you who are claiming that posts were somehow mangled and distorted. You have yet to prove this to other people.

I am glad that on this one point, at least, you are clear about the issue.
Baal;143277 wrote:
Despite this being a philosophy forum where "logic"(sic.) and "though"(sic.) prevail

What on Earth are those quotation marks for?
Baal;143277 wrote:
the onus is on you if you wish to state a claim that does not necessarily stand in harmony with facts as others see them. What may be a "Fact" for you is perceived by others as a fact only from you, revealed to you quite repeatedly by the voices in your head, or such is what people will perceive.

You also seem to be beginning to discern what has been apparent to me all along (and I have already mentioned as a general point in another thread, which I will dig up if necessary), viz. that there is philosophical interest in all of this.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:35 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Still bickering? ..guys!! ..siese and desist!
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:57 pm
@Alan McDougall,
It's fairly evident that:

a) Twirlip was a bit rude in his first two posts ("honey, "Aw gee", a bit taunting in general).
b) This looks a lot worse if the (apparently ludicrous) post that it was in response to is deleted, making it look like twirlip reacted that way to a well thought out philosophical viewpoint like jgweed was referencing.

So, nobody wins! :phone:
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:18 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;143304 wrote:
It's fairly evident that:

a) Twirlip was a bit rude in his first two posts ("honey, "Aw gee", a bit taunting in general).
b) This looks a lot worse if the (apparently ludicrous) post that it was in response to is deleted, making it look like twirlip reacted that way to a well thought out philosophical viewpoint like jgweed was referencing.

So, nobody wins! :phone:

No argument from me with any of that.

I was indeed a bit rude, and knew it. I debated with myself whether I was justified in posting a mocking response, and decided I was. So it was done in cold blood, too.

The "honey" and "aw gee" (or whatever exactly I wrote), in article #3, were in response to Alan's withdrawal of post #1, not in response to post #1 itself (in case that wasn't already clear).

The original post #1 was written - if I recall correctly (I read it at least twice to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding it) - as if every word of it came from the mouth of Jesus, hence that reference in post #3.
 
salima
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:22 pm
@Alan McDougall,
this thread actually has some interesting points developing.

it seems apparent to me that no amount of removing or deleting posts by authors will change the perception of them by any members who are seriously following the forum and any particular thread. at least it shouldnt, in my opinion.

in trying to understand what may have been the purpose behind a person's remarks, it helps to have a history of reading their posts and observing how they react in different situations, to insults, threats and praise etc.

the other observation is that this particular forum area is called 'evangelism' and i also wonder if alan did indeed mean to post it here or has it been switched by admin from some other area? normally if i feel there is an evangelist trying to get my attention i would turn off my hearing because i find those people trying to force their beliefs on others, even if sincerely believing their beliefs are the only credible ones. but seeing who was taking part in the thread on the list of 'top ten posts' drew my attention so i peeked in, and in fact it kept my attention all the way through.

i have seen a lot of alan's writing, and i would not call him an evangelist using my definition of the word. i dont know if he feels he is one or not. i know he has other websites where he posts, and if he were only looking to showcase his ideas there would be no need to come here. i think he does that only for the purpose of sharing with a group of people who are part of a wider base of individuals and free thinkers.

i wonder what would the reaction have been if the original OP were in the 'creative writing' area.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:34 pm
@Alan McDougall,
This kind of problem is bound to occur if there's no time limit to the editing period. I only use one other board that doesn't have such a limit, and have several times been seriously pissed off, on that board, by posters changing stuff after I've replied to it. I dont understand why any set of administrators would think that their board is best served by an unlimited edit feature.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 08:33 pm
@salima,
salima;143334 wrote:
the other observation is that this particular forum area is called 'evangelism' and i also wonder if alan did indeed mean to post it here or has it been switched by admin from some other area? normally if i feel there is an evangelist trying to get my attention i would turn off my hearing because i find those people trying to force their beliefs on others, even if sincerely believing their beliefs are the only credible ones. but seeing who was taking part in the thread on the list of 'top ten posts' drew my attention so i peeked in, and in fact it kept my attention all the way through.

i have seen a lot of alan's writing, and i would not call him an evangelist using my definition of the word. i dont know if he feels he is one or not. i know he has other websites where he posts, and if he were only looking to showcase his ideas there would be no need to come here. i think he does that only for the purpose of sharing with a group of people who are part of a wider base of individuals and free thinkers.

i wonder what would the reaction have been if the original OP were in the 'creative writing' area.

The thread was originally in the Philosophy of Religion forum. Part of my objection to the OP was that it was evangelical, and not at all a reflection on the philosophy of religion. The administrators presumably thought that this, at least, was a well-grounded objection (whatever else they may have thought about all the other fuss in this thread, about deleted posts, and so on), because they moved the thread to the Evangelism forum.

(Alan had previously posted a much more conventionally evangelical article to the Philosophy of Religion forum. I actually found it interesting, and I told him so. I also said it should have been in the Christianity forum. He replied that he had been deliberately trying to get the reactions of non-Christians to statements about Jesus Christ by other non-Christians - at least, I think that was the reason he gave, but he can correct me if I am mistaken - whatever the reason, I did not think it was a good one. Someone else, it may perhaps have been ughaibu, objected to the article on similar grounds. Alan withdrew that article, as well. I though that was a shame; the article should simply have been posted in the Christianity forum. I would still like to be able to refer to some of the quotations within it.)

His first post in this thread about which (and within which) we're debating would not, I think, have been out of place in the Christianity forum (although there might still have been some objections or criticisms on grounds other than its being out of place), or in the Creative Writing forum (where there might perhaps have been a different array of criticisms, and maybe some praise, but again no problem with it being out of place).

Counterfactuals are tricky, and I'm too worn out even to speculate on how I or anyone else might have responded if either the original post #1 or the replacement post #1 had been posted either to the Christianity forum or the Creative Writing forum.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 02:33:30