If I was a moderator on this forum...

[Age]

Oh, hello, Age. I see you are responding to my thread, as I expected -- so, I will view your post and respond.

LOL

I have responded to a LOT of your posts ALREADY, which is EXACTLY WHY you started this thread, correct?

And, you MUST NOT REALLY have me on your IGNORE list if you HAPPENED to see my response here?

Also, starting a thread to get a particular one or ones to respond is, by definition, 'trolling'.

Considering that I am, supposedly, on this one's ignore list, for a while now, how would this one even know what I have been saying and writing here and/or how much?

Yes, you are on my ignore list.

GREAT. I just wish you REALLY WOULD IGNORE me.

As I've explained previously, your posts appear in the responses of other people, so I see that you are still doing what you were doing when I used to read your posts long ago.

LOL and which you are OBVIOUSLY STILL READING.

Are you at all aware that when words appear in front of you from one who you want to IGNORE, then you do NOT have to READ THOSE WORDS?

If you were NOT, then you are NOW.

Which is, incessantly distorting the meaning of all communication by picking apart pieces that you apply your projections to for pages and pages.

And, the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, are STILL SO LOST and SO CONFUSED, in the days when this is being written, is BECAUSE 'you' do NOT 'pick apart' what is ACTUALLY BEING MEANT in what is ACTUALLY BEING SAID, and WRITTEN. EXACTLY as I have PROVED over and over again, throughout this forum.

AND, you can NOT now come here CLAIMING that I have been, laughingly, 'incessantly' distorting 'the meaning' when it is VERY CLEAR just HOW MANY TIMES I ask 'you' questions, FOR CLARIFICATION, of MEANING, but absolutely NONE is given.

I ASKED to GAIN CLARIFICATION of what is ACTUALLY BEING MEANT, but if NO CLARIFICATION is given, then HOW could I, supposedly and allegedly, DISTORT 'the meaning'. On just about EVERY occassion I am STILL WAITING FOR 'the meaning', or for what 'it' is in reference to, EXACTLY.

And, SINCE you want to MAKE ANOTHER ALLEGATION and CLAIM here, ACCUSING me of some 'thing', ONCE AGAIN, how about you PROVIDE at least ONE EXAMPLE for all of us to LOOK AT, SEE, and DISCUSS.

Until you do you could be LYING here, and ABSOLUTELY.

And, WHY would "lacewing" even really care what I am writing and saying here?

Because you are a noisy troll.

LOL I am SUPPOSED TO BE ON YOUR IGNORE LIST. AND, FURTHERMORE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO READ MY RESPONSES TO "others".

Or, can you NOT HELP "your" 'self'?

I would say it about anyone doing the same.

And, I COULD SAY that 'you', "lacewing", are a VERY NOISY TROLL, and, IF I WAS A MODERATOR ON THIS FORUM I WOULD BAN "lacewing".

But I WOULD NEVER DO EITHER.

By the way, the DIFFERENCE between 'you' CLAIMING that I am a NOISY TROLL and IF I was to CLAIM that 'you' are a NOISY TROLL IS I have ACTUALLY PROVIDED the ACTUALLY PROVE of WHERE and WHEN you have been TROLLING. Whereas, you NEVER HAVE.

As for 'NOISY', well this ALL DEPENDS.

Unless, of course, I have actually been proving what "lacewing" has been saying here is False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, which "lacewing" would obviously not like at all, and would be a good reason for "lacewing" to want of get rid of me here.

See, you can't even imagine anything other than your self-serving projection of being 'right'.

IF what I have SAID and WROTE IS Right, or True, or Correct, then 'it' IS Right, True, or Correct.

Just SAYING things like, ' your self-serving projection of being 'right' ' is NOT SAYING ANY THING AT ALL, REALLY.

There are NO PROVIDED EXAMPLES to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

There is NO EVIDENCE NOR PROOF of me ACTUALLY DOING this.

There is NO COUNTERING of the ACTUAL WORDS and POINTS, which I HAVE BEEN SHOWING and PROVING. And,

There is NO PROVING of what I have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING, and MEANING, was False, Wrong, nor Incorrect EITHER.

All you are REALLY DOING is just 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AWAY FROM what 'it' WAS, which I was POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING in what you ACTUALLY SAID.

If you were right, and could present it clearly, it would actually be interesting.

Have you NOT BEEN LISTENING TO WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING?

When one BELIEVES some 'thing', THEN they are NOT OPEN to SEEING, NOR HEARING, ANY 'thing' that ACTUALLY OPPOSES that BELIEF. 'you', "lacewing", in this regard ARE NO DIFFERENT.

1. Who SAYS I am NOT right?

2. SURE, I could PRESENT EVERY thing MUCH, MUCH BETTER. But, LEARNING HOW to COMMUNICATE IS VERY REASON WHY I AM here, in this forum. Which, by the way, you are doing all you can to KICK me OUT OF to GET RID OF me COMPLETELY.

3. What you' find INTERESTING is NOT necessarily what "others" do, AND vice-versa.

But as you can see, that's not the response you get from lots of people... and that's not because they're all wrong and you're right, it's because you're wrong about a lot.

OKAY, and FAIR ENOUGH.

Now, INSTEAD of just SAYING, 'you are wrong about A LOT', and NOTHING ELSE, like someone who is Truly SCARED of being Wrong "them" 'self', HOW ABOUT you PROVIDE, at least, ONE 'thing' were you think or BELIEVE 'I am wrong', and THEN TELL is EXACTLY WHY 'I am wrong' there?

REALLY, WHY do you NOT DO this?

What is 'it' that you are AFRAID OF here, EXACTLY?

Now, I could SAY, ' 'you', "lacewing", are wrong about A LOT', but just SAYING 'that', in itself, WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL to back up and support that statement, make 'me' right? Or, does just SAYING 'that' make 'me' just sound like a RAVING LUNATIC who is AFRAID of some 'thing'? Or, does just saying 'that' make 'me' sound like some 'thing' ELSE?

By the way, if just saying 'that' makes 'me' right, then HOW, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Dattaswami would get an immediate couple of shots across the bow and then a full broadside if he didn't change.

Yes, it's important to warn people. That's how they did it on the other site I was on.

And, of course, this isn't about playing favorites or disliking certain people or opinions. It's about obvious and excessive mis-uses and spam in the forum. I think it's apparent when many members notice such a thing and call it out as such. If posters are incapable of moderating themselves in a non-excessive way, perhaps they should be moderated by the environment as a courtesy for other posters.

I do NOT recall SEEING some one who is SO ONE-SIDED and CLOSED as this one OBVIOUSLY IS, for a while now.

Are you EVEN AWARE "lacewing" that "others" SEE 'you' as INCAPABLE OF MODERATING "your" 'self' in a non-excessive way?

WHY do 'you' PRESUME that it is ONLY, and ALWAYS, the "other" and NEVER 'you'? REALLY, could 'you' be ANYMORE CLOSED here?

We don't all have to agree, but we shouldn't have certain posters generating insane amounts of self-indulgent preaching or psycho-projections.

WHY 'should' we NOT?

AND, can you REALLY NOT STOP "your" 'self' from reading EVERY thing that is written here in this TINY and INSIGNIFICANT MISERABLE LITTLE forum, of COUNTLESS OTHER forums that you could CHOOSE to read FROM?

I appreciate the freedoms of this forum,

Great, then how about you REALLY SHOW And PROVE to us that you REALLY DO APPRECIATE the FREEDOMS of this forum, and of FREE SPEECH in general?

Or, is this kind of OPENNESS just TOO MUCH to ask of, from 'you' here?

including being able to use profanity when applicable, but complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some.

So, ONCE AGAIN, JUST IGNORE what 'you' call and label 'absurd levels of excess', by some. When we SEE 'your' OWN 'absurd level of excess' by 'you', "lacewing", we just IGNORE 'it', and MOVE ALONG.

EASY and SIMPLE, REALLY.

I don't think there's anything wrong with setting a loose standard that discourages insane extremes.

(I was hoping this thread would generate some fun. Thanks for participating.)

LOL

The ABSOLUTE Dishonesty of the adult human being, in the days when this was being written, IS SO BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, but, unfortunately, NOT ALWAYS TO thee one LYING.

The 'absurd level of excess' in regards to talking ABOUT "others", INSTEAD of JUST backing up and supporting one's SAYING, CLAIMS, and ACCUSATIONS here could be some 'thing' that the moderators took a LOOK AT and DISCUSSED. But, each to their OWN, this is a fairly FREE forum, which is PRETTY RARE, in the days when this was being written. So, let us LET 'it' HAPPEN.

Also, how about we LET 'those' who 'TRY' SO HARD to GARNISH SUPPORT in KICKING OUT 'those' OF DIFFERENT VIEWS and/or BELIEFS, so that future generations can LEARN FROM and SEE what NOT to do in Life, that is; if 'they' Truly do want to live in Peace and in Harmony with one-another.

[Age]

Dattaswami would get an immediate couple of shots across the bow and then a full broadside if he didn't change.

Yes, it's important to warn people. That's how they did it on the other site I was on.

And, of course, this isn't about playing favorites or disliking certain people or opinions. It's about obvious and excessive mis-uses and spam in the forum. I think it's apparent when many members notice such a thing and call it out as such. If posters are incapable of moderating themselves in a non-excessive way, perhaps they should be moderated by the environment as a courtesy for other posters. We don't all have to agree, but we shouldn't have certain posters generating insane amounts of self-indulgent preaching or psycho-projections.

I appreciate the freedoms of this forum, including being able to use profanity when applicable, but complete freedom naturally encourages absurd levels of excess by some. I don't think there's anything wrong with setting a loose standard that discourages insane extremes.

(I was hoping this thread would generate some fun. Thanks for participating.)

I started thinking about alternatives to banning. Like the moderators can make the text in your posts more and more blurry, until finally you are illegible. Or perhaps they edit portions, but not to improve, just for fun. I suppose there is the upvote and downvote democratic options, but I find it hard to believe this doesn't end up being upvotes for people 'on my team' regardless of quality.

Worst post of the week, perhaps in different categories: worst logic, most off topic, most self-congratulatory without merit, least responsive response (not dealing with points made), most ludicrous analogy, greatest anger at trivia, worst appeal to authority and so on. Perhaps 'winning' would cut down on certain patterns. Though I'd guess some would try to win in certain categories.

HOW ABOUT INSTEAD of getting "others" to do 'this' for you, WHY NOT just POINT OUT and SHOW when you SEE 'things' are 'wrong', from your perspective, and then EXPLAIN WHY?

Or, is just so much EASIER and SIMPLER for you to be 'excessively absurd' like this, instead?

[Lacewing]

As Age demonstrates for us here, it is not even necessary to read his wall of words to recognize the volume of his noise, on and on, screen after screen. I rest my case.

[Age]

I started thinking about alternatives to banning. Like the moderators can make the text in your posts more and more blurry, until finally you are illegible. Or perhaps they edit portions, but not to improve, just for fun. I suppose there is the upvote and downvote democratic options, but I find it hard to believe this doesn't end up being upvotes for people 'on my team' regardless of quality.

Worst post of the week, perhaps in different categories: worst logic, most off topic, most self-congratulatory without merit, least responsive response (not dealing with points made), most ludicrous analogy, greatest anger at trivia, worst appeal to authority and so on. Perhaps 'winning' would cut down on certain patterns. Though I'd guess some would try to win in certain categories.

Very creative and inspiring!

Oh, thanks. I feel there is still a number of categories left: most hypocritical, worst use of a philosophical term, clearest example of someone confusing assertion with argument, most noticable avoidance, most preachy, worst ad hom, ...
a monthly category for posters who repeat themselves the most.
Special 'awards' for graciously conceding something and nuanced responses.
Most original post.
Best post.

How about an award for those who BELIEVE that making their partner GET ANGRY and SHOW ANGER IS 'LOVELY', and then another award for those who will 'TRY' just about ANY thing to then "justify" that MAKING "others" ANGRY is GOOD and RIGHT?

[Age]

Oh, thanks. I feel there is still a number of categories left: most hypocritical, worst use of a philosophical term, clearest example of someone confusing assertion with argument, most noticable avoidance, most preachy, worst ad hom, ...
a monthly category for posters who repeat themselves the most.
Special 'awards' for graciously conceding something and nuanced responses.
Most original post.
Best post.

Hilarious and brilliant!

Any of us can nominate each other for awards.

How about an award for the one who talks ABOUT "others" the MOST?

[Age]

I suppose there could just be a thread in one or more subforums.

Maybe Monthly Awards (as you suggested) could be nominated/announced in one Awards thread.

Whereas Instantaneous People's Choice award nominations could be on-the-spot... as soon as, and wherever, it is earned/inspired.

I love the idea of keeping a sense of humor here. Considering all the nonsense and extremism we are faced with, we need humor more than ever to inspire some balance.

And that EXTREMISM can be CLEARLY SEEN in threads where the topic includes words like:

You HAVE TO BE STUPID to believe .... Or,

Why are some 'things' being represented by VERY STUPID people on this forum.

"others" could now start threads asking, Why do ONLY the Truly CLOSED people start threads that are OBVIOUSLY SO STUPID? Or,

Why do people allow their OWN BELIEFS control HOW they SEE "others"?

[Age]

As Age demonstrates for us here, it is not even necessary to read his wall of words to recognize the volume of his noise, on and on, screen after screen. I rest my case.

LOL It is like you want to be the ONLY one who is LISTENED TO and HEARD here "lacewing".

LOOK you have STATED and CLAIMED, 'There is NO one truth'. So, as for the VOLUME of your NOISE here, the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY and CONTRADICTION of this CLAIM can be HEARD, VERY LOUD and VERY CLEAR.

Also, if you are just going to SAY and CLAIM that because I write MORE than "others" might, then that MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that it is ALL so-called 'noise' or PARTS of it is 'noise', WITHOUT EVEN READING 'it', then 'you' ARE JUST SHOWING and PROVING, ONCE AGAIN, how Truly CLOSED and ONE-SIDED 'you' REALLY ARE.

[Age]

"lacewing", just out of CURIOSITY, do MY WRITINGS appear in FRONT of you, even when I am, SUPPOSEDLY, on your IGNORE LIST, and they are NOT within "others" posts?

Or, is it REALLY the case that I am NOT actually on your IGNORE LIST and/or you REALLY can NOT STOP "your" 'self' from just WANTING TO SEE what I write NEXT?

[attofishpi]

If I was a moderator on this forum...

I would ban Age for being an excessively noisy and monotonous spammer who harasses people across all topics by writing volumes of obsessed nitpicking over every word he does not understand or agree with because he projects distortions and doesn't know what the fuck anyone else is talking about, he only imagines wrongly that he knows and that he knows better.

May I be a moderator PLEASSSSSE???

(I was a moderator on another Philosophy site, and I did a good and fair job... honest!)

This site basically has no moderation anymore.

I think there should be some polling system setup where we can vote for blocks/bans.

There should be a hard coded limit to how many threads anyone can create in a set period. I think 3 threads/mth for anyone should be enough - that would screw dataswami ...and DAM when she is feeling thread spammy!

[Iwannaplato]

As Age demonstrates for us here, it is not even necessary to read his wall of words to recognize the volume of his noise, on and on, screen after screen. I rest my case.

It's lovely that after your post here there is a string of 5 Age posts and before it a clump of 3. And the wondrous thing is...I can hear his 'voice', his conclusions, questions marks and assumptions,
like sparks from an angle grinder in the darkness,
just from seeing the these tidy little clumps of blocked posts.
He's become as pithy as Advocate.

[Iwannaplato]

This site basically has no moderation anymore.

I think there should be some polling system setup where we can vote for blocks/bans.

There should be a hard coded limit to how many threads anyone can create in a set period. I think 3 threads/mth for anyone should be enough - that would screw dataswami ...and DAM when she is feeling thread spammy!

Or, if you start more than three threads in a month, the website starts spamming your email address. It generates new email addresses to send from so it can't be blocked.

Or, if you start more than 3 threads that no one responds to in a month your posts appeared as blocked posts - as if everyone had chosen to foe/block you - for one month.

If you post more than 3 threads but these are all are very active - like burning threads in other forums - then you get a little prize.

[Lacewing]

This site basically has no moderation anymore.

I think there should be some polling system setup where we can vote for blocks/bans.

There should be a hard coded limit to how many threads anyone can create in a set period. I think 3 threads/mth for anyone should be enough - that would screw dataswami ...and DAM when she is feeling thread spammy!

I think those are reasonable ideas. Might it make people more responsible and balanced if they knew their peers could vote them into the penalty box? It would need to require enough votes... maybe 5... to demonstrate a significant shared response.

Meanwhile, it looks like Age is still going off. So easy to wind him up and watch him go! Very helpful of him to prove my point so effectively.

[Lacewing]

I can hear his 'voice', his conclusions, questions marks and assumptions,
like sparks from an angle grinder in the darkness,
just from seeing the these tidy little clumps of blocked posts.

Yes, it's always the same, so there's really no reason to wade through it. If he really had something of value to say, he would just say it instead of continually telling people what he thinks they can't see or understand. Who cares? We all see and understand a great deal from various perspectives.

[Age]

As Age demonstrates for us here, it is not even necessary to read his wall of words to recognize the volume of his noise, on and on, screen after screen. I rest my case.

It's lovely that after your post here there is a string of 5 Age posts and before it a clump of 3. And the wondrous thing is...I can hear his 'voice', his conclusions, questions marks and assumptions,
like sparks from an angle grinder in the darkness,
just from seeing the these tidy little clumps of blocked posts.
He's become as pithy as Advocate.

Here might be ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of when a word can have two completely OPPOSITE definitions, or meanings.

From what I can ascertain here, THANK 'you' "iwannaplato".

But then 'you' may have been MEANING some 'thing' COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. But there is absolutely NO USE of SEEKING CLARITY FOR if you are just going to IGNORE 'it' and 'me' anyway.