With regards to shanedk and MasterGhostKnight

[shanedk]

I'll also suggest you to reconsider that "the very reason why this site was created in the first place" isn't to fight DMCA's and votebots. Those are merely events that led to the creation of this site.

Um...what is it about those two phrases that you think is different?

This site exists because of all the creationist vote-bots etc. and the difficulty of creating a support network on YouTube to fight them. Fighting vote-bots is part and parcel of what this site is supposed to be about. You've denied that it has ANYTHING to do with it. All to excuse reprehensible behavior.

 

[monitoradiation]

Um, yes you did! You put it in quotes!

I only quote you when quotes look like ^ that. The rest if i put it in quotation marks, I do it for emphasis for what I think is the point of my sentence. We don't all type like you.

I didn't say that's ALL it was set up to do. You're reaching now.

Argument from semantics. You implied it by saying that we should've helped you out, and that's why I said you were being unreasonable.

Yes, and what were the parts you ellipsed out?

You can quote from it if you want, there are nothing I omitted that were important to the discussion. Because to me, the forum was set up for one reason, with 3 specific roles. The overarching theme is rational discussions: roles being general discussions, forums, and support for censored YouTube channels. If you agree that LoR was set up with more than one intent in mind, then my point stands.

Your main gripe is that LoR didn't support you during your votebot attacks. And my response is that it is unreasonable to expect LoR to mobilize as a whole to come to your rescue when support for censored channels are 1 of many things that the site is for, and it is inappropriate to insult the whole of LoR for it.

 

[borrofburi]

 

[richi1173]

Yeah, except these guys take it VERY personally.

I think so too but to a degree, we all take it personal. I never expected IJoe to respond with such furry at my topic either and was caught of guard. Hey, but to be fair to IJoe, I got in flame mode too after I saw his response. I assume its the same for you; it just devolves into insults if it keeps going.

The appropriate response to "controversial" is NOT flamage. It's certainly not going into a thread where someone has posted helpful information about preventing DMCA claims and flaming him for the political videos. And it's CERTAINLY not making lame videos attempting (very badly) to debunk his skeptical videos trying to take him down as a skeptic before even TRYING to make videos refuting his politics.

Except I NEVER asked for ANY support here for my political videos. Only support for my channel itself when it was vote-botted. And even then, it's not like they had to 5-* my political videos if they didn't want to.

I guess they viewed your channel as a libertarian stronghold after you began posting in the healthcare topic. The vote-bot attack just happened to be at the time that the flame war on the healthcare topic was going on and most had not gotten over the boiling anger that anyone feels when they debate a controversial topics like politics or economics. Hey even now, some have not gotten over it.

I wish you could have gotten more support, I don't quite remember if I did or not support you since it was a long time ago. But if I didn't, you have my apologies for letting anger get to me.

 

[monitoradiation]

I'll also suggest you to reconsider that "the very reason why this site was created in the first place" isn't to fight DMCA's and votebots. Those are merely events that led to the creation of this site.

Um...what is it about those two phrases that you think is different?

This site exists because of all the creationist vote-bots etc. and the difficulty of creating a support network on YouTube to fight them. Fighting vote-bots is part and parcel of what this site is supposed to be about. You've denied that it has ANYTHING to do with it. All to excuse reprehensible behavior.

I'm going to use your little trick back onto you. Where did I specifically deny that it has "ANYTHING to do with" fighting vote-bots? I said that fighting false DMCA and votebots is CONSISTENT with what LoR is about, which it rational discussions.

Secondly, It isn't "part-and-parcel". It is merely consistent with, as I've said, perhaps 4 times already, with the idea of rational discourse.

Have you ever adapted a tool for some other use? Say, a cleaver to cut cardboard? Well, the cleaver was made to cut meat. But it's also good at cutting other things. The overarching theme for creating a cleaver is to cut. To cut WHAT, is up to the user.

Similarily, LoR was set up for rational discourse. If the user has problems with censorship, then he can ask LoR to help. That's all I see out of this.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Um, yes you did! You put it in quotes!

I only quote you when quotes look like ^ that. The rest if i put it in quotation marks, I do it for emphasis for what I think is the point of my sentence. We don't all type like you.

We don't all type like shanedk but some of us choose to type in English and that doesn't include you!

Seriously, you use quotes for emphasis?! That is simply incorrect...

 

[shanedk]

I only quote you when quotes look like ^ that. The rest if i put it in quotation marks, I do it for emphasis for what I think is the point of my sentence.

Quotes are NOT emphasis. Quotes are NEVER emphasis.

We don't all type like you.

Bullshit. Learn the fucking language.

Argument from semantics.

YOU'RE the one making the BS semantic arguments.

You implied it by saying that we should've helped you out, and that's why I said you were being unreasonable.

You know PERFECTLY well that I was replying to MGK saying, "After the League of Reason assisted you on fighting your cases of censorship, and even after we (me included) helped you the first thing that you did was to criticize it."

You're a lying asshole.

You can quote from it if you want, there are nothing I omitted that were important to the discussion.

Except for the part where he talks about this being a place to help fight censorship...

If you agree that LoR was set up with more than one intent in mind, then my point stands.

I never said otherwise! YOU, on the other hand, said--AND I QUOTE--"We're not a support group for those who're fighting false DMCA's." You said it's NOT, not in ANY WAY, what this place is about.

Your main gripe is that LoR didn't support you during your votebot attacks.

No, my gripe is that AFTER not supporting me, people LIE and say they did, to try and discredit me and make me appear ungrateful.

And my response is that it is unreasonable to expect LoR to mobilize as a whole to come to your rescue

Oh, stop with your LYING mouth acting as if I were demanding special treatment! I posted that my channel was hit along with others; the LEAST this site could do if it wants to maintain an ounce of integrity is consider me an equal, but I was DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED.

And then you fucking assholes LIED about it.

 

[shanedk]

I'm going to use your little trick back onto you. Where did I specifically deny that it has "ANYTHING to do with" fighting vote-bots? I said that fighting false DMCA and votebots is CONSISTENT with what LoR is about,

ABSOLUTELY NOT, you LIAR! YOU said, "We're not a support group for those who're fighting false DMCA's."

Secondly, It isn't "part-and-parcel".

Yes, it is, according to AW's video.

At any rate, you assholes have NO call to REFUSE to help me when I need it, and then try to guilt me afterward by LYING and saying you supported me when you FUCKING DIDN'T!!!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Total mentions of the word lie or derivatives in this topic by shanedk: 15

This issue is between me and you shanedk. If you want you can spam my pm box and in return I promiss to ignore you. In no way you should have involved the LoR in this issue. PERIOD
I have avoided posting to avoid further drag of this already bad relation, it would be good that you do the same.

 

[rabbitpirate]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can have this both ways. How is someone supposed to know, when they see that opening, whether the video is an official release by the LoR as opposed to some luser with Windows Movie Maker who's just spitballing? It seems to me that, from this statement, you're wanting the additional recognition such use of the logo gives you while absolving yourself of any and all consequences stemming from its use.

Might I suggest a modified version, with some added text such as "an informal member of" at the top, to distinguish from actual LoR releases?

I have to admit I agree with what you are saying here, if it is to be used as an advert rather than an endorsment it might need a bit of tweeking to make this a bit clearer.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

Oh, for crying out...Point out ONE ad hominem attack I've made here! ONE!!!

you said and I quote:
"Why don't you get on HIS case? Just because he's one of your fellow butt-buddies or something?"

Fellow butt-buddies?

What does his sexual preference have to do with anything? Was that an attempt to lower his argument, by calling him and his friend gay?
It is not taking out of context. It was a clear ad hominem.

At any rate, you assholes have NO call to REFUSE to help me when I need it, and then try to guilt me afterward by LYING and saying you supported me when you FUCKING DIDN'T!!!

We have all the right not to help you. As far as I remember I have not signed a contract where I stated I must help you at all times. I supported you. I have supported a lot of people. But have I supported everybody, that needed it. No. I will admit that upfront. I am not a bot.

This site exists because of all the creationist vote-bots etc. and the difficulty of creating a support network on YouTube to fight them.

'League of Reason, established 2009, is a multi-author blog written by a collection of Youtube's most popular freethinkers. Our aims are to promote reason, critical thinking and the public understanding of science, as well as taking a stand against censorship; particularly by religiously motivated individuals and organisations.'

'The forum proved to be a successful and popular resource, not only for fighting censorship, but also for the discussion of a wide variety of topics. It flourished into a strong community for like-minded people all over the world.'

-

And it doesn't matter what kind of quotation there is being used. It could be written in italic, or with the ,¤in front. It just doesn't matter.

 

[shanedk]

Oh, for crying out...Point out ONE ad hominem attack I've made here! ONE!!!

you said and I quote:
"Why don't you get on HIS case? Just because he's one of your fellow butt-buddies or something?"

Fellow butt-buddies?

What does his sexual preference have to do with anything? Was that an attempt to lower his argument, by calling him and his friend gay?

That's NOT what I did and you know it. You're really desperate, aren't you? I called you a SYCOPHANT.

And it's STILL not an ad hominem. It's clear you don't even know what the term MEANS.l

We have all the right not to help you.

But you DON'T have the right to LIE about it afterward and say you did!

And it doesn't matter what kind of quotation there is being used. It could be written in italic,

Quotations are NOT italics. With every post, you show yourself to be more and more desperate.

Before you go around saying what a site based on reason should BE, maybe you should learn what the word MEANS.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

That's NOT what I did and you know it. You're really desperate, aren't you? I called you a SYCOPHANT.

And it's STILL not an ad hominem. It's clear you don't even know what the term MEANS.

Projecting are we? This is my first entry into this debate, so I can not see how you can claim I am desperate, or that you even called me something.

It is a clear ad hominem. Are you attack the argument? Are you? No! Then would you please shut up?
You are by no stretch of the imagination refering to the argument here. It is a direct attack on the person. Nothing more, nothing less.

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

We have all the right not to help you.

But you DON'T have the right to LIE about it afterward and say you did!

Actually we do have that right. Lying is not against the law. Sorry to say, but it is not.

And it doesn't matter what kind of quotation there is being used. It could be written in italic,

Quotations are NOT italics. With every post, you show yourself to be more and more desperate.

Before you go around saying what a site based on reason should BE, maybe you should learn what the word MEANS.

No, but italic can be quotes. You should be able to tell the difference betweens those two. Orange can't be a car, but a car can be orange.

One form of reason is for instance reading who wrote the entry. No wait that is just common sense, so you don't look like an ass projecting at everybody.

 

[shanedk]

Projecting are we?

No; I asked for examples of an ad hominem, which is using irrelevant facts about the person in place of an argument. "You can't take his videos seriously--he only has 200 subscribers!" THAT would be an ad hominem.

This is my first entry into this debate, so I can not see how you can claim I am desperate,

Sorry, I confused you with someone else, but the content of my criticism stands.

Are you attack the argument? Are you? No!

I ABSOLUTELY attacked his arguments! But you didn't quote that part, did you?

No, but italic can be quotes.

But he didn't use italic--he used QUOTES!!! And DIRECTLY attributed the phrase to me. That means he was QUOTING me. That's the ONLY thing it can mean.

 

[rabbitpirate]

(we currently have a mere 66 members, as opposed to the 3400+ of the LoR.

I think you may have hit on why inappropriate comments sometimes slip through the gaps right there. It is much easier to keep everyone in line when there are only 66 people as opposed to 3400+. Not an excuse mind, just an explaination.

That said we can all do better. AW posted a link to the rules in his post. If you haven't done so before please read over them now. They are not hard to follow and basically boil down to:

1. Be polite
2. Don't be a dick
3. Don't put up anything you wouldn't want your boss to catch you looking at.

I think that is something we can all manage, don't you?

 

[shanedk]

I think you may have hit on why inappropriate comments sometimes slip through the gaps right there. It is much easier to keep everyone in line when there are only 66 people as opposed to 3400+. Not an excuse mind, just an explaination.

I realize that, which is why I pointed it out. However, we do seem to have threads with major disagreement without these kinds of problems coming up. LoR has had this problem from the start.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

Projecting are we?

No; I asked for examples of an ad hominem, which is using irrelevant facts about the person in place of an argument. "You can't take his videos seriously--he only has 200 subscribers!" THAT would be an ad hominem.<

Yes, that is an ad hominem, but so is he takes it up the ass. What of that part is it that you don't understand?
If you refer to him being gay, as a reference for it being incorrect, then it is an ad hominem.
And besides that, it was totally uncalled for.

This is my first entry into this debate, so I can not see how you can claim I am desperate,

Sorry, I confused you with someone else, but the content of my criticism stands.

How can that criticism stand, when it was based on 'previous' entries?

Are you attack the argument? Are you? No!

I ABSOLUTELY attacked his arguments! But you didn't quote that part, did you?

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not, "Why don't you get on HIS case? Just because he's one of your fellow butt-buddies or something?" is an ad hominem. So Actually just quotemined me.

 

[shanedk]

Yes, that is an ad hominem, but so is he takes it up the ass. What of that part is it that you don't understand?

I DO understand--I understand the meaning of ad hominem.

HE accused ME of disrupting the thread (which WAS an ad hominem, by the way); I pointed out that it was MGK who came in and did the very things he accused ME of doing. I then said what I said to indicate that he was being a sycophant. That's NOT an ad hominem; that's a DIRECT evaluation of his behavior.

Now, will you get off the gay thing?

Geez...do you react this way when someone's accused of being an ass-kisser or a brown-noser?

How can that criticism stand, when it was based on 'previous' entries?

I criticized YOUR post. The fact you made the same mistakes as someone else changes nothing.

That is not what we are talking about.

YES IT IS!!! He made a DIRECT accusation of me! I dealt with THAT accusation! I pointed out HIS hypocrisy and double-standard! There is NO WAY that could POSSIBLY be an ad hominem!!!

 

[rabbitpirate]

I'd like to thank AndromedasWake for his comments. I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize for my error stating that the video was in any way sanctioned by the League of Reason site.

Reading through the comments I am not sure that anyone has touched on this bit of what you had to say, though I am still trying to play catch up on all the posts. So let me say that I for one accept your apology and add that, while I might not have come to the same conclusion as you (though I'' admit to being slightly shocked seeing the logo there), I can completely understand why you concluded that MGK was speaking on behalf of the LoR as a whole.

Ok now I will let people get back to arguing with you.

 

[Aught3]

Actually, the fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has is a kind of testament to shanedk's point. Since Thiswasatriumph stopped posting there has been a distinct lack of moderation on this site. Even so the site's integrity has held up pretty well, but perhaps it is time to appoint some new moderators or make sure the old ones hang around a bit more often.