(December 16, 2008 at 3:45 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: (December 16, 2008 at 2:23 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: @ Purple Rabbit: If he doesn't answer questioned claims. Wouldn't you be mad NOT to put him on the ignore list? So what's the difference between him having no one to debate with and him being banned?
I guess perhaps there could be some here who actually don't mind him claiming stuff that he doesn't expect to be questioned and then questioning everyone else. Which is hypocritical. Is that sort of what you were referring to PR? Someone people mind not want to ignore his relentless hypocritical double-standards. I can see where you're coming from but doesn't he just completely disrupt the forum with that kind of behavior? If everyone decides to ignore him whats the point of him being on here?
You can place him on your ignore list for a number of reasons. If you think he is beyond debatable, that seems a good reason to me. But underneat is your urge to play the game of free speech by your rules. Rules btw that are by all means acceptable and preferable to me.
When everybody puts him on the ignore list, the poster himself still is in charge of his choice on free speech. No restrictions from the community prohibit him to comply to the accepted debating rules at any time. I prefer the exposure to free thoughts of others to any possible restriction on personal thought.
Hmm. I'd be inclined to agree with you IF he didn't piss off some people and anger them. Since he didn't piss ME off and make ME angry, he merely frustrated me. And if he frustrated me too much I could just ignore him.
But if he's pissing people off and even angering them - I think thats very bad and disrupting the forum.
And thats what he did. So I agree with the ban for that - in the sense he did a lot more harm that good. And I also think that he wasn't necessarily even doing himself a favour either. With all the anger and ignorance.
So for that alone I agree with the ban.
And then with the whole Raymond imposter thing! That was totally sick.
And he spammed PM bullshit at us. He went very very low.
So not only do I still think the original ban was correct. But I think that some off us could tell by Daystar's character, his constant digressing, ignorance and often arrogance - and most of all dishonesty and flaming - what he was capable of.
I stand that he needed banning then because of his behavior. Its not the speech. I don't care what words he says. Its the constant distruption - sometimes attacking other members - and causing more trouble than good. And pissing people off.
And then after the 'Raymond Daystar Imposter thing' It was sick. Obvious ban.
Like I said, his constant dishonesty, arrogance, behavior and attacks showed what he was capable of.
I'm not against Daystar as much as I am against his behavior and arguments. And I think he mostly just had a bad effect on the forum.
I'm glad he's gone from here. Not that I'd never want to argue with him again. I just think he caused nothing but trouble here once he got impatient that we didn't tolerate his double standards, flaming, constant digressing.
And just general impatience and arrogance really.
Its not him I'm against. Its his behavior, arrogance and his arguments. I'm not against him so much as his beliefs because its very strong beliefs that drive people. I think of course it was his beliefs that made him behave that way.
Pity he had to end up basically being a troll. Only with deception and sabotaging the debate, not all out rushing really.
As Kyu defines it, he was a berserker.
Evf.
