Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
!!! Moderation !!! Moderation

01-08-2017 , 10:58 PM
Seems like your beef should be with the State Dept then.
01-08-2017 , 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Seems like your beef should be with the State Dept then.
Sure we can debate their definition of death caused by terrorist.

But they didn't make the chart. Apparently toothy did. With data pulled from the state dept. At links different than the ones he provided as his sources which didn't actually have the data.

You literally have no clue what we're arguing about. Your lizard brain just immediately goes into "defend racist bigot" mode.
01-08-2017 , 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regret$
That Sydney article lists Boku Haram as the most deadly terrorist group at 6,000 deaths in 2015 and includes figures from their military offenses in that count. According to that metric the US Military would be the most deadly terrorist group in the world if included in the count.
Post from yesterday.
01-08-2017 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
TS,

The only reason there were pages and pages of questions about your sources is because you posted an unsourced, unlabeled chart. Incorrectly claimed that the chart represented deaths attributable to Muslim terrorist attacks when it was actually all terrorist attacks, and then provided the source material piecemeal and in an incoherent manner. (Linking to pages that in fact did not include the data that was in the chart.)

Stop acting like you're a victim.

After wasting an hour of my time I was able to verify the data was accurate (as claimed by US State dept.), but it shouldn't be that hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
Sure we can debate their definition of death caused by terrorist.

But they didn't make the chart. Apparently toothy did. With data pulled from the state dept. At links different than the ones he provided as his sources which didn't actually have the data.

You literally have no clue what we're arguing about. Your lizard brain just immediately goes into "defend racist bigot" mode.
Just trying to look into it. Didn't you just say you wasted an hour verifying, and the data was accurate?
01-08-2017 , 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Just trying to look into it. Didn't you just say you wasted an hour verifying, and the data was accurate?
Yes the data for that chart is accurate as now claimed. (death due to all terrorists 2006-2015)

The point was TS shouldn't be playing the victim about how this had to go on for pages and pages yada yada yada meow chow when that was all his own fault.
01-08-2017 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
Yes the data for that chart is accurate as now claimed. (death due to all terrorists 2006-2015)

The point was TS shouldn't be playing the victim about how this had to go on for pages and pages yada yada yada meow chow when that was all his own fault.
Meh, after this and also seeing the other thing you "corrected" him on about 1/4 French Muslims sympathizing with ISIS, when the Newsweek link he provided says 16% of French citizens support ISIS, which is probably much more concerning, right? I think TS is probably getting sloppy, but you guys aren't really refuting him much either. It just looks like many of you have a rage boner for him, but maybe you could point me to his real lies and I'll change my tune.
01-08-2017 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Again, not sure why you think any set of ideas is special in this regard. Scientologists are constantly suing people who criticize them and their religion, yet there's little sympathy from you for them I assume. I have, and so many other liberals have beat up on Christianity and those within it who support changing laws to prevent gay marriage or a woman's right to choose, still more brutally those who support violence against gays or abortion doctors.

These continued arguments and many more are what has forced religions in the West to continue reforming, or else lose membership.

Yet those exact types of criticisms are being labeled prejudiced every day when anyone dares speak out about Islam, or specifically those within the religion who hold those same views. I linked you a video, and can show you many more examples if you wish. Perhaps you are not doing this, and perhaps TS is over the line. Simply showing that with better arguments should suffice in correcting him.

Meanwhile, those criticisms that are accurate can help inform the world of Islam's terrible ideas, and just like other religions like Christianity, Islam will be forced to answer these criticisms or lose membership. How else do you suggest Islam, or any religion or set of ideas be treated?
Hopefully you'll be surprised with how simple this is:

What Muslims believe is a religion topic.

We can learn what happens when it is manufactured into a pseudo-political topic. That thread.

What does unregulated prejudicial argument do to any given Muslim's beliefs ? Nothing? Anything? What influence is really that impressive here? We are talking about human beings when referencing Muslims. If we leave any of them out of our graphs and flowcharts of their beleifs, are we telling a worthwhile honest narrative?

BTW- I'd leave the thread as a monument of how to create confusion and make impressions more than one of information of what to expect from Muslim neighbors. A religion forum would be the smart place to discuss what it might mean for a Muslim to move near you. IMO
01-08-2017 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Meh, after this and also seeing the other thing you "corrected" him on about 1/4 French Muslims sympathizing with ISIS, when the Newsweek link he provided says 16% of French citizens support ISIS, which is probably much more concerning, right? I think TS is probably getting sloppy, but you guys aren't really refuting him much either. It just looks like many of you have a rage boner for him, but maybe you could point me to his real lies and I'll change my tune.
I don't think I was involved in looking into that other "correction" at all.

But you not having an issue with not presenting accurate sourced information (when not just purporting to be giving an opinion) says a lot more about you than it does me.
01-08-2017 , 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
I don't think I was involved in looking into that other "correction" at all.

But you not having an issue with not presenting accurate sourced information (when not just purporting to be giving an opinion) says a lot more about you than it does me.
Yeah probably. Since you haven't yet shown me one place where he's posted innacurate sources, and I've been swarmed for years by you and others with lies and smears of bigotry about me, I'm probably not going to be too concerned about your cries of inaccurately sourced material or bigotry.
01-08-2017 , 11:37 PM
Well then, carry on in your ignorance.
01-08-2017 , 11:47 PM
I don't know why we have to drag cheeseplow into this.
01-09-2017 , 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
If you have any views or criticisms of the actual rules or moderation then I will still be listening.
How many times will a poster be allowed to ignore the rules regarding citing sources correctly and not deliberately misinterpreting data to suit his agenda?

General question lol.
01-09-2017 , 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
It's interesting how in a leftist pack attack they try to use repetition of a (completely false) claim to try and get their way. It's incredible how much time and energy is wasted on pure nonsense character assisination by the left. They could talk issues instead. Enlighten themselves and debunk myths in the process. But nope. Character assassination in a pack. Lies. Badgering of those in power until they give in from sheer exhaustion from all the bull****. It's really quite unhinged.

Says the clownshoes that gish-gallops for 1000 words at a time.

I mean, look at all the bull**** to unpack in just that paragraph above.

And then behold the torrent behind it.



Quote:
Yeah, the US State Department, the New York Times, and Pew Polling, are terrible sources for my graphs...


It was intelligence services. And that was an opinion. Why are you in such a moral panic about opinions you don't like? For that matter, why are you in a moral panic about the facts I posted, that you don't like?

You know how you counter and balance what I post? Post some good things about what Muslims believe, in the thread about what Muslims believe. Be a positive person. Humanize them. Trying to pack-attack malign your opponents who are actually posting factual and interesting and unknown content will only get people against you. Why not actually be a positive person? I'd love to hear good things about Muslims that give me hope. Get off your ass and post some! You could have posted 50+ good things about Muslims and Muslim beliefs with the energy you've wasted screaming and smearing.

But the above would require work, rather than you just giving to your lowest nature and hateful bigotry.
01-09-2017 , 04:09 AM
Ok, so, am I the only 1 fascinated and disturbed by the fact that the bold below didn't actually happen like this.

I mean, it's all right there to read again.

Bonus Prize: Note how noted scholar and exhaustive source-citer ToothSayer doesn't actually link to the thread, or quote it, or provide a post number, or even mention which thread the example is from?

Double Bonus Prize x 2: Guess why that is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothSayer
I would want this to be in evidence before we proceed on this hypothetical.

I would personally be in favor of this. However, if multiple people are doing it, it also clutters up the thread. Why doesn't each argument rise or fall on its merits? Let's take a recent example. A graph was posted of 10 years of terrorism. Sources were asked for it. Those sources were provided rapidly - a link showing that the last and highest year was taken from a highly reliable source (the State Department) and matched it exactly. Case closed if you have a functioning brain.

Pages and pages of trolling followed asking for all the other references, trying to claim (without evidence - in fact contrary to evidence) that this poster fabricated most of their sources. The poster explained, calmly, where the rest of the evidence could be found, something that could be verified in two minutes. The trolling continued. The poster was eventually forced to hold multiple posters by the hand and walk them through the process of finding the evidence for themselves, which was in plain sight, because the posters lacked the intelligence and high school level research skills to understand that the the issue was already proven once the source (Statista) was given, and the statista's source (the State Department) was noted. This long after the poster has shown themselves to impeccably source their charts to highly reliable sources.

There are two routes here:

- Chezlaw becomes an arbiter of what's true and false in all these situations (is it fair that they are being called a liar? is every last bar of the graph verified?)

- He enforced sensible rules to keep conversations on topic and fairly troll free (source when you post, no pages of trolling or rehashing the past).

Only one of those is sane.
01-09-2017 , 04:16 AM
I mean, I'm just here to mock idiots and deplorable simpletons and pseudointellectuals whilst I wait for the end of the world, BUT, AGAIN, if anybody wants to actually make this a real forum I'm only trying to help with my little 2c here and there.

I did mod BBV4L and NVG. This kiddie-game nonsense is not new, it's just the extremely well-dressed Smrt Poltcl Discrse version.
01-09-2017 , 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
How many times will a poster be allowed to ignore the rules regarding citing sources correctly and not deliberately misinterpreting data to suit his agenda?

General question lol.
What is this? You have some sort of witch-hunt against TS and his data/sources.

Let's end it right here - what data did he post that was the most egregiously incorrect or misleading, and let's get this argument over with, because you guys sitting here disparaging him for his sources has gotten to the point of idiocy.

Keep in mind, he's a very well respected poster in BFI, a forum where being correct about information actually means something.

Make your claim against one of his incorrect posts, and let us be the judge.
01-09-2017 , 04:24 AM
I have done exactly that elsewhere and don't have to answer to the likes of you. What are you, his housemaid? DYOR.
01-09-2017 , 04:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
I have done exactly that elsewhere and don't have to answer to the likes of you. What are you, his housemaid? DYOR.
I'm not anything, I'm just tired of reading these posts in every thread. You are the ones who go on and on about it and cry to Chez about it. Hash it out already and end the issue so you don't have to spam the forum across multiple threads about it.

I'll ask you point blank : what is the single worst piece of data he posted and why is it incorrect? Post it here with YOUR argument of why it's totally disingenuous and let's put it to rest already. Jesus Christ how long are you going to go on about this?

If you've already posted about it, just tell us which thread and which post # with the evidence and let's get this over with. wtf?
01-09-2017 , 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
I'm not anything, I'm just tired of reading these posts in every thread. You are the ones who go on and on about it and cry to Chez about it. Hash it out already and end the issue so you don't have to spam the forum across multiple threads about it.

I'll ask you point blank : what is the single worst piece of data he posted and why is it incorrect? Post it here with YOUR argument of why it's totally disingenuous and let's put it to rest already. Jesus Christ how long are you going to go on about this?

If you've already posted about it, just tell us which thread and which post # with the evidence and let's get this over with. wtf?
No, I've never complained to chez about anything, apart from one post from someone or other I reported a few days ago because it breached one of his rules.

I don't know who you think you are demanding that people tell you this or tell you that lol. If I actually gaf what someone's lackey thought I'd answer their questions.

In case you didn't notice, you are not, could not be and never will be a mod here, so I don't know what makes you think you can jump into a question I was asking of chez about the moderation of 7.0 when you have nothing of value to add.
01-09-2017 , 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
No, I've never complained to chez about anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
How many times will a poster be allowed to ignore the rules regarding citing sources correctly and not deliberately misinterpreting data to suit his agenda?.
please note that you posted this in the MODERATION thread.


Quote:
I don't know who you think you are demanding that people tell you this or tell you that lol.
I'm no one, but I'm a person who is calling you out on your bull****. See above.


Quote:
In case you didn't notice, you are not, could not be and never will be a mod here
Thank God for all of us.


Quote:
so I don't know what makes you think you can jump into a question I was asking of chez about the moderation of 7.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
How many times will a poster be allowed to ignore the rules regarding citing sources correctly and not deliberately misinterpreting data to suit his agenda?.
You asked, not me. I called you out on it. Stop going on about it like an old woman.
01-09-2017 , 05:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
when you have nothing of value to add.
One more time, which thread and which post # did you prove TS was lying?

It's really a simple question. You don't even have to make an argument, I'm just asking you to point me in the right direction.
01-09-2017 , 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi

fyp
01-09-2017 , 05:25 AM
I'll take "Almost everything he ever posted about Islam from the birth of Muhammad to the Mongol invasion from the east hundreds of years later" for $8800, Alex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
What is this? You have some sort of witch-hunt against TS and his data/sources.

Let's end it right here - what data did he post that was the most egregiously incorrect or misleading, and let's get this argument over with, because you guys sitting here disparaging him for his sources has gotten to the point of idiocy.

Keep in mind, he's a very well respected poster in BFI, a forum where being correct about information actually means something.

Make your claim against one of his incorrect posts, and let us be the judge.
01-09-2017 , 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
One more time, which thread and which post # did you prove TS was lying?

It's really a simple question. You don't even have to make an argument, I'm just asking you to point me in the right direction.
Well here's the thing wil. If you'd asked in a non-confrontational way I'd have happily linked you, but I feel it's time for some tough parental love because that's they only way you'll ever learn to start conversations non-horribly.
01-09-2017 , 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
Well here's the thing wil. If you'd asked in a non-confrontational way I'd have happily linked you, but I feel it's time for some tough parental love because that's they only way you'll ever learn to start conversations non-horribly.
You made the claim. I'm only asking you to let me look at it myself. You wanted to cry to the mod about something, I'm only asking you to tell me where the proof is that TS is a liar.

You keep saying it, I just want to look at it for myself. I really don't see the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jalfrezi
Well here's the thing wil. If you'd asked in a non-confrontational way
If you want me to say please, then, please, show me what you are talking about.

      
m