• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

S&S Memorial thread!

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
Yet another (dare I say it?) troll gone from our midst. They've been dropping left and right but I can't say I'm sorry to see S&S go, even if it was against his will this time.

This time last year, or so, I'd have to say that I would have been totally against this board banning a poster, but I'm not sure I can blame them. I've thought time and time again that Carlos was only here out of bitterness due to his failed JREF Challenge and his own insecurities. I don't know what the exact circumstances behind his banning were, but I feel the R&P board is better off.

Maybe.

What do the rest of you think? Did Carlos add anything of value to the R&P board?
 
Way overdue.

S&S is the most dispicable cretin I have had the displeasure to encounter in this forum.

I would also like to add that I don't even consider this move to be controversial. No one pays to post here, and there is no question of Randi's (through his agents Hal and Linda) primacy in being able to determine who stays and who goes. No explaination or debate is even necessary.

Good riddance!
 
No Answers said:
I'm saddened. It's like we silenced a voice of dissent.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you if S&S actually dissented for a reason, but it was like S&S dissented for dissention's sake. If you said you didn't believe in Jesus, he accused you of mocking Christians. If you said that you agreed with some of Jesus's philosophy, he tried to prove you wrong. He didn't really have a coherent position on anything, that I am aware of.

Dissent for its own sake isn't constructive and, in my opinion, of very little value.
 
It shouldn't matter what value you attach to the opposing view.

The opposing view, however poorly stated or supported, has in this case been silenced for expressing that view. Allowed to speak about all other topics but one, right?
 
No Answers said:
The opposing view, however poorly stated or supported, has in this case been silenced for expressing that view. Allowed to speak about all other topics but one, right?
Click to expand...
Not true. S&S was banned not because of what he said but because of his behavior. Or at least as far as I gather from Hal's notice. I don't know the details.

I'm not asking about whether he should have been banned or not. The fact is, Carlos was banned. My question is whether his form of dissention or criticism added value to the R&P board.

I say that it didn't because he would not engage in discussion but would rather attack poster's beliefs without backing up the attack with any reason or pursue a point without expressing an opinion on it even after others had.
 
No Answers said:
It shouldn't matter what value you attach to the opposing view.

The opposing view, however poorly stated or supported, has in this case been silenced for expressing that view. Allowed to speak about all other topics but one, right?
Click to expand...
I would like to very vigorously repeat Upchurch's point. The banning was not for point-of-view, it was for behaviour that was unacceptably vile.
 
I think that I would have missed his point of view if he had ever stated one.
My guess is that he kept making treats of some sort.

My codependant nature got the better of me, I did try to get him in on the converstaion.

Funk Forever.
 
You see "S&S" as the username, you pass over it. See "ex-latin", pass over it. If someone quotes them "Originally posted by~~" , pass over that. Is it so hard to do?

They were banned for expressing an unpopular view point.
 
No Answers said:
They were banned for expressing an unpopular view point.
Click to expand...
...er, no. If that were the case, folks like Aforce1 and Franko would have been long gone. I quote:
Originally posted by hal bidlack

Only their continued willful refusal to abide by the conditions of use created for them led to this action. In the past, both users have violated the forum rules and decorum, and have been suspended for it. In order to be reinstated, they both agreed to conditions that they have repeatedly violated. Further, when called on this, they have prevaricated endlessly. Lately, they have taken to posting inflamatory threads in which they make unfounded and potentially libelous statements. When told the facts, they none the less continue to post falsehoods.
Click to expand...

edited to add:

Okay, okay. Aforce1 and Franko are long gone, but only because they left of their own choice. Their accounts are both still active and they could return at any time. They were around much longer than Carlos and were much more annoying by far.
 
You see "S&S" as the username, you pass over it. See "ex-latin", pass over it. If someone quotes them "Originally posted by~~" , pass over that. Is it so hard to do?
 
No Answers said:
You see "S&S" as the username, you pass over it. See "ex-latin", pass over it. If someone quotes them "Originally posted by~~" , pass over that. Is it so hard to do?

They were banned for expressing an unpopular view point.
Click to expand...
No, it is not hard to pass over their posts. I did it all the time.

I think the big mistake in the S&S soap opera was the initial moving (and subsequent locking) of the Swett Affair thread. Up to that point, both S&S and latin were somewhat looney, but at least they were contained to that thread. After the moderators decided to interfere with that thread, all hell broke loose. That is when they started on the behaviour that eventually got them banned.

If the thread were allowed to eventually die (hopefully those arguing with him would lose interest and give up), I don't think we would have seen the rest of the crap. By moving then locking the thread, it turned S&S into a target and victim in his mind, and he then lashed out.

This initial moving of the thread has been (in retrospect at least) possibly the only instance of moderation that I disagree with. It seems to me that Hal possibly let his emotions govern a bit much, as he was at the pentagon on 9/11, I don't fault him for this - he is only human, after all, and does a damn fine job - but I think that maybe some objectivity was lost on the Swett Affair which led to the current situation.

However, I don't want to imply that S&S and Latin did not deserve to be banned for their behaviour. Even if they thought they were victimized, they should have been able to act like adults and live up to the bargain they struck with forum management. They refused to do so, so they were banned. I just wanted to point out that at the heart of the dispute there may be a kernal of a legitimate complaint.
 
No Answers said:
You see "S&S" as the username, you pass over it. See "ex-latin", pass over it. If someone quotes them "Originally posted by~~" , pass over that. Is it so hard to do?
Click to expand...
Heh. You obviously didn't have to try to ignore Franko in his prime. The only way to "pass over" his stuff was to not read R&P.

But that's the point of the thread, now is it?
 
Upchurch said:
Heh. You obviously didn't have to try to ignore Franko in his prime. The only way to "pass over" his stuff was to not read R&P.

But that's the point of the thread, now is it?
Click to expand...

I read a great deal of his stuff. I also learned to skim it when I saw The Syllogism, and go to those posts that were scathing attacks on his use of logic and reason.

And I submit to you that it isn't so difficult to pass over posts which have no value to you.

Don't try to make it sound like some Herculean effort.
 
No Answers said:
You see "S&S" as the username, you pass over it. See "ex-latin", pass over it. If someone quotes them "Originally posted by~~" , pass over that. Is it so hard to do?

They were banned for expressing an unpopular view point.
Click to expand...

As I've implied in another thread, S&S could have easily been replaced by a poorly-written computer program, and we would never know the difference. His posts were so predictable and so irrelevant that they only served to take up space on the server.
 
If their M.O. had been praising Randi, his work, and the JREF forum to the skies, I'd be very willing to bet they'd still be here, tolerated with bemusement; something like mascots.

What do you think? Please answer honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom