Hypocritical Scienceblogs bloggers
Some Scienceblogs bloggers are all upset because of a new commercial Scienceblogs blog by Pepsico -- some have even quit Scienceblogs in protest [1] [2] . These bloggers feel that a commercial blog compromises the integrity of Scienceblogs. These bloggers are very hypocritical -- Scienceblogs has or has had some of the worst arbtirary censors in the blogosphere: Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, and Jason Rosenhouse.
Labels: Ed Brayton (new #1), PZ Myers
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/30/2010 07:03:00 AM
14 Comments:
How disingenuous of you! I visit a vast array of blogs. Whenever I visit sites of the nature of those you mention, I find anything can be successfully posted. The only exception to this is when someone trolls relentlessly with stupidity. It is then publicly announced that they are being blocked. Sheesh, even the notorious DM gets a good look-in.
Creationist, godbot and anti-choice sites are a different matter altogether. Even the most innocuous opposing comments never get posted on some. If you are able to seriously prove a point against their case, you are permanently blocked, completely.
So don't start talking about hypocrisy.
>>>>>>> The only exception to this is when someone trolls relentlessly with stupidity. <<<<<<<
Wrong, bozo. For example, on Fatheaded Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog, I argued that when plaintiffs reject an out-of-court settlement that offers relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court, a particular federal court rule authorizes judges to dismiss the lawsuit. Fatheaded Ed disagreed, misrepresenting my "out-of-court settlement that offered relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court" as "any settlement that the court finds reasonable." There is a big difference, you stupid idiot. Fatheaded Ed started permanently blocking my comments before I had a single chance to respond.
Like I said '...when someone trolls with relentless stupidity..' - joke!
OK, you may be peeved with what happened, but the reality is that what I said is true. The access and moderation on religious, the political 'right' and creationist blogs is vastly restricted compared to atheist, scientific and liberal ones.
Try posting contrary views on places like Uncommon Descent or some of the godbot sites.
>>>>>>> The access and moderation on religious, the political 'right' and creationist blogs is vastly restricted compared to atheist, scientific and liberal ones.
Try posting contrary views on places like Uncommon Descent or some of the godbot sites. <<<<<<<
IMO it is impossible to generalize. Of course, your views may be biased by what I presume is your lack of personal experience in trying to post contrary views on what you call "atheist, scientific, and liberal" blogs.
I was arbitrarily banned myself on Uncommon Descent, even though I am generally supportive of their views -- here is my post titled, "Fed up with Uncommon Descent's arbitrary censorship". And fanatic Darwinist John Kwok was arbitrarily censored on Sleazy PZ Myers' blog "Pharyngula." Go figure.
To an extent you may be correct but I think the bottom line is - who is more likely to have moderation turned on?
As I said: IMO it is impossible to generalize.
You were banned on Ed Brayton's blog for your repeated misstatements. You seemed to believe that if you repeated something enough times it would become true. Ed gave you quite a bit of rope at first.
What is your excuse for blocking so many posts on this blog?
>>>>>> You were banned on Ed Brayton's blog for your repeated misstatements <<<<<<
Wrong, you stupid, disgusting, degenerate, lying dunghill. Like I said, I made the statement once and Fatheaded Ed twisted my words and started blocking my comments without giving me a single chance to respond.
>>>>> What is your excuse for blocking so many posts on this blog? <<<<<<<
You just gave a good example of such an excuse.
>>>>>>Fatheaded Ed disagreed, misrepresenting my "out-of-court settlement that offered relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court" as "any settlement that the court finds reasonable."<<<<<<
"Wrong, bozo." You were the one who characterized that kind of settlement as a "reasonable settlement." You obviously haven't been a plaintiff in federal court - the example you offered was not "equal to or greater than the maximum relief" because it failed to account for the costs of filing the lawsuit and retaining the lawyers.
>>>>>>> You were the one who characterized that kind of settlement as a "reasonable settlement." <<<<<<<
Well, it is, but I didn't equate the two like Fatheaded Ed did, doofus. The point, doofus, is that not all "reasonable" settlements necessarily provide "the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court."
What part of"any" don't you understand, moron?
I know exactly what "any" means, you stupid dunghill. And here it means inclusion of "reasonable" settlements that are less than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court. Which was exactly my point.
>>>>>>I know exactly what "any" means, you stupid dunghill. And here it means inclusion of "reasonable" settlements that are less than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court. Which was exactly my point.<<<<<<
"Wrong, dunghill." It means inclusion of "reasonable settlements" (your words) that are less than, equal to, or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court. Which is exactly Ed's point.
>>>>>>> It means inclusion of "reasonable settlements" (your words) that are less than, equal to, or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court. Which is exactly Ed's point. <<<<<<<
No, you lousy dunghill, "reasonable settlements" are not my words. And that was not Ed's point. Ed just twisted my words.
And your use of the word "inclusion" here is inappropriate -- inclusion means part of the whole, not the whole thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home