What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If that's the case,it should be easy to find and present the evidence, shouldn't it?

Such has been done already, several times, and quite frankly, I see no reason to scurry off on an errand at your demand. If you're too stupid to have read the various entries on your dishonesty -- and such appears to be the case -- from Judi, and Esq, and myself, and many others -- well, who am I to try to save you from yourself? So far as I'm concerned, you can wear your tar gladly, and ignorantly. I don't care whether or not you value my scorn.


I'm not your Stepinfetchit, working at your behest, anyway. If you're truly interested in the matter, use the forum's search engine (which you clearly have mastered) and look it up yourself.  Your betterment is not my responsibility, and believe me, that it a relief -- because with your mindset, your improvement is an impossibility.

You're a liar and an idiot.  I believe you will always be a liar and an idiot.  You can demonstrate that I'm wrong if you wish. And if you don't, quit your fucking whining and take your medicine like a man, you dishonest moron.

[Cyberman]

I reviewed the events in question.

The first time his signature became an issue, we asked him to change it, with the intention of changing it for him if he didn't comply.  We saw that he had logged in after the PM was sent, and he did not comply.  As a result we removed the signature.  The context here was that we told Huggy74 and Bad Wolf to discontinue their feud, and Huggy74 chose to put an inflammatory sequence of quotes in his signature afterwards.  This hardly counts as discontinuing a feud, in the staff's opinion.

The second time it became an issue we suspended his signature privileges.  We don't expect to have to repeat ourselves.

Two takeaways:  If staff asks you to do something to rectify a breach of the rules, you are expected to comply, whether you agree with it or not.  Furthermore, you're expected to not do the same thing again in the future, and should you choose to do so anyway, you reap what you sow.

I will just add that in my PM exchange with him, almost a year after the events, in which I detailed the result of the investigation I carried out for him (for some reason I was absent for the events in question), I actually stated that "Nobody was victimised nor favoured, indeed the Staff actually bent over backwards to be as fair and as equitable as possible in the circumstances" - a response which was appreciated at the time.

[Cyberman]

Ah yes, the humility of Christ on display in one of his most ardent followers.

So you can dish it out but not take it? I'll let the bible insult you then..
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” - Psalm 14:1

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" -- Matthew 5:22.

[KevinM1]

So you can dish it out but not take it? I'll let the bible insult you then..
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” - Psalm 14:1

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" -- Matthew 5:22.

Oh, snap!

[Huggy Bear]

So section 14 of the rules, about "quoting others accurately," just passed you by, eh?

Did you even read the rules before you decided there was nothing in there that you violated? Or did you just assume no such rule could exist because you can't possibly be wrong?

14. Quoting Others Accurately
When using the quote function to quote other members, you may quote in whole or in part, but may not change the quoted text in any way. Breaking this rule may   result in staff intervention. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the misquote(s), you may be warned, banned, or have your post edited to indicate the violation and / or amend the misquote. Adding to the quoted text for clarification (i.e. bolding, numbering, italics, etc.) is okay provided you indicate that the additions are yours and not the quoted member's, and provided it doesn't change the meaning of the quoted text. Use of textual alteration for the purpose of parody may be allowed, provided it is clear that the changes have been made to the original quote. In the case of ambiguity, staff will err on the side of preserving the author's original words rather than preserving your artistic license. If in doubt, include the phrase "Changes made to original quotation." at the top of your post. Staff reserve the right to consider misquotations on a case-by-case basis, weighing context and additional factors.

The rule states clearly that you may quote a member in whole or IN PART, you just may not CHANGE the quoted text in any way. I Quoted FAF's exact words....
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.

That is the whole exchange.

Quoting people is not the issue, as you were told then, and were told again now. The issue in the first case is you were using it to taunt another member after you both had been speedbumped, and in the second you misrepresented the content you were quoting; it was a simple mistake that had been retracted cheerfully once that had come to light, and you were representing it without that crucial end portion to make the person you were quoting seem unreasonable. That's both trolling and against our rules on quoting people accurately; how many times do you need to be told the same damn thing before it gets into your head? You were not warned for quoting someone in your sig.

You realize I had rhythm quoted (with permission) in my sig for about seven / eight months? Now all of the sudden I'm supposed to realize the interpretation of the rules have changed and now it's considered "trolling"? Give me a break..
Sounds more like a convenient excuse.

FAF did not retract anything, he offered an EXCUSE

The first step is observation.

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

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.

As you can clearly see, FAF makes an excuse as if he didn't understand the question, then insinuates that "verifying the result" is the second step in the scientific method.....STILL WRONG! How would adding that part help him in any way? If you have some other evidence where FAF retracted himself then present it, because this ain't it.

Hey dumbass? As I mentioned earlier, and as you should fucking know since you linked to the goddamn thread where all this went down, you weren't warned for what you did with Rhythm. You were warned for what you did with FaF; two different people, different cases, different context.

Are you seriously just not listening to anything that disagrees with you? Or is your memory so bad when it comes to things that make you look bad, that you'll forget things you yourself quoted earlier today?

Why could I have Rhythm quote in my sig for about seven months and it not be an issue, then all of the sudden it's against the rules?

Because you changed your sig from Rhythm's quote to someone else's, and in that case you were quote mining in order to troll that person?

Maybe the issue isn't that you weren't adequately warned, but that you don't fucking absorb information?

The reason I bring up the situation with Rhythm is because it was EXACTLY THE SAME, he made a false statement, was corrected, then he promptly apologized. I put his statement in my sig and not his retraction....for seven months and that was apparently fine...

You continue to claim I was quote mining after I've shown that the exchange with FAF WAS NOT taken out of context if you have other evidence that he was, then present it, otherwise it just seems that you're all butt-hurt over atheist's being made to look foolish on a regular basis.

[Huggy Bear]

So you can dish it out but not take it? I'll let the bible insult you then..
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” - Psalm 14:1

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" -- Matthew 5:22.

I see you, and raise you....

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." - Matthew 12:50

[Jackalope]

The issue with Rhythm *is* different. We don't make a habit of policing signatures or profiles. I personally leave signatures turned off.

We depend on reports for such things. Nobody reported it, so no action was taken.

But hey, don't let that stop you from stirring up shit unnecessarily.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" -- Matthew 5:22.

I see you, and raise you....

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." - Matthew 12:50

Dude, you got owned.  If that's the best reply you have, you should have not replied at all.

Loser.

[Ravenshire]

Panda,

Be proud of me for I have shown "What IS good" (if not "how do we determine it")by taking the high road... As much as it pained me to do so.

[Silver]

God is one "o" short of good for a reason.