Deleted post: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Feedback » Deleted post » Deleted post

Deleted post

Page: 1 2

Deleted post

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/08/08 - 03:55 PM: Subject: Deleted post	#1
I posted a link to a site with a comparison of the presidential candidates in http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/primar... that was removed without any explanation. Can anyone give an explanation, as I can't see how that would violate any of the guidelines provided in the help section?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 02/09/08 - 07:31 AM:	#2
It was deleted by Postmodern Beatnik, Reason: link spam.
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/09/08 - 11:28 AM:	#3
Hypothesis wrote: It was deleted by Postmodern Beatnik, Reason: link spam. So, is it not allowed to post links at all, or are there certain rules for posting links?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 02/09/08 - 01:03 PM:	#4
I don't know the full story, Perhaps Beatnik can come and explain ? Send him a PM.
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/09/08 - 01:46 PM:	#5
Perhaps others would also like to know the rules?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 02/10/08 - 06:37 AM:	#6
I'm torn between 'I'd like to know the rules,' and 'I don't want there to be any too specific rules.' I think I'm prepared to accept a level of arbitariness in exchange for a certain flexibility. Personally I have only ever found myself being censored when, on reflection, I have been either silly or unpleasant in some way, so I kind of appreciate the work the moderators do. But it does seem odd to delete links put up by a contributor in good standing as it were, although politics and religion are particularly sensitive - one man's reasoned analysis is another's propagandist hype. So I would be interested in an explanation, without particularly wanting it to be a rule. But if it is a rule, then it would be better to know it. I await with interest...
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/10/08 - 10:30 AM:	#7
The site I linked was purely factual, with lists of references to where each candidate said or voted for what. I don't see why it should be censored unless the intention was to deliberately conceal the truth. My guess would be that its because I didn't post anything else, like adding my own take on things, but it still seems a bit farfetched to delete the post. I would like to get a clear sign that I may be able to post it again if thats the case, or if its anything else.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 02/10/08 - 03:26 PM:	#8
If you refuse to ask him about it, he's obviously not going to answer -- except in the very unlikely event that he just happens to read your generically titled feedback forum thread.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/11/08 - 10:24 AM:	#9
Well apparently he is ignoring my private messages.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/11/08 - 10:34 AM:	#10
No, I am in the midst of composing my response. Some people think before writing, keda.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/11/08 - 11:48 AM:	#11
The link was deleted for exactly the reason that Hypothesis mentioned: link spam. If your profile were set to accept notices of when moderators take action on your posts, you would have already been aware of that and could have asked me to elaborate directly. As for why the post constituted link spam, it is not solely because it was nothing more than a link. It is my belief that such posts are occasionally appropriate, and as such I do not categorically delete them. A much greater factor was that your link -- intentionally or not -- was just another in the campaign of Ron Paul internet spamming (thus "link spam"). The site linked to is not "factual," as you claim, but is quite clearly slanted in favor of Paul based on selective "evidence." It covers only those topics Paul has tried to place in the foreground (as opposed to those policies and past votes of his that he has tried to hide) and for which there is a convenient sound-bite, and it ignores many of the central issues relevant to the overall campaign (and Americans in general). Further, the "evidence" given for the other candidate's positions is taken out of context and distorted in meaning. Indeed, some of the links don't actually support the claims made on the website (as if the creator knew that most people would just take his word for it rather than do all that boring research stuff). If there is any intention to "conceal the truth," then, it comes from that website and not from me. Therefore, you will get no clear sign (from me, at least) that you may post it again. Instead, you will get a clear sign of the opposite: Do not post it again! unenlightened wrote: I'm torn between 'I'd like to know the rules,' and 'I don't want there to be any too specific rules.' I think I'm prepared to accept a level of arbitrariness in exchange for a certain flexibility. That is a reasonable position, and I certainly do not think that there are many iron-clad rules in this regard. Context is everything, of course, and I would hope that common sense rules the day where moderating decisions are concerned. unenlightened wrote: But it does seem odd to delete links put up by a contributor in good standing as it were... Even a "contributor in good standing" can make a mistake or succumb to personal bias. That's why there is (a) not one moderator, but a team of moderators, (b) a forum for us to discuss our actions among one another should we have doubts about an action we are about to take or concerns about an action already taken, and (c) this Feedback forum in which everyone can discuss their concerns in a public manner should they see fit. No one here is beyond questioning. unenlightened wrote: ...although politics and religion are particularly sensitive - one man's reasoned analysis is another's propagandist hype. Politics and religion are sensitive areas, but moderators cannot allow themselves to be intimidated by this fact lest they abandon their jobs as editors and quality control. When fear thwarts reason, truth becomes slave to dogma. And dogma is not the way to raise the level of discourse (as this site attempt to do). I am not afraid to make difficult moderating decisions -- but this was not one of them.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/11/08 - 12:49 PM:	#12
Well here comes the long awaited explanation, thanks Postmodern Beatnik, it really helps to be able to know what you can post or not on this forum. I hope the guidelines will be updated accordingly. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: No, I am in the midst of composing my response. Some people think before writing, keda. I thought you did the thinking when you deleted the post, but I suppose it may take an awful lot of time to formulate it so I will apologise for that comment. If your profile were set to accept notices of when moderators take action on your posts, you would have already been aware of that and could have asked me to elaborate directly. I was not aware there was such a feature. The site linked to is not "factual," as you claim Which claims do you dispute as not being factual? is quite clearly slanted in favor of Paul based on selective "evidence." Could you perhaps select some evidence that would disfavour him to prove it? It covers only those topics Paul has tried to place in the foreground (as opposed to those policies and past votes of his that he has tried to hide Which past votes do you refer to, and what policies is he trying to hide? it ignores many of the central issues relevant to the overall campaign (and Americans in general) Which issues are you talking about? What makes them less central and less relevant? I would personally consider the mentioned issues very important, although there are many others I would like to add to that list. Further, the "evidence" given for the other candidate's positions is taken out of context and distorted in meaning. Indeed, some of the links don't actually support the claims made on the website (as if the creator knew that most people would just take his word for it rather than do all that boring research stuff). Could you list the links don't support the claims? I did not check all, only some of them and they seemed very accurate to me. If there is any intention to "conceal the truth," then, it comes from that website and not from me. Therefore, you will get no clear sign (from me, at least) that you may post it again. Instead, you will get a clear sign of the opposite: Do not post it again! Of course, I'm not here to question your authority and will not post anything as long as its explicitely written out, preferably in the guidelines section. I'm questioning your judgment about the site, and asking you to prove that it is in fact concealing something important about Paul, which I would be happy to know about, since I don't know everything about that particular candidate, and I would not want to misrepresent any of them. Of course its also up to you to not answer any of the questions I'm asking here, but it would help to know how issues should be presented to avoid links from getting deleted in the future. I would also like to know if you have to mention all the issues you consider relevant in a post comparing the candidates, or if it is something just concerning links to other sites.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 02/11/08 - 03:22 PM:	#13
Hypothesis wrote: It was deleted by Postmodern Beatnik, Reason: link spam. What does "link spam" mean"? What is the definition of spam? Are all links considered spam?
_____________________ kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/11/08 - 04:11 PM:	#14
keda wrote: I thought you did the thinking when you deleted the post, but I suppose it may take an awful lot of time to formulate it so I will apologise for that comment. I do the thinking prior to deleting a post, as well. But as you say, it takes more time to write something than it does to think it. And, with all due respect, this wasn't my top priority today. I do have a job, articles to write and read, and other such duties to attend to in between posting here. keda wrote: I was not aware there was such a feature. Yes. If you click on "Options > Edit Profile" you should see it 17 items down. It is my understanding that the feature's default status is "on," meaning that you would have had to turn it off manually. But I could be incorrect about that. keda wrote: Which claims do you dispute as not being factual? This is not a thread on the Politics subforum, nor should it become one. Moreover, this thread should not be a backdoor for discussing the content of the link in question. I would, however, be willing to answer all of your questions via PM if you would like. keda wrote: Of course, I'm not here to question your authority and will not post anything as long as its explicitely written out, preferably in the guidelines section. I will see what can be done about the guidelines section, though keep in mind that guidelines, by their very nature, cannot be exhaustive. Everyone should rest assured, however, that when cases that might be seen as borderline crop up -- such as this one -- no warning points are applied and no grudges are held. Grey areas are complicated enough without bringing hostility or hurt feelings into the picture! Paul wrote: I'm questioning your judgment about the site, and asking you to prove that it is in fact concealing something important about Paul... Just to clarify one point here, I do not think that the trying to conceal anything so much as offer a slanted comparison and ignore issues he would be less popular on. The site also uses "weasel words" to distort the issues. Again, I would be willing to go into more depth with you privately. keda wrote: ...it would help to know how issues should be presented to avoid links from getting deleted in the future. Well, a single link cannot be the opening post for a thread; and neither can a post with the comment, "What does everybody think about this link/the argument posted on the linked website?" On the other hand, high quality links that are relevant to the thread and self-explanatory are probably safe. But your best bet will always be to give some context as to what the link is and why you think it is relevant to a thread. Not only does this make for a better post, it gives any moderator who may come across it a better context within which to judge the link's appropriateness. keda wrote: I would also like to know if you have to mention all the issues you consider relevant in a post comparing the candidates, or if it is something just concerning links to other sites. Well, discussions are necessarily limited, as are websites. The problem with the link was not its failure to be exhaustive, but its failure to be representative (and its use of weasel words). A good post might only address a single issue, as might a good website. But it would not be misleading or slanted. This is not to say that we're going to delete every partisan post, or even every link to a website that promotes a particular viewpoint. However, we will try to keep down the clutter when possible and appropriate. kris wrote: What does "link spam" mean"? Link spam is spam in link form. It's natural habitats are internet forums and Arthurian parodies. kris wrote: What is the definition of spam? For our purposes here, "spam" is any post that is purely or primarily for the purposes of promoting/advertising a person, product, or thing. Link spam, then, would be a post that constitutes spam by linking to a website that contains spam. Most spam messages contain links. Link spam, in my opinion, is when the post is nothing but a link to a spam site. In this case, the spamming may well have been completely inadvertent. kris wrote: Are all links considered spam? No.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 02/12/08 - 06:12 AM:	#15
Well thanks for that, everyone; I think from my position of blissful ignorance of the link, the thread and the politics, that I am content. It seems to me that context is everything here. I might say 'Hitler thought XYZ ,' and reference Mein Campf; or I might say, 'here is a balanced political view,' with the same reference; if I say nothing... Sometimes I am very glad to be referred to articles etc, but it is always more polite to have at least a hint of what they are and how it relates to my own ignorance. I would suggest a rule of thumb, that if you can't be bothered to give some sort of summary, introduction, or at least a vaguely relevant quote from/of a site, probably don't bother at all. There was a great one recently along the lines of , 'this is what I would have said if I'd been a bit cleverer, and less confused.' It's a while since I looked at any of the guidelines, but I don't recollect much about links and so, and I'm not sure if it would help to go into any detail. Perhaps it is best to negotiate these boundaries by crossing them now and then, and then retreating a little?
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/12/08 - 11:28 AM:	#16
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: This is not a thread on the Politics subforum, nor should it become one. Moreover, this thread should not be a backdoor for discussing the content of the link in question. I would, however, be willing to answer all of your questions via PM if you would like. But would you decline to answer them in an open discussion in the politics subforum in another thread? Just to clarify one point here, I do not think that the trying to conceal anything so much as offer a slanted comparison and ignore issues he would be less popular on. Perhaps you are not aware of the nationwide blind zogby poll he won, he is popular nevertheless, although you may be right in that the comparision on the link is unfair, however I still question that. Again, I would be willing to go into more depth with you privately. What about in public? Well, a single link cannot be the opening post for a thread; and neither can a post with the comment, "What does everybody think about this link/the argument posted on the linked website?" On the other hand, high quality links that are relevant to the thread and self-explanatory are probably safe. But your best bet will always be to give some context as to what the link is and why you think it is relevant to a thread. Not only does this make for a better post, it gives any moderator who may come across it a better context within which to judge the link's appropriateness. That was more of the sort of response I was expecting. However if I'm not allowed to post a link to that thread, I would have to make the necessary modifications that are needed to qualify for what you consider non-spam, and I have little clues what I should sort out and what to add. It would help if you could for instance list which issues should be listed for a non-slanted comparison. If not in this thread, then in a thread in the politics subforum. Regarding "weasel words" I did not recognize anything I would call "weasel word", but maybe you could point out specifically where they were used. This is not to say that we're going to delete every partisan post, or even every link to a website that promotes a particular viewpoint. What about promoting any view point without (intentionally or not) mentioning the downfalls? Misrepresentations in general? While I can't recall of a post getting deleted for this reason, there are plenty of them lying around on the forums without ever getting deleted. People are disagreeing over facts all the time, and one of them must be wrong, whether intentionally or not. Should the posts that are wrong be deleted? Where goes the line?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 02/13/08 - 09:04 PM:	#17
I think the reason why this kind of discussion should be done privately is we want to discourage every moderating actions being questioned and moderators or admins being put into a sort of public trial which may affect or tarnish the credibility of the moderators and admins regardless of how such a discussion concludes. I do not say that all decisions done by us are without fault nor do I say that we do not give the chance to settle issues regarding our decisions. But this kind of discussions encourage or invite not only valid and justified questions to clarify but the trivial ones as well. Moderators and admins have been put here for a reason and we are not here to act on our whims or personal bias. If I may, I would like to quote Reformed Nihilist in another thread here in Feedback: RN wrote: The big problem with that is that I would anticipate the staff (non-payed/volunteer) having to publicly justify every trivial editorial decision that is made. That takes an immense amount of time, and doesn't really accomplish much. If someone had their own post edited or deleted, then they are notified (assuming they have allowed for notification via their user options), and between that and the feedback forum, there is legitimate checks to air any grievances on questionable moderation (which occurs rarely, but it does from time to time).
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 02/13/08 - 10:57 PM:	#18
keda wrote: Perhaps you are not aware of the nationwide blind zogby poll he won, This illustrates that you're utterly detached from reality, a common affliction of the Paulites. You're like a creationist citing evidence of the great flood. Ron Paul has always polled at 3-8% nationally, and still is even after all the dropouts (if you really are going to pretend to be unaware of this, a source). If you think one poll out of a thousand suddenly makes him popular, you need to take a statistics class. His only "good" poll performances are in trivially-cheated mediums like web polls and straw polls where his army of obsessively deranged largely-teenaged supporters take care of things. If it weren't for the breathtaking irrationality and naievity of his supporters I'd have been happy to see Paul win the republican nomination based on his views -- though I say that simply because I'm a democrat and him being half right is better than not right at all (and because California is big enough to fend for itself if the federal government downsizes). At any rate, your comment there about his poll "victory" shows the mindset of the Ron Paul spammers who've been infesting the internet, flooding every forum and site for the last year. That's why PMB was right to delete the link. We don't allow religious preaching here, we only accept solid arguments, which you are to compose yourself rather than shove your denomination's magazine in our faces like the Jehovah's Witnesses do. hyena in petticoat wrote: I think the reason why this kind of discussion should be done privately is we want to discourage every moderating actions being questioned and moderators or admins being put into a sort of public trial which may affect or tarnish the credibility of the moderators and admins regardless of how such a discussion concludes. I have to disagree. Credibility of mods is not an issue, frank discussions in the feedback forum can only enhance credibility, and threads like this don't have the slightest resemblance to a trial of the mod/admin (maybe vaguely like a trial of the poster and the post at issue). Of course it does make more sense from the point of view of the asker to ask privately, where you can get a quicker answer in a less confrontational way. If you open yourself up to public input, you take the associated risk of making yourself look bad. Nobody needs to go out of their way to avoid making a moderator look bad, but people who think they're making a mod look bad are generally making fools of themselves. Everyone has the right to challenge any mod/admin decision, and every mod/admin has the right to give a brief or nonexistent reply due to time limitations or simply due to lack of interest -- so if you genuinely want a reply, you'd best be nice about it so that your interlocutor finds you worth the time. Anyone who challenges a mod/admin to argue a potentially pages long political or philosophical issue that they've moderated will almost inevitably be ignored because we don't find their pet issue that interesting and have better things to do with our time, but the people are still free to ask. They can even beat their chests and proclaim an unchallenged victory via their designated opponent not responding, if they want to look like an utter fool in public and ensure that observers will never take them seriously again. Edited by Paul on 02/14/08 - 12:20 AM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 02/13/08 - 11:30 PM:	#19
Good point. That might as well be the case too.
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/14/08 - 04:55 PM:	#20
Paul wrote: This illustrates that you're utterly detached from reality, a common affliction of the Paulites. You're like a creationist citing evidence of the great flood. Ron Paul has always polled at 3-8% nationally, and still is even after all the dropouts (if you really are going to pretend to be unaware of this, a source). If you think one poll out of a thousand suddenly makes him popular, you need to take a statistics class. His only "good" poll performances are in trivially-cheated mediums like web polls and straw polls where his army of obsessively deranged largely-teenaged supporters take care of things. How many of those polls are blind bio polls? Polls that are based on name recognition fails to serve the issue at hand, namely the popularity of Paul on his issues, so it would be a mistake to lump them together. The only reason I can see the Zogby blind bio poll standing out, is that it is based on attributes, rather than on names. If it weren't for the breathtaking irrationality and naievity of his supporters I'd have been happy to see Paul win the republican nomination based on his views If I was to support a candidate, I would care more about his views than the mindset of his supporters, but then again I don't care that much if I am being associated with naive and irrational people or not, as long as deletions or bans are not going to be on the basis of such associations. At any rate, your comment there about his poll "victory" shows the mindset of the Ron Paul spammers who've been infesting the internet, flooding every forum and site for the last year. That's why PMB was right to delete the link. If PMB is right to delete the link, wouldn't it be because of the content of the link itself, rather than guilt by association? If you open yourself up to public input, you take the associated risk of making yourself look bad. I took the risk to get ridiculed here, but I care more about being able to present the candidates in a manner that complies with rules of this forum than to look bad, so the flak I'm already reciving is in my interest, with the exception of your attempts to ridicule me, which did not constitute any constructive criticism in my perspective. Nobody needs to go out of their way to avoid making a moderator look bad, but people who think they're making a mod look bad are generally making fools of themselves. I'm sure PMB wont make himself look bad, that is as as long as he is being a fair moderator, and he has been nice to me as well, so that makes him look good. Anyone who challenges a mod/admin to argue a potentially pages long political or philosophical issue that they've moderated will almost inevitably be ignored because we don't find their pet issue that interesting and have better things to do with our time, but the people are still free to ask. They can even beat their chests and proclaim an unchallenged victory via their designated opponent not responding, if they want to look like an utter fool in public and ensure that observers will never take them seriously again. I don't think PMB will leave the questions unanswered given that he already offered to answer my questions in private, and in any case it would be against my interests if he just left, as then I'm left with no clues how to make an acceptable presentation myself.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 02/18/08 - 03:27 PM:	#21
keda wrote: How many of those polls are blind bio polls? Polls that are based on name recognition fails to serve the issue at hand, namely the popularity of Paul on his issues, so it would be a mistake to lump them together. The only reason I can see the Zogby blind bio poll standing out, is that it is based on attributes, rather than on names. Naive views will tend to play betterl to people who haven't cared to actually think about them before (100% of the people you're discussing, since they willfully avoided learning about the candidates). Most people on the street think anarcho-capitalism sounds lovely when it's described to them, precicely because they're willfully ignorant enough to not have heard of it. Still, he's nowhere near a majority amongst the just-informed willfully ignorant. The only demographic Paul does really well in, actually, is democrats asked to choose a republican. They don't actually like him better than the democrats, they just think he's the least evil of the evil side. Ron Paul has been on numerous popular TV shows and plastered all over the internet, has spent countless millions on advertising, has his own blimp, and is one of only three people left to vote for, so if people really liked him once they heard of him a lot more have surely heard of him by now -- and yet his popularity remains the same. Huckabee started in the same obscurity, with worse funding, but achieved prominence because his views actually appealed to a large group (evangelicals)... though Huckabee is sort of a larger version of Paul, with a relatively small insular highly determined fan base unable to attract anyone from the outside to join. keda wrote: If I was to support a candidate, I would care more about his views than the mindset of his supporters, I would never support Paul -- he doesn't respect secularism, he's against abortion, and he'd be absolute murder on the economy due to his lack of understanding of the need to regulate capitalism to avoid a repeat of the 19th century. I simply stated that he'd be a relativley useful enemy compared to the rest of the republican field, from a purely selfish point of view as a Californian not needing a strong federal government -- even though from a more philanthropic point of view I'd have to feel sorry for southerns who'd be stuck in a theocracy. Not that a president is capable of doing all he wants to, of course... a Ron Paul presidency would just be a series of vetos overridden. keda wrote: If PMB is right to delete the link, wouldn't it be because of the content of the link itself, rather than guilt by association? The quantity of spam on the internet is actually what legally defines it as spam. Since we have no psychics available, the number of times something is repeated in an unsubstantiated, refferential way (a link) needs to be taken as a factor. Of course, I presume the lack of content in the post was the primary reason and the nonphilosophicalness of the link content a secondary. Edited by Paul on 02/18/08 - 03:42 PM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/20/08 - 09:34 AM:	#22
keda wrote: But would you decline to answer them in an open discussion in the politics subforum in another thread? Yes. An open discussion would require posting the link, so that everyone party to the discussion could contribute in an informed manner. But this would be an end-run around the decision to remove the link as inappropriate content in the first place. keda wrote: Perhaps you are not aware of the nationwide blind zogby poll he won, he is popular nevertheless, although you may be right in that the comparision on the link is unfair, however I still question that. One cannot win a poll, one can only lead it. That aside, your analysis fails to note several important factors. For one thing, Republicans overwhelmingly went for the description of Giuliani (and at this point, Paul is in a primary race -- if he's so confident of his mainstream credibility, let him run as a third-party candidate). Second, the poll was hardly blind -- Mitt Romney, for example, is described as a Mormon and Giuliani is mentioned as being mayor during the attacks of September 11, 2001. The description of Paul's, however, ignores his position on abortion (a major sticking point for moderate voters), and Huckabee isn't even included (which would have split the conservative vote further). Indeed, political opinions and positions don't really play into the poll descriptions at all. So the fact that the Democrats, Independents, Greens, and other voters decided to favor a vague description of someone they didn't recognize over give-away descriptions of obviously Republican candidates is hardly a surprise. And once relevant details are brought into the picture, what happens? Ron Paul sinks back to the bottom. But I have no desire to get into a political discussion with you at present, nor should this thread become one. If you want to defend Ron Paul's candidacy, start a thread in the Politics subforum. keda wrote: It would help if you could for instance list which issues should be listed for a non-slanted comparison. If not in this thread, then in a thread in the politics subforum. Such a thread would only be useful for a few months. Besides, this should be a matter of intellectual conscience and common sense. And where those fail (for whatever reason, including honest mistakes as in this case), the moderators will pick up the slack. keda wrote: Regarding "weasel words" I did not recognize anything I would call "weasel word", but maybe you could point out specifically where they were used. I am happy to do so in a private conversation regarding the website. keda wrote: What about promoting any view point without (intentionally or not) mentioning the downfalls? Misrepresentations in general? While I can't recall of a post getting deleted for this reason, there are plenty of them lying around on the forums without ever getting deleted. People are disagreeing over facts all the time, and one of them must be wrong, whether intentionally or not. Should the posts that are wrong be deleted? Where goes the line? Being wrong is different than being deliberately misleading. And though sorites paradoxes may present problems for those who desire bright lines, those who understand that such borders simply do not always exist will be able to live with the necessary ambiguity. A set of rules that was both sufficiently exhaustive and able to be strictly adhered to would either be needlessly oppressive or prohibitively complex (if not both). There's just no practical way to delineate common sense.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 02/20/08 - 06:25 PM:	#23
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Yes. An open discussion would require posting the link, so that everyone party to the discussion could contribute in an informed manner. But this would be an end-run around the decision to remove the link as inappropriate content in the first place. You are right, but I would still like to see an update of the forum rules, as that was a bit of a surprise for me. But I have no desire to get into a political discussion with you at present, nor should this thread become one. If you want to defend Ron Paul's candidacy, start a thread in the Politics subforum. I would first like to hear the other side of the story before I do any such. I'm not a fan of all his policies, but from my current knowledge he would make the best candidate, and if you have any information that could change my mind about him, I'd be glad to hear it. I am happy to do so in a private conversation regarding the website. Alright then, thanks for the offer. Being wrong is different than being deliberately misleading. And though sorites paradoxes may present problems for those who desire bright lines, those who understand that such borders simply do not always exist will be able to live with the necessary ambiguity. A set of rules that was both sufficiently exhaustive and able to be strictly adhered to would either be needlessly oppressive or prohibitively complex (if not both). There's just no practical way to delineate common sense. [/quote] I did not know the content was misleading in the first place, but thanks for the assurance. It would just mean that you would have to explain what was misleading about it, as I certainly don't want to be misleading in the future, and I still don't know that it actually was misleading.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Postmodern Beatnik
It's Just Love

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 1479

Posted 02/20/08 - 08:03 PM:	#24
I am glad you understand. I will try to respond to your private message as soon as I can, but first I am going to wade through all of the material again.
_____________________ "I find that offensive!" -Bender Bending Rodriguez "Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family." -Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1041

Posted 02/21/08 - 01:06 AM:	#25
What? What is this? No ranting about the tyranny of Emperor Paul? What's happening to this place? Where's the fire? I click into the thread of a disgruntled deletion victim and find agreeableness!? This is an outrage...OUTRAGE!

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.