Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pachomius]

... and invite others also members here to talk about their bad trips elsewhere, and the very blatantly rude moderators and administrators of the forums where we have met with very bad trips?


Pachomius

[Pachomius]

Since this thread has not been deleted and I banned, I guess I may continue until advised to cease and desist on pain on being banned.

Which has happened exactly to me, I have just now learned that the owners of the Philosophy forum in this address, h-t-t-p://forums*philosophyforums*com [ remove the - and change the * to . ], have banned me, after I have written in their feedback board posts inquiring and discussing most civilly with them the reasons why they deleted my thread on pinching nose which I have introduced here in the epistemology and metaphysics board.

How can people be into philosophy? and be so very brazen suppressing other people's ideas in their forum which they don't agree with and consider to be low quality, by deleting them, and then when you are into a civil discussion with them about the reasons for deleting, they ban you.

Look for Pachomius in that forum that banned me, and you will not find me there anymore, they have deleted all my posts there, so that new comers would not even ever imagine unless told by oldsters that for a brief while there was a Pachomius there with ideas which he thought could be discussed openly, freely, and civilly in the forum they just joined.


Addressing the owners of this forum: read the help section of that forum, and you will see what kind of anti-philosophy attitude the owners have, they are into all kinds of -- may I use the word which is most apt -- paranoia, it is more a help page of warnings than encouragement to express your ideas bravely and but civilly.

What do you guys here say, shall I be long here or brief?


Pachomius

[Pachomius]

That is the stigma people will hurl on you when you so much as mention that you have been banned and unfairly at that.

As though they have not been ever banned anywhere and unfairly at that.


You see, there is no forum watch like non-government citizens mutual protection society, say for example against industrial pollution in their community, or something like the American Civil Liberties Union in a much larger scale; so owners of web forums make it easy for people to sign up and then when their views clash with the vested interest or personal pet theories of the owners, these latter will maneuver you to leave if not openly ban you.


The internet is a social event with still a very short history, but I am sure such people organizations will appear eventually to look after the rights of people signing up with web forums, but are treated most shabbily by the forum owners and flagrantly against their own stated policy of free inquiry and free speech.


I am looking now for a good non-moderated forum where members respect each other's views and owners don't intrude their presence and personal pet views to the extent, even of eliminating on spurious grounds members who do not share their pet theories.


Several years back there was a philosophy forum in the About.com website, the one in charge was a guy by the name of Richard Rich. It had a very big membership; there were big clashes among members of the most contradictory views and advocacies, but never do they ever long persisted in any uncivil behavior except only for a short period after which they came back to their senses.

One time, I asked Richard Rich why he did not intervene at all or almost never, he told me that people who are not civilized will leave the forum sooner than later, and to keep intervening is a form of being dictatorial to the suppression of free inquiry and free speech, and you might as well join the Nazis or the erstwhile Soviet Communists if you have that kind of a mentality.


You say that I am whining, but remember that is a stigma people put on others because they themselves are afraid to complain even when their grievance is justified, and by way of a fool's consolation they assuage their gripe by telling themselves that they are different and therefore better because they don't whine.

On that score they are victims twice over, once from an assailant and second time from themselves by inhibiting themselves from complaining to anyone who can hear and perhaps will lend a listening ear.


What happened to that About.com philosophy forum supervised by Richard Rich? One morning I could not open it anymore, and learned that it no longer exists; on searching everywhere in the web to find out what happened to it and also for Richard Rich, I came to good hints that the forum and others at that period of About.com where abolished by the owners because they were not making money.


You know what, the owners of that forum who banned me? they are after producing a kind of textbook with all the views represented conforming to a certain school of philosophy or religion or whatever, that is why they are always saying that running a forum is like exercising an editor's job where they have to discard materials which they don't think are fit (read that, in consonance with their pet theories) for publication in their most pretentiously most elite forum.


See? whining of course.



Pachomius

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Addressing the owners of this forum: read the help section of that forum, and you will see what kind of anti-philosophy attitude the owners have, they are into all kinds of -- may I use the word which is most apt -- paranoia, it is more a help page of warnings than encouragement to express your ideas bravely and but civilly.

I have been a member of that other forum for years. The admin of that forum does a great job, in my opinion. The administration's ability to delete low quality posts and ban users who break the rules allows for truly philosophical topics.

A person can express their ideas in a variety of places, but unless those ideas are philosophy a person cannot discuss them their.

You just need to find a forum community that fits you. Each forum community has its own rules and standards, and those rules and standards will please a certain type of people.

What do you guys here say, shall I be long here or brief?

I hope you will be here a long time. And you can be so long as you follow our forum rules.

Thanks,
Scott

[Pachomius]

I have been a member of that other forum for years. The admin of that forum does a great job, in my opinion. The administration's ability to delete low quality posts and ban users who break the rules allows for truly philosophical topics. -- Scott

When was the last time you were there, how many months or years ago? Perhaps if you visit there again and stay for some weeks, you might notice that most probably the quality has took a steep dive.

I had not been there except for two messages perhaps a year ago, and then just immediately some five days back with the thread about disproving solipsism and idealism by pinching noses.

Tell me if you ever read a moderator during your time there telling a poster that his post starting a thread, the one I put in my thread here on pinching noses, is garbage? not once but twice in open forum, in two posts, in the feedback board of that forum.

Is that doing a professional job or being as I told her and asked her to do instead a professional job by being diplomatic as moderators are instructed to be in the help section of that forum, is that doing a professional job, or as I told here most civilly, conducting herself in a "belligerently antagonistic personally insulting" abusive conduct toward a poster?

I told her that she could have just said, the post is not acceptable; why call it garbage, not once but twice in two messages in a public forum, unless she has a very arrogant mind and heart, thinking that other people's writings are to her all garbage unless they meet with her sanctimonious concurrence.

That message together with the one addressed to Paul the admim/owner also written by me with all civility and keeping to reason, those two messages could not contain their vindictive rage against me, instead stirred up their hatred toward me even more that they banned me right away, which is the equivalent of shooting me if we were in the real world and I am discussing with them about a traffic incident and they are the cops licensed to carry and use a gun, and I don't.

[ Dear Scott, just tell me if you want me to stop already... You are the owner/admin of this forum, and I will comply; besides I am sure you don't go about your business calling the posts of people here garbage for not meriting your approval or not in consonance with your pet theories. ]



Pachomius

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I can't really comment on your particular situation at their forums because I don't know all the details.

I can understand why you would feel offended, but there is not much you can do about it. So I suggest you just put it behind you. You're welcome here.

Thanks,
Scott

[Pachomius]

I like to ask you a personal question: as we are all here into philosophy now in this 21st century of the history of learning and knowledge,

• Do you subscribe to the practice in this your own forum of deleting members' threads and posts on the ground of poor quality?

If so, perhaps you would also take the time and labor to spell out your description of what is poor quality in philosophical thinking and writing.

Begging your indulgence and with all due respect to you as the owner of this forum, tell me what you think of that post of mine on disproving solipsism and idealism by pinching noses, is that a thinking and writing in philosophy that is poor quality?


You know? I am trying to figure out why these two persons, Paul and hyena in petticoat, humans of a philosophy orientation presumably, reacted with such rabid violent mindless even to be exact retaliation to my piece of philosophical thinking and writing on pinching noses to disprove solipsism and idealism, as to delete my thread and then liquidate me right way for attempts to engage them in a civil discussion on the sense and sensibility of their action -- Why?

Because most probably and certainly when we take into account their kind of human nature, they are acting like the notorious Spanish Inquisition which received a small piece of treatise on the idea that the sun might be the center of the solar system or that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

When you look back at all those inquisition offices in 16th century Europe, whether Catholic or Protestant, they were all inspired and emboldened by a paranoid insecurity of losing their faith and thereby their reason for existing, worse, losing the Kingdom.


Back to my personal question to you, since you are not above being unapproachable to mortals like myself,

• Do you subscribe to the policy of deleting threads and posts which you judge to be of poor quality, and if so, how do you understand poor quality in philosophical thinking and writing?

Thanks for your forbearance.


And they deleted all my posts, every single one of them, just like burning prohibited books, documents, papers whatever on the ground of poor quality.

If you care to read my posts in re this affair, I have saved them and will most gladly make them available to you -- but of course I have to put all that behind me, thanks.



Pachomius

PS By the way that website, http://www.hostican.com, is again intruding into my monitor screen.

[Pachomius]

I am curious and I believe with a legitimate curiosity, when will you answer my question?

I like to ask you a personal question: as we are all here into philosophy now in this 21st century of the history of learning and knowledge,

• Do you subscribe to the practice in this your own forum of deleting members' threads and posts on the ground of poor quality?

If so, perhaps you would also take the time and labor to spell out your description of what is poor quality in philosophical thinking and writing.

Begging your indulgence and with all due respect...

[...]

Pachomius

[Pachomius]

Here are your rules which also mention poor quality; applying your rules to my post on pinching noses to disprove solipsism and idealism, please judge it and tell me if you see it to be of poor quality as to deserve deletion, and if I start a discussion with you on its poor quality, you will ban me or mete out some other lesser penalty on me.

These rules apply to the entire Philosophy Forums, not just the feedback section.

No excessive or unnecessary vulgarity or profanity.

No insults, flames, personal attacks, libel, slander, or ad hominems. Please keep discussion focused on the issues of the specific threads and topics, and not on the character of those discussing the issues.

Posters must use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If a poster is sloppy with his or her spelling and grammar, then the value of the post is probably just as low.

These are discussion forums not an instant messenger. Please do not use instant-message short-hand, such as "u" instead of 'you' or "str8" instead of 'straight'.

All posts must be on topic.

No single word posts, or meaningless posts. No posts that simply say "yes", "no", "bump", or "I agree".

Before posting a thread, search the forum and see if there is already a thread on that topic. All new threads must be at least 45 words. Do not post a thread which only asks for one-word answers. Poor quality threads will be deleted.
Irrelevant threads will be moved to a relevant category or deleted. Irrelevant posts will be deleted.

No spam. No advertising. No selling.

Posters who violate these rules will be warned or banned.

The staff can and will modify or delete any posts at their discretion. Also at their discretion, the staff can and will suspend or ban any posters.

If you don't feel that you have to answer my request, perhaps we can have a discussion why not? Or are you going to ban me?


Pachomius

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Pachomius, I appolize for not responding more quickly. I have been trying to find and fix a CPU memory issue in my sites.

Do you subscribe to the practice in this your own forum of deleting members' threads and posts on the ground of poor quality?

I will delete posts of very poor quality. If a thread simply is not philosophical, I will just move it to the off-topic section. Other than that, the only major things that would cause me to delete a post (and, if persistent, ban a user) are:

-many spelling or grammar mistakes
-ad hominems or personal attacks (this is most important to me)
-excessive vulgarity
-spam

Begging your indulgence and with all due respect to you as the owner of this forum, tell me what you think of that post of mine on disproving solipsism and idealism by pinching noses, is that a thinking and writing in philosophy that is poor quality?

I think it is not that good as far as philosophical thread-starters go, but I think it had enough potential to leave it. Nonetheless, I do agree with Paul's criticisms:

-It's 95% quote. A topic about how you wrote a topic elsewhere makes for poor, disorganized reading. Just present the issue. Smells like you're spamming for the other site the way you did it, though I'm too lazy to check into indicators of whether you own said site.
-It's (in the quote) rambly and makes a grand sweeping claim. It's also a self-defeating topic: it argues that arguing is a fallacy.
-It seems to indicate either a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word fallacy or a confused mind.
-The "story" creates a trivial strawman of skepticism to burn down by saying "that's silly and stupid", or basically pointing to what a natural or practical behavior is when that isn't the issue. It's like saying the earth is flat because you have to act in everyday life as though it were, and don't worry about sliding off.
-You write "Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!" That should always be grounds for immediate deletion.
-In the end, your theory appears to be that instead of presenting arguments we should laugh at anyone who disagrees with something we strongly believe. I think philosophy can get along without you.

I suggest you use those criticisms constructively.

...how do you understand poor quality in philosophical thinking and writing?

I want to note that a post could be fine quality but simply not be philosophical.

The idea is to stick to discussing philosophy, and not to include any personal insults, flames, or such. I would suggest the users of this forum try to politely make philosophical arguments and put effort into doing it in a rational and organized way (with correct spelling and grammar).

Generally speaking, as long as a person tries to explain their philosophical ideas well without personally attacking anyone, then I doubt there will be a problem.

Thanks,
Scott

[Pachomius]

Here is my reply to Paul's criticism which triggered him to ban me without notice much less ceremonies.

Posted 01/10/08 - 06:43 AM:
Subject: Let us just reason calmly... #20

• Paul wrote:
  As you'd know if you selected in your profile options to be notified of moderator actions, it was deleted by hyena_in_petticoat for the reason "low quality" -- so it'd be best to ask her. Glancing through it, though, some things are apparant:

I agree perfectly, thanks, Paul, except for your allegation that "some things are apparant," which I -- with all due deference to your creatorship, ownership, and operatorship of this forum -- submit that one should not trust in appearances which can be very subjective and arbitrary.

• It's 95% quote. A topic about how you wrote a topic elsewhere makes for poor, disorganized reading. Just present the issue. Smells like you're spamming for the other site the way you did it, though I'm too lazy to check into indicators of whether you own said site.

I am sure it is not all 95% quote, that is an exaggeration from your part; may I just suggest that as the creator and operator of this forum and as one with philosophy for an ongoing concern, please adopt an attitude toward the posters who have registered themselves to be members here and are writing here, of treating them with diplomatic hospitality as befits people like yourself with a philosophical orientation.

The fact is that the post we are talking about from me was originally put in the philosophy and humanities board of visibly secondary importance in the Hypography Science Forums which is a purely science forum.

I put it here in your forum as an initiating post for a thread on disproving solipsism and idealism, because it is a purely philosophy forum, expecting there would be people here who would want to read it and to react to it on its substantial thoughts.

You have noticed that Kris and Hypothesis were still asking for it when they could not find it any longer. See, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thre ... 28821.html

• It's (in the quote) rambly and makes a grand sweeping claim. It's also a self-defeating topic: it argues that arguing is a fallacy.

My claim is that a philosophy advocated and adhered to by its proponent as his personal philosophy which however he does not want to put to practice in his everyday life or cannot, is a pseudo philosophy.

I say that there is a fallacy which I call arguing for the sake of arguing, instead of reasoning and taking into account that reasoning must be founded before anything else, on the fact that we must first be alive, living and can live and do actually live physiologically, before we can even talk about anything at all, and that a philosophy that already in its at least implied and logically embedded premises posits a non-life world where mankind is not present and cannot be a living presence is already fundamentally a fallacious way of doing philosophy -- unless it is just for an amusing make-believe scenario for pastime and recreation, but it is not doing philosophy.

• It seems to indicate either a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word fallacy or a confused mind.

That is your opinion, but I submit with all due deference to your creatorship, ownership, and operatorship of this forum, that you have a limited understanding of what a fallacy is and its implications.

• The "story" creates a trivial strawman of skepticism to burn down by saying "that's silly and stupid", or basically pointing to what a natural or practical behavior is when that isn't the issue. It's like saying the earth is flat because you have to act in everyday life as though it were, and don't worry about sliding off.

I never used the words "that's silly and stupid" in that post, please show me those words and I will take back my words and apologize to you.

The earth is not flat and everyone knows it now, but what I am saying is not that the earth is not flat or is flat, but that we are living entities with a life physiology and any philosophy that is founded upon a denial of that physiological life, by advocating that we don't exist except in our mind by our thinking and the whole world also, that is a pseudo philosophy, a fallacy of thinking, or a perversion of reasoning.

• You write "Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!" That should always be grounds for immediate deletion.

On that basis, H.L. Mencken could never have written and published and contributed so much to our knowledge of human nature and human thinking and human behaving, for he said:

• • One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent. [ Citation available on request ]

• In the end, your theory appears to be that instead of presenting arguments we should laugh at anyone who disagrees with something we strongly believe. I think philosophy can get along without you.

That is your conclusion not mine, and therein lies a fallacy somewhere.


With all deference to your creatorship, ownership, and operatorship of this forum, I remain


Yours most sincerely,


Pachomius

Are you a member of the inner sanctum of Paul's and hyena's in petticoat forum? I thought that all my posts there have been deleted to non inner sanctum members.


I was once in a very popular forum, the IIDB, where I was finally banned for allegedly not keeping to the agreement on registration (yes, that kind of a most broad and vague ground), because people there starting with admins and mods and even owners do not relish critique of Buddhism, their fair-haired baby of a philosophy and religion; I was once unofficially via pm warned by a mod there to stop posting comments in the feedback complaint board.

Just give me a warning if you have depleted your quota of forbearance for me in this feedback board.

I accept your critique however of my post on pinching noses to disprove solipsism and idealism.



Best regards,


Pachomius

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm sorry to here of your bad trips on other forums.

(I'm also sorry that my website happened to have technical difficulties when you first arrived. )

I think you will do fine here.

I've decided not to comment further on your posts elsewhere and your disagreements with the admins of other forums. It's nothing against you; I just feel uncomfortable talking about them much here.

Thanks,
Scott

[Bloefeld2002]

Pachomius,

I'm pretty conservative politically. I was on the NY Times political forums for quite awhile. I got bounced a few times because I was pretty at odds with the NY Times editorial policy.

On one occassion I was called a fascist by a person who claimed they wanted to kill me. I replied that calling me a fascist was blood libel and but for the anonymity of the forum I would sue the person who called me that for fun.

For this, I got bounced.

So I can identify with what you are saying. This forum is much less argumentitive and hate filled. People here are respectful of one another and ideas can be properly discussed. I think you will have a good time.