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.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Hypocrites at Pander's (sic) Thumb complain about censorship on Uncommon Descent

An article on the Panda's Thumb blog complains about censorship on the Uncommon Descent blog. Those lousy hypocrites over at Panda's Thumb have some nerve. Though my comments on others' blogs have generally been polite, on-topic and not frivolous, I have been deleted and banned on Panda's Thumb and on the personal blogs of Panda's Thumb bloggers Ed Brayton, PZ Myers, and Wesley Elsberry. Uncommon Descent of course practices censorship too, but at least UD does not make any bones about it, and UD, unlike Panda's Thumb, does not get blogging awards -- PT received a 2005 Scientific American magazine blogging award and was a finalist in a 2006 contest for the best science blog. One of the ugliest practices over at Panda's Thumb is moving comments to a website called "The Bathroom Wall," where the comments are forgotten and ignored. "The Bathroom Wall" is just a gimmick the PT bloggers use to pretend that they are not practicing arbitrary censorship when they really are.

The name should be changed to Pander's Thumb -- a blog that panders to Darwinists who like to keep a thumb on critics.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

< Pander's (sic) >

This is inappropriate usage of "sic".

Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:46:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Fake Dave said,
>>>>>< Pander's (sic)<

This is inappropriate usage of "sic". <<<<<<

Here is how the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "sic":
intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original.

I used "sic" in the first sense above, though the second sense is more common.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:25:00 PM  
Blogger DaveScot said...

I'd like to see the ratio of adversarial to supportive comments for PT and UD. I don't believe PT would come out with a higher percentage of adversarial comments.

What PT does is bans the most effective opponents and then lets the roaring crowd of sycophants drown out and/or discourage the rest through browbeating and incivility. I ban least effective adversaries (there are many of those) and don't allow anywhere near the level of stupid, incivil cacaphony used by PT to discourage adversarial commenters.

Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

DaveScot said...
>>>>> I'd like to see the ratio of adversarial to supportive comments for PT and UD. <<<<<

A lot of comments would be hard to classify. Some comments are neutral, some are both adversarial and supportive, and some are off-topic.

>>>>>>What PT does is bans the most effective opponents and then lets the roaring crowd of sycophants drown out and/or discourage the rest through browbeating and incivility. <<<<<<

The poster boy for such sycophants is the unscrupulous Kevin Vicklund, who takes advantage of my no-deletions policy here while always trying to get me and other commenters kicked off of other blogs.

PT blogger Steve Reuland said about my comments on PT (here I was posting under the pseudonym Andy H. because PT was already blocking my IP address and I was using anonymous proxies to post),

Trying to rebut the nonsense he posts is perectly fine, but almost no one who responds to him tries to do that. What they do instead is spew out a dozen or more responses consisting of rude name-calling, some of them simply saying “shut up Larry”. Why anyone thinks that’s going to work is beyond me. While doing nothing to shut him up, posts like that do serve to drag this blog down into the gutter. That’s precisely what Andy/Larry/whoever is trying to acheive, and our self-appointed troll cops just play right into his hands.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there are one or two reasonable comments in the torret of posts that invariably follows one of his random, inane anti-“Darwinist” rants, but I can’t be arsed to pick them out. The whole lot goes. If anyone wants to lodge a complaint about censorship, they can find someone who cares.

And with that, I’m closing this thread too.


Often people try to give the illusion of being wise or knowledgeable by aloof unsupported dismissal of another's comment. For example, on Ed Brayton's blog, I argued that FRCP Rule 12 gives judges the authority to dismiss cases where the plaintiffs refuse out-of-court settlements that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could be provided by the court. A friend of Ed's who teaches law responded with nothing but invective.

Internet censorship undermines the Internet's enormous potential as a forum for public discussion and debate. Compare the Internet with older public forums -- e.g., the letters-to-the-editor sections of newspapers, talk-radio shows, and meetings of discussion groups -- and you will see what I mean.

Furthermore, arbitrary censorship is extremely rude. People often spend a lot of time on research and writing for their comments, only to see their comments rudely trashed.

Excuse me for being critical of UD's practice of censorship, but as I said, at least UD makes no bones about it and does not get blogging awards. IMO organizations that give blogging awards should screen the top contenders for censorship practices, in the same way that the top contenders in the Tour de France are constantly checked for use of banned drugs.

Sunday, January 14, 2007 1:38:00 PM  
Blogger Hitch said...

What the hell is wrong with a little censorship anyway?

Its good if practiced intelligently.

Why should I frequent any site, blog or forum that allows any a**hole to say anything at all? No matter how rude, disgusting, uncouth or just plain idiotic?
What a waste of pixel space!

Some censorship should be practiced.
Just like in the movies (bad example I know) - where the moral standards have gone from high to almost none in less than 60 years of post modernist, atheist, Darwinist ideologies (if they can be called such. Ideas have consequences and it matters.

It shows enormously in the ratio of virtue to vice displayed throughout the Hollywood influenced world. Vice is now the norm.
Some people are stupid enough to think this is "progress" but it is nothing more than regress.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:34:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Its good if practiced intelligently. <<<<<<

Like the way I am practicing it now.. But unlike a lot of other bloggers, I never censor a comment merely because I disagree with it. And I never ban a commenter -- all comments are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:57:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home