I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

More hypocrisy from Ed Brayton

Hypocrite Ed Brayton made the following comment about the replacement of DaveScot as comment moderator on Uncommon Descent:

I don't think the fact that he edited people's comments to put his own in was a big deal. You could still tell who said what, so it's just a matter of format. It was the inconsistency with which he did it. With the Panda's Thumb, we have 25 different contributors, each of whom controls the content of their own posts and the comments attached to them, and we simply don't all agree on how to handle them. You can expect inconsistency there. But DaveScot kept making grand pronouncements of what he was and wasn't going to allow, he deleted comments (and posts) based solely on what made him look bad, and he treated even those on his own side like dirt. Even the ID fans on the blog thought he did a lousy job. He's one of those guys who runs on pure ego, and those are the last kind of people you put in charge of anything.

This is coming from a jerk who banned me permanently from his blog because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Talk about running on "pure ego."

As for DaveScot's complaint that dropping out of the comment moderation window in order to post a separate comment would have been a burden for him, I think that complaint would have some validity if the comment moderation window does not identify the topic or thread where the original comment is posted (I am emailed copies of all comments posted on this blog but the topic or thread is not identified, so I often have to search for the comment if I want to post a response).

DaveScot's replacement as comment moderator will be Denyse O'Leary, the new co-host of Uncommon Descent.

Labels:

17 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

You are right. Ed Brayton has again exposed hypocrisy. We owe a lot to him for this service.

You were going to demolish some questions?

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:30:00 PM  
Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

I think this blog's name should be changed to i-am-from-missouri-and-i-am-barking-mad.blogspot.com

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or, perhaps, "I'm from Bedlam." (Check the etymology.)

Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:50:00 AM  
Blogger Manuel said...

Actually, I thought Ed waited a few days too long to ban you permanently from his site. I'm still waiting for your shrink to ban you from posting here, but I guess we'll have to wait for that.

Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Manuel said ( 7/20/2006 04:41:25 PM ) --

>>>>>Actually, I thought Ed waited a few days too long to ban you permanently from his site. I'm still waiting for your shrink to ban you from posting here, but I guess we'll have to wait for that.<<<<<<

And I have waited too long to ban you from this site. Even if Ed had good reason for disagreeing with my interpretation of FRCP Rule 12 -- and he did not -- that was still not reason for him to ban me permanently from his blog. He could have just ignored our disagreement.

BTW, I wonder what you think was wrong with the interpretation of FRCP Rule 12 that I posted on Ed's blog. If you cannot answer, then you are just a big bag of hot air.

Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Even if Ed had good reason for disagreeing with my interpretation of FRCP Rule 12 -- and he did not -- that was still not reason for him to ban me permanently from his blog. He could have just ignored our disagreement. <

Haven't you beaten that empty drum long enough? We all know that isn't the reason you were banned.

> BTW, I wonder what you think was wrong with the interpretation of FRCP Rule 12 that I posted on Ed's blog. <

Why should he bother to answer? You have already said that you have no obligation to answer questions and for the most part you don't.

This just proves that you are just a big bag of hot air.

Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( 7/20/2006 07:42:17 PM ) --

>>>>>>>Haven't you beaten that empty drum long enough? We all know that isn't the reason you were banned.<<<<<<<

You stupid moron, why do you presume to know more than I do about why Ed banned me from his blog?

Ed did not like me for a long time, but he tolerated me until I posted that interpretation of FRCP Rule 12.

>>>>>> BTW, I wonder what you think was wrong with the interpretation of FRCP Rule 12 that I posted on Ed's blog. <

Why should he bother to answer? You have already said that you have no obligation to answer questions and for the most part you don't.<<<<<<

Yes, and when I don't answer your asinine comments, you assume that you have won the debate by default. So why shouldn't I win by default when no one answers my comments?

Here is another way of looking at FRCP Rule 12:
I presume that if a case becomes moot in the middle of a trial because of something beyond the defendant's control, then no one would argue with my interpretations of Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(h)(2). But why shouldn't my interpretations of these rules also apply if the reason for a claim of mootness is under the defendant's control -- e.g., an offer of a complete settlement? These rules do not distinguish between causes of mootness that are under the defendant's control and those that are not.

Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>>>>Haven't you beaten that empty drum long enough? We all know that isn't the reason you were banned.<<<<<<<

> You stupid moron, why do you presume to know more than I do about why Ed banned me from his blog? <

Because you have proven yourself to be delusional. The reasons that you were banned from Ed's blog have been stated by Ed and given time and time again by many different people on this blog. You seem to be the only one who is in denial over the obvious on this issue.

It is a reasonable presumption that I would know more than you about nearly any subject. Your limited knowledge is so completely drowned out by the large volume of misinformation and incorrect interpretations that we can assume that the sum is a negative.

> Ed did not like me for a long time, but he tolerated me until I posted that interpretation of FRCP Rule 12. <

He tolerated you until you started breaking the rules. Your impersonations, such as the ones you have clumsily attempted on this blog, were probably the final straw.

> So why shouldn't I win by default when no one answers my comments? <

People do answer. When you fail to read and understand their answers, we assume that they have won by default. So far you seem to have lost every argument. Perhaps if you didn't go so far out of your way to look ridiculous, you might win a few. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You can't match that. I often think that you are intentionally trying to make the IDiots look bad.

> Here is another way of looking at FRCP Rule 12: <

Rule 12 has explained over and over to the extent that any rational being would now have a great understanding of it. I'm sorry that this does not include you.

Friday, July 21, 2006 8:39:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>The reasons that you were banned from Ed's blog have been stated by Ed and given time and time again by many different people on this blog.<<<<<<

The reason that Ed gave for banning me was that I "annoyed him." If I applied the same standard, you and a lot of other commenters would have been banned from this blog a long time ago.

Friday, July 21, 2006 6:54:00 PM  
Blogger Manuel said...

>>>>>>>>>>>The reason that Ed gave for banning me was that I "annoyed him." If I applied the same standard, you and a lot of other commenters would have been banned from this blog a long time ago.

But if you did that you wouldn't have anyone making comments.

Friday, July 21, 2006 7:19:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Manuel said --

>>>>>>>>>>>The reason that Ed gave for banning me was that I "annoyed him." If I applied the same standard, you and a lot of other commenters would have been banned from this blog a long time ago.

But if you did that you wouldn't have anyone making comments.<<<<<<

Not quite. There are some commenters here who I don't have a big problem with. You and Voice In the Wilderness are not among them.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:30:00 AM  
Blogger Manuel said...

>>>>>>>>>>>There are some commenters here who I don't have a big problem with. You and Voice In the Wilderness are not among them.

Who else is there? Only vandals as far as I can tell, maybe you pretending to be your brother (again) or your brother.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 1:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>>>>>>>>There are some commenters here who (sic) I don't have a big problem with. You and Voice In the Wilderness are not among them.

<< Who else is there? Only vandals as far as I can tell, maybe you pretending to be your brother (again) or your brother. >>

He likes DaveScot. No one else, that I've noticed.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:30:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>>>>>>>>There are some commenters here who (sic) I don't have a big problem with. <<<<<<<

Do you have a problem with my grammar or something?

According to the Wikipedia article on "Who (pronoun)," whom remains in significant use only when following a preposition -- in my usage who preceded a preposition and that is perfectly acceptable:

In informal English (and increasingly more so in some formal situations as well, especially in American English), whom is dying in most dialects; who has become far more common than whom for both subject and object forms.

The one situation where whom remains in significant use is when following a preposition. It remains uncommon to see who used after a preposition. In informal contexts, the preposition is instead placed at the end (see preposition stranding), and the word who may be omitted where it is used as a relative pronoun. For example:

-- (relative, formal): He is someone to whom I owe a great deal.
-- (interrogative, formal): To whom did you give it?
-- (relative, informal): He is someone (who) I owe a great deal to.
-- (interrogative, informal): Who did you give it to?

In practice the formal form with the interrogative is now rare, but the formal form with the relative pronoun remains reasonably common.


I really get pissed off when people get pedantic about the usages of who and whom, may and can, and will and shall. Sometimes, if I stuck to the strict rules of grammar, I could not even convey the meaning that I intend -- for example, "may" is supposed to mean permission, but it can also mean possibility, so I often use "can" when I mean permission but do not mean possibility.

>>>>>He likes DaveScot. No one else, that I've noticed.<<<<<<

Wrong. There have been some other good commenters here and some others who are tolerable. I especially liked an anonymous commenter who told off Voice In the Wilderness.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In informal English (and increasingly more so in some formal situations as well, especially in American English), whom is dying in most dialects; who has become far more common than whom for both subject and object forms.

This is a sad comment on the state of education in the United States, and the decline of literacy.

There are always those who are too lazy to be bothered to speak or write correctly.

One of the unpleasant things that happens when you allow your language to "evolve" unnecessarily is that you lose (or is that loose? :-P) your literature.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, the first -- and most devastated -- casualty of language change is the pun.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could this "Ed B." possibly be ... ??

Naah, not likely. :-) He doesn't get around that much.

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:53:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home