Fed up with Uncommon Descent's arbitrary censorship
DaveScot censored my comment that accused him of politicizing Uncommon Descent by generally campaigning against Barack Obama and he then wrote, "Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again." DaveScot is the best known and most active of the "friends" who co-blog on Uncommon Descent -- the banner of the UD blog says, "The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary, and friends."
The only thing about Obama that is relevant to UD is his opposition to teaching the controversy. Of course, a blogger can say anything he/she wants on his/her own personal blog, but IMO a co-blogger on a blog with a lot of co-bloggers should stick to the blog's main topics and not post articles presenting controversial off-topic positions.
That is the last straw. I will not comment again on UD until they stop the arbitrary censorship. That is not likely to happen because William Dembski frequently arbitrarily censors comments himself.
For a long time I did not comment on UD because I opposed their arbitrary censorship of comments, but then felt that I was cutting off my nose to spite my face and then commented there frequently.
The only thing about Obama that is relevant to UD is his opposition to teaching the controversy. Of course, a blogger can say anything he/she wants on his/her own personal blog, but IMO a co-blogger on a blog with a lot of co-bloggers should stick to the blog's main topics and not post articles presenting controversial off-topic positions.
That is the last straw. I will not comment again on UD until they stop the arbitrary censorship. That is not likely to happen because William Dembski frequently arbitrarily censors comments himself.
For a long time I did not comment on UD because I opposed their arbitrary censorship of comments, but then felt that I was cutting off my nose to spite my face and then commented there frequently.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/02/2008 11:55:00 AM
21 Comments:
> That is the last straw. I will not comment again on UD until they stop the arbitrary censorship. <
That's O.K. I will continue to comment despite your arbitrary censorship.
Seems like that happens often in other blogs there, Larry...
I was going to start commenting in there for the first time, but forgot the password, the site always sent me dead links to recover my password...lol
So, I guess I'm in timeout too even though I never posted in there before only registered...
Michael said,
>>>>>> I was going to start commenting in there for the first time, but forgot the password, the site always sent me dead links to recover my password...lol <<<<<<
I have had a lot of trouble re-registering on Uncommon Descent. Commenter registration is a big hassle -- that is a reason why there is no commenter registration on this blog.
Uncommon Descent does not even post an email address where you can report problems.
Hectoring Hector barfs,
>>>>> I will continue to comment despite your arbitrary censorship. <<<<<
You lousy dunghill -- deleting (1) gossip about my private affairs and (2) lies about objective facts (like ViU's repeated lie that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually said that the school board election results would not affect his decision) is not arbitrary censorship.
"the site always sent me dead links to recover my password"
LOL too! Maybe the whole site is a dead link.
> You lousy dunghill -- deleting (1) gossip about my private affairs and (2) lies about objective facts (like ViU's repeated lie that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually said that the school board election results would not affect his decision) is not arbitrary censorship. <
Redefining things as "gossip" that even you admit are not allows you to pretend to cover your arbitrary censorship. Nobody is fooled, dunghill.
If you are removing lies about objective facts, why do you continue to lie about what ViU said? We all saw what he actually said before you arbitrarily censored it, your "redefinitions" and "restatements" notwithstanding, dunghill.
Larry,
You have a long history of reinterpreting what people say. These interpretations are rarely accurate. I would say that to be consistent, you would have to censor yourself much of the time.
Show me where I have "reinterpreted" somebody.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
> You have a long history of being a stupid sack of shit <
You are projecting again, Larry. It looks like you have no answer. She has pointed out your childishness in the past and here you demonstrate it, dunghill.
> Show me where I have "reinterpreted" somebody. <
You just gave an example with ViU.
You were the one who lied in that exchange. You claimed that Judge Jones was giving legal advice. Since you were lying about an objective fact, you should have censored yourseld.
Come on Hector. We all know that Larry is a lying jackass. (Oops, that may be considered personal gossip!)
Sherry D comes off as quite a bit easier on him than the rest of us but Larry obviously has a problem with women (Oops, more personal gossip!)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hector barfed,
>>>>>>> I never claimed that Judge Jones told the newspaper that his statement that the school board election results would not affect his decision was intended to be legal advice <
This is a lie about objective facts. <<<<<<<
I will not have my blog cluttered up with lies.
Next time I will delete your lies without comment and without trace.
Hector barfed,
>>>>>> Redefining things as "gossip" that even you admit are not allows you to pretend to cover your arbitrary censorship.<<<<<<
I tolerate some things that are fairly personal -- e.g., my court records -- because they are in the public record. But often these personal things are not relevant to the discussion.
According to your definitions, nothing is gossip.
What a bozo.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ViU barfed,
>>>>>> This post has been removed by a blog administrator. <
Because it showed him to be a lying hypocrite. <<<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, I didn't lie by saying that Judge Jones told the newspaper that he was giving legal advice, and I didn't lie when I said that I did not say that Judge Jones told the newspaper that he was giving legal advice.
On the other hand, you lied when you said that he told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law.
This blog is no longer going to be a trolls' paradise where you lousy trolls can say anything you want and get away with it. As I said, I am no longer permitting comments that clutter up this blog with crap -- no-censorship policy or no no-censorship policy.
Next time your comment will be deleted without explanation and without trace. These explanations themselves are cluttering up this blog.
> I didn't lie by saying that Judge Jones told the newspaper that he was giving legal advice, and I didn't lie when I said that I did not say that Judge Jones told the newspaper that he was giving legal advice. <
Amazing! the dolt first says that he didn't lie in saying something, then he says that he did not say it. His underwear must be really be tied in a knot by ViU's pointing out his hypocrisy.
If you claim, as you are now wrongly, that ViU said something, show us where it occurred. If you claim, as you are now wrongly, that Judge Jones gave legal advice, show us where. Just ranting these lies and cowardly censoring any reference to them makes you look even more ridiculous (if such is possible) than you have in the past.
On the other hand, you lied when you said that he told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law.
This blog is no longer going to be a trolls' paradise where you lousy trolls can say anything you want and get away with it. As I said, I am no longer permitting comments that clutter up this blog with crap -- no-censorship policy or no no-censorship policy.
Next time your comment will be deleted without explanation and without trace. These explanations themselves are cluttering up this blog.
>>>> If you claim, as you are now wrongly, that ViU said something, show us where it occurred. <<<<<<
How can you say that I claimed wrongly, dunghill, when you haven't even given me a chance to prove my claim?
The search function on this blog generally does not work on the comment sections, but I found the following comment by ViU on another blog:
The bottom line is that saying that you will decide a case according to the law is not giving advice to those who would wish that the decision would be based on an upcoming popularity contest.
I will make this easy for you, Larry. I have one yes or no question: Are you so stupid that you can't understand that saying you will go by the law is not giving legal advice? It appears that the answer is yes.
There's the smoking gun. And it was not an "upcoming popularity contest" -- the election had already been held and the results were in.
>>>>>>> If you claim, as you are now wrongly, that Judge Jones gave legal advice <<<<<<
There you go again, dunghill, saying my claim is wrong without giving me a chance to prove or argue my point.
I said that Judge Jones implicitly gave legal advice. Since the only way the election results could possibly affect his decision would be by repeal of the ID policy prior to judgment, saying that the election results would not affect his decision was the same as saying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. In other words, he was in effect telling the new school board members not to bother repealing the ID policy prior to judgment because it would not do them any good. If you are too obtuse to see such an obvious hint, then you need to be euthanized to protect you and others from the likely consequences of your stupidity.
> you haven't even given me a chance to prove my claim? <
You pathetic cretin, this is your blog, you can post a reply at any time. Then you can not only arbitrarily censor any posts pointing to your fallacies, but you can then lie about what the censored posts said, as you often do.
> I found the following comment by ViU on another blog:
The bottom line is that saying that you will decide a case according to the law is not giving advice to those who would wish that the decision would be based on an upcoming popularity contest.
I will make this easy for you, Larry. I have one yes or no question: Are you so stupid that you can't understand that saying you will go by the law is not giving legal advice? It appears that the answer is yes. <
Well it looks like you have proved ViU's case.
> There you go again, dunghill, saying my claim is wrong without giving me a chance to prove or argue my point. <
The fact that you have failed to prove your point, as always, is not the same as not having the chance to prove or argue your point, as you have attempted to do. Your lack of ability in debate or logic is not the fault of others.
> I said that Judge Jones implicitly gave legal advice. <
Not for a rational mind. Saying that it is raining is not advice to buy an umbrella.
> saying that the election results would not affect his decision was the same as saying that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. <
Neither of which could be construed by a rational mind as giving legal advice. Obviously you are too obtuse to see this.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. It is impossible to reason with someone who says that night is day.
> It is impossible to reason with someone who says that night is day. <
Now at least you are beginning to understand the problem we have dealing with you, dunghill.
Don't give up, Larry. You haven't tried yet. Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.
Post a Comment
<< Home