Discussion about forum standards

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

koko

Discussion about forum standards

Post #1

Post by koko »

I have had some PM discussions with otseng about what are/are not acceptable posts on this forum. The mods have clearly displayed selectivity in their objections to certain posts. I made that assertion to otseng and requested an open discussion on this forum. He complied with that request and allowed a thread here.

otseng and the mods have accepted certain objectionable posting patterns while they have not been tolerant of others whose content is significantly less objectionable and obviously far more informed. Someone like me makes a post about a controversial political figure and that post is deleted or a mod notice is made which condemns the post and alleges that it is not conducive to good discussions. This despite the fact that numerous public figures made similar assertions. By contrast, other people make highly objectionable posts such as that of a child getting abused and an allegation that an institution had something to do with that misconduct even though no evidence was presented to back up that assertion. Other repeated postings assert and repeatedly assert that BLM is a criminal or subversive institution that foments crimes in particular locales, again, without the slighest evidence that BLM ever had anything to do with such violence. (On the contrary, BLM was honored, that's right, HONORED by a mayor and by a police chief for preventing crimes and violence. Furthermore, BLM retains its tax exemption status under IRC 501(c) (3) which means the Justice Department, IRS, and yes even Trump continue to recognize it as a benevolent institution.)



Despite it all, my complaints about forum double standards have been disregarded by the admin. While I have repeatedly called for proof (PROOF, not mere reassertions) that BLM members have been indicted for arson in the recent urban riots not a shred of evidence has been posted. Claiming that BLM has fomented violence without any proof constitutes a violation of the biblical law injunction against bearing false witness. As such, this baseless assertion is not conducive to good discussion. Yet, the repeated and unproven assertions are allowed by the admin and mods.

My challenge to otseng is to make a valid case as to why the repeated and unproven assertions are allowed to be repeated on this forum almost on a daily basis, and how such repeated libels, somehow, are acceptable and conducive to good discussion. That by contrast, how can it be said that calling Bush a "traitor" is, somehow, objectional and does not lead to a good discussion even though Professor Ben Ferencz (my lifelong hero, the man who inspired me to go to law school and to pursue justice for all throughout my entire life) virtually made this same assertion when he called for a Nuremberg tribunal for Bush. otseng asserted that the statement is "inflammatory" -- how so? prove it? would you shut down Professor Ferencz? after all, he is only the world's foremost authority on the subject. Professor Ferencz's thoughts are objectionable but someone abusing children in a photo is acceptable and leads to a good discussion? In what fairy tale is that possible???

I do agree that informative discussion is commendable. It should be done here and on all forums. Professor Ferencz (now at age 100 years young) has been doing this all his life. I am proud to say he is my lifelong role model. And while I do not claim to live up to the class and quality of his level, I do my best. Yes, I may be a bit rough in my wording but nowhere do you see libel and slander. Furthermore, nowhere do you see exploiting the subject of children and their sufferings in my posts. As far as I am concerned, children are off limits. To me, no one should ever exploit them under any circumstances for any reason whatsoever. I again challenge otseng to prove to me the obvious exploitation we saw on this forum leads to good discussion and how quoting a distinguished scholar like Ferencz is somehow not so conducive.


Bottom line is that I am making a challenge to otseng to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles. Let us see how he defends the only too obvious inconsistency in the application of his alleged principles.

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #11

Post by koko »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:22 pm

An indictment would be MORE evidence on top of the proof I've already presented. I find it hard to believe that you think someone putting their knee on the neck of a White toddler is not guilty. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.

Still waiting for you to make the proper connection between BLM and such a crime.

And waiting for all those indictments as well ...

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #12

Post by koko »

note to otseng



every time I post here, I keep getting this message:



Fatal error: Cannot declare class messenger, because the name is already in use in /var/www/html/forum/includes/functions_messenger.php on line 25



what does that mean?

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #13

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:29 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:22 pm

An indictment would be MORE evidence on top of the proof I've already presented. I find it hard to believe that you think someone putting their knee on the neck of a White toddler is not guilty. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.

Still waiting for you to make the proper connection between BLM and such a crime.

And waiting for all those indictments as well ...
I've already made the proper connection. If my claim was unproven, the moderators would've acted on it. You're the only member saying otherwise. I don't have to convince you to prove my case.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #14

Post by otseng »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:32 pm Fatal error: Cannot declare class messenger, because the name is already in use in /var/www/html/forum/includes/functions_messenger.php on line 25
what does that mean?
I was making some changes to the forum. Hopefully it won't occur anymore. But, if anyone sees a problem in the future, the fastest way to contact me is to report it on:
https://www.facebook.com/debatingchristianity/

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #15

Post by otseng »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:29 pm Still waiting for you to make the proper connection between BLM and such a crime.

And waiting for all those indictments as well ...
Please debate in a debate subforum, not in this subforum.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #16

Post by otseng »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:06 pm Well, you saw my PM's - were they not cordial? Was my approach to you hostile or menacing? On the contrary, I was hoping to make the forum better and I stand by that. Let's make this an even better place for all.
Well, since you asked, I did not think your PM was not really cordial. But, let's move on.

I'm glad that you want this place to be a better place. The way that everyone can help out with this is to personally follow the rules, trust that the moderating team will do their job to the best of their ability without complaining about their actions, report rule violations and do not take matters into your own hands, and do not point fingers how others seem to get away with rule violations.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #17

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Koko...

It doesn't make sense that you complain about people not presenting evidence when you're here trying to censor evidence.

I'd also request that you quit trying to present yourself as some authority on the law until you can prove that you have a valid credentials. You keep doing that as if it bolsters your argument.

Imagine others doing that without proof. Everyone should know that impersonating a lawyer is actually illegal.

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #18

Post by koko »

otseng wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:37 am
koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:29 pm Still waiting for you to make the proper connection between BLM and such a crime.

And waiting for all those indictments as well ...
Please debate in a debate subforum, not in this subforum.

OK.


But not cordial? I don't get that impression from your replies. O:)

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #19

Post by koko »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:46 am Koko...

It doesn't make sense that you complain about people not presenting evidence when you're here trying to censor evidence.

I'd also request that you quit trying to present yourself as some authority on the law until you can prove that you have a valid credentials. You keep doing that as if it bolsters your argument.

Imagine others doing that without proof. Everyone should know that impersonating a lawyer is actually illegal.

Not so but we can discuss that on the appropriate threads...

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #20

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to koko in post #19]

There's no need to discuss whether or not impersonating a lawyer is illegal just as long as you don't claim to be a lawyer. You've already admitted to not being a lawyer in our past convos. The issue is that you shouldn't be using your alleged legal expertise to bolster your arguments unless you can provide proof of such expertise. I'm very skeptical of your expertise given the fact that I had to inform you about the existence of the Insurrection Act.

Locked