Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.

I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.

Questions about democratic science? I should engage seriously with the idea that we should campaign to have a vote of workers re whether zombies exist?The reason I don't engage you in argument, and I guess other forum users feel the same way, is that you do not appear to be able to engage in logical argument, you commit the following logical falacies, to name but a few, with rapidity:The Strawman FalacyThe False Cause FalacyThe Black or White Falacy (if you do not agree with L Bird that science should be democratically controlled you must be an autocratic elitist)Proof by Asserttion ( If L Bird says it often enough it must be the case)Afferming the Consequent (e.g. Lenin was a materialist, therefore if you are a Materialist you must be a Leninist)False DichotomyI would also add to that regular use of sophism.Your usual response to any poster who attempts to point this out to you is to question the educational status, intellectual ability and motives of your opponent. (as you have done here) I find it strange that a person who claims to be so vehemently anti-elitist, should so regularly resort to asserting their intellectual superiority.

And yet you don't engage.Empty vessels, Tim…

If I was to engage with you about your pet subject, Birdy, I would be going off topic. As this post is about Moderation, that would need to be the topic. As I am discussing the nature of moderation in this post, I am fairly confident that I am not going off topic. In addition, given that I have pointed out why you failed logic 101, my reluctance to engage in fruitless dialogue with you is clear.However in line with the current trend for contrition, and staying on subject as contrition was one of the issues raised by the mods,  can I apologise for any of my posts that may have implied that you are a witless, one dimensional, clueless, narcissistic clown. I am truly sorry if you have inferred from my postings such a message.

[alanjjohnstone]

Tim, a truly contrite person make amends that involves demonstrable, consistent better behavior – behavior that can be observed.Otherwise, it is mere words…token apologies… an apology of an apology…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…my reluctance to engage in fruitless dialogue with you is clear…

One has to be a fruit-eater, Tim, to engage in dialogue.You're simply defining your terms to avoid discussing how a socialist society can and should democratically control the production of scientific knowledge.The odd thing is that you ignore Marx's view that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class, and it's easy to show that the notion of 'undemocratic science' (that individual experts, geniuses, have an 'access' to 'reality' that the masses are denied) has a socio-historical origin (and that this is clearly also the basis of Leninism in politics).That is, your 'terms of reference' are not yours, but those of the socio-economic elite that dominate our society.One would think that this would be obvious to any socialist, that 'common sense' ideas about 'science' and the 'special consciousness' of geniuses, would have been socially produced, and produced for the purpose of making the very idea of 'democratic control of knowledge production' seem laughable.But… you and the SPGB generally seem to have been taken in, hook, line and sinker, by this ruling class ideology about 'science' and 'truth'.As you say, though, this is a 'fruitless' tree of knowledge, for those who already 'know' that democracy in knowledge is a dead end. After all, who'd let workers determine their cosmos?

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Tim, a truly contrite person make amends that involves demonstrable, consistent better behavior – behavior that can be observed.Otherwise, it is mere words…token apologies… an apology of an apology…

I accept what you are saying Alan, I assure you that I am a truly contrite person. I will try my utmost to avoid offending. I accept that I have been unkind in implying that L Bird might be a friendless fuckwit with issues around self esteem. I also accept that it was unkind to say that I thought L Bird should be used to having the piss taken out of him at this stage of his life.Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.Thinking about it I may have also posted that the EC don't appear to know the difference between their collective arses and their collective elbows, believe me Alan, contrition has now become my watch word. I am sure on most days in a good light the members of the EC are generally able to distinguish between those two parts of their collective anatomy.yours contritelyTim

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[SocialistPunk]

lindanesocialist wrote:

So……Vin is banned from the forum for going of topic. Care to point out the on-topic posts? What an absolute farce

You keep peddling the same distortion regardig Vin's last suspension. It wasn't for off topic, it was for breaching rues 7, 14 and 15.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

You keep peddling the same distortion regardig Vin's last suspension. It wasn't for off topic, it was for breaching rues 7, 14 and 15.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14

Your post is disrespectful and contadictory, I am 'peddling' only a bike. Your link show Vin being banned for challenging the unfairness of moderation.Which moderation do not like to hear. I am leaving this subject, it has been flogged to death but I will ask quarterly if the ban still stands.Vin repeats he will follow the forum rules but will not make an act of contrition, This is a revolutionary organisation, some members need to stop treating it as a religious sectquia nunc  vale

[Bijou Drains]

lindanesocialist wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

You keep peddling the same distortion regardig Vin's last suspension. It wasn't for off topic, it was for breaching rues 7, 14 and 15.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14

Your post is disrespectful and contadictory, I am 'peddling' only a bike. Your link show Vin being banned for challenging the unfairness of moderation.Which moderation do not like to hear. I am leaving this subject, it has been flogged to death but I will ask quarterly if the ban still stands.Vin repeats he will follow the forum rules but will not make an act of contrition, This is a revolutionary organisation, some members need to stop treating it as a religious sectquia nunc  vale

Benedictum tibi, filia. Pax moderator esse teum. Vale et ampilus iam noli peccare.I knew a catholic education would come in useful eventually!!!!

[lindanesocialist]

 Vin said: Deus meus, ex toto corde poenitet me omnium meorum peccatorum, eaque detestor, quia peccando, non solum poenas a Te iuste statutas promeritus sum, sed praesertim quia offendi Te, summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris. Ideo firmiter propono, adiuvante gratia Tua, de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum. Amen.

[SocialistPunk]

Not so fast.You have the audacity to say I'm being disrespectful, after your accusation in post #86.

Lindanesocialist wrote:

Mod1 has  declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to  call him a comrade.  How can we expect a fair decision from them. If you are a socialist you do not use your position to obstruct other members you happen to dislike. For some reason it makes a difference who said what before they make a move to moderate

I asked you to explain yourself, #97 and invited you to make an official complaint.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As moderator3 I have made no such comment. As a moderator I am doing a job for the Party and as such I keep to the issue at hand. My personal feelings about a person do not enter into consideration.It seems as though you are accusing me and Brian of using our Party post to carry out some sort of personal vendetta against Vin. Would you care to make an official complaint to that effect?You and Vin have bleated on about Party members conspiring against him once too often.It's time to put up or shut up!

If you are a socialist you do not go around making unfounded accusations, you provide proof and/ or reasoned argument. Neither of which you have done.You and Vin have accused Brian and myself of abusing our Party appointed roles, as moderators, to silence another Party member.Do you and Vin have the integrity to back up your accusations, or retract them?

[moderator1]

Reminder: Rule 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

[SocialistPunk]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it.

[lindanesocialist]

SP Why not make your comments  as a Moderator. Its just that you give the impression that mods have some support on this decision(apart from LBird) You and Brian are supporting yourselves. just for balance for onlookersIt will appear strange that Mod3 has the same opinion as SP and Mod1 has the sam opinion as BrianJust a thought 

[SocialistPunk]

I am speaking as a forum member here, not a moderator. I have on a number of occasions explained that I'm speaking for myself and not as a moderator. I think anyone following this discussion will be able to grasp that I am capable of having a opinion of my own without it affecting my judgement as a moderator.I know you wish to give the impression that I'm abusing my role as a moderator, but if you cast your memory back a few months, you'll find I had the same views on this subject as I have now, and that was before I became a moderator. I challenged your attitude regards moderation back then and you didn't like it, as such it lead to accusations coming from you and Vin that I was an abuser and bully, sending hatemail to you. This led to the bust up at the last online NERB meeting. 

Lindnesocialist wrote:

I am leaving this subject, it has been flogged to death but I will ask quarterly if the ban still stands.

Now, seeing as you've decided to rejoin the conversation despite proclaiming you were done with it. How about explaining the following.

lindanesocialist wrote:

Mod1 has  declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to  call him a comrade.  How can we expect a fair decision from them. If you are a socialist you do not use your position to obstruct other members you happen to dislike. For some reason it makes a difference who said what before they make a move to moderate

You are basically saying Brian and myself are using our Party roles as moderators to wage a vendetta against Vin. As such you are saying we are corrupt as well as without socialist integrity.This is now the third time (see posts #97 and #128) I've had to ask if you are going to either retract your accusation or make an official complaint?Seeing as you like questioning the integrity of others, do you have the integrity to either back up your accusation or retract it?

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I am speaking as a forum member here, not a moderator. sation or retract it?

So you have two opinions? One as a mod and one as a 'member'What are the diff=ernces? Have you ever thought there are more costructive things we could be doing with our energies? 

[Author]

Posts