New Rule: Posting Private Correspondence

[Huggy Bear]

Do you remember this little correspondence?

---

Since then, my signature has been permanently disabled, and the mental gymnastics used to construe my signature (which was a simple quote, something people do all the time by simply pressing the reply button) into somehow being a breach of the rules is nothing short of amazing.

I'd post the PM as proof but I can't....

---

If the person that complained about PM's being posted was not staff, then I stand corrected and apologize, But if it was, then that just seems shady to me, that's all.

I dug through a stack of reports from the time period in question and found the one that spawned this new rule.  The complaint did not come from anyone on staff.

Then I apologize for the accusation.

---

It was me who reported you Huggy. You had a quote mine in your signature, this was pointed out, and you failed to sort it out. It was not a "simple quote", it was entirely out of context to try and embarress another member. You showed you weren't mature enough to have the privilege of a signature. This was of course way before I was a member of staff.

Please don't embarress yourself further by dragging this all up. I reported it because of the gross dishonesty and misrepresentation, which is clearly against the forum rules.

There is no conspiracy. There is you acting in a ridiculous manner. The fact that you're still even here on the forum shows how tolerant the staff were, and are, to all your shenanigans.

That is a bald faced lie.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying.

My signature was (and still is, seeing how I haven't changed it):

Huggy74: Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

FatAndFaithless: What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

Here is FatAndFaithless actual post.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

As you can see I asked a question and he provided an answer, where is the "gross dishonesty and misrepresentation"? Where is the quote mine? Like I said, "the mental gymnastics used to construe my signature into somehow being a breach of the rules is nothing short of amazing."

I think the problem is that you can't stand when an "theist" makes an atheist look foolish, and btw my punishment was for "trolling" NOT "quote mining", apparently if someone is embarrassed by the quote in your sig, it can be interpreted as trolling...

[robvalue]

I'm not going through it all again. It was all explained in detail at the time. People can view what happened and come to their own conclusions about how honest your quote was, if that's what you really want. He later corrected what he had said for accuracy, but you clung onto it regardless, failing to show this context. Hence quote mining. You picked out a single part to try and make a point that reading the whole would not support.

Clearly the staff agreed with my assessment.

Let it go man and join us in the present. I'm not going to entertain these fantasies anymore.

[Huggy Bear]

I'm not going through it all again. It was all explained in detail at the time. People can view what happened and come to their own conclusions about how honest your quote was, if that's what you really want. He later corrected what he had said for accuracy, but you clung onto it regardless, failing to show this context. Hence quote mining. You picked out a single part to try and make a point that reading the whole would not support.

FaF didn't correct himself he was corrected, and after said correction he made up an excuse for why he was wrong, and guess what? He was still wrong.

---

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

The first step is observation.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

*emphasis mine*

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

*emphasis mine*

---

As you can see, "to verify the result" is not the second step either, so how would including that make him look any better?

I asked a question, and he gave an answer, that is the FULL context, accepting correction after the fact is irrelevant, the point was that his original answer was wrong.

Clearly the staff agreed with my assessment.

That's called bias, I originally had one of the mods quoted in my sig, I don't think that sat too well with the other mods, so it seems that they would have a vested interest to disable my sig.

You clearly seen the post where Esquilax was already complaining about my signature, so you can't really expect him to be impartial now can you?

Let it go man and join us in the present. I'm not going to entertain these fantasies anymore.

Don't bring up false allegations and expect me not to refute them.

[brewer]

I hate past life regression.

[Joods]

Let it go man and join us in the present. I'm not going to entertain these fantasies anymore.

Don't bring up false allegations and expect me not to refute them.

Honestly, Huggy, do you even realize some of the things you do? 

1. The last post in this thread was #34 by Evie. That was almost six months ago. Five months and three weeks, if you want to be technical. 
2. Then two days ago, you resurrect this thread with a sarcastic post. Yes, it was sarcastic and that's fine, but you've been here long enough to know that unless there is some specific reason to bring a thread back from the dead, you leave it alone. Your sarcastic post (#35) didn't give a clear or specific reason to do that. 
3. CD responds with his own sarcasm (post #36).
4. Stimbo replies in post #44 with his own sarcasm. It was rather funny, but unfortunately, it opened the door for you to crack open your past and drag shit up. Perhaps that was your goal. You'd necropost, with the hopes that someone would bite. And they did. 
5. You follow with post #45 and it all went to shit from there and now you want to accuse someone else of bringing up false allegations when it was YOU that necroposted in the first place? 

You brought it up. Anyone involved had every right from that point to say something. If you didn't want to hear explanations, then perhaps you should have left this thread dead and buried where it was. I think you were looking to start drama because perhaps there's no good forum action for you right now, so you went digging for it. 

Seriously, learn to let shit go. And if you can't, then please be adult enough to understand that if you can't let something go, that you also can't bitch about something and not have others respond. 

It just doesn't work that way. No one here gets carte blanch to keep dragging up old news and not have any responses to it.

[LastPoet]

This is something I do not remember fondly from being staff, enduring the whining of professional whiners. Camon! The staff have more useful stuff to do. Like hookers, blow, untold orgies.

I do remember many more fond stuff from there. Ah Panda, I will never forget "The Mod so Powerfull that he could ban himself!"

[Thumpalumpacus]

Huggy, that "Internet is srs bsns" thing?

It's a joke.

[Cyberman]

4. Stimbo replies in post #44 with his own sarcasm. It was rather funny, but unfortunately, it opened the door for you to crack open your past and drag shit up. Perhaps that was your goal. You'd necropost, with the hopes that someone would bite. And they did. 

What can I say... I'm just his fluffer. And I didn't get paid, but at least he didn't finish over me.

[Jackalope]

It was me who reported you Huggy. You had a quote mine in your signature, this was pointed out, and you failed to sort it out. It was not a "simple quote", it was entirely out of context to try and embarress another member. You showed you weren't mature enough to have the privilege of a signature. This was of course way before I was a member of staff.

Please don't embarress yourself further by dragging this all up. I reported it because of the gross dishonesty and misrepresentation, which is clearly against the forum rules.

There is no conspiracy. There is you acting in a ridiculous manner. The fact that you're still even here on the forum shows how tolerant the staff were, and are, to all your shenanigans.

I'm pretty certain this isn't the event that led to the new rule. Actually, I'm absolutely certain.

[robvalue]

Sure, probably not. I was just explaining how Huggy's signature wasn't randomly taken away as a staff conspiracy as he'd love to think.