Open Thread 3

Here's another Open Thread (previous OTs are still open, of course). Leave a comment about anything you want to talk about. From now on comments on other posts need to be related to the subject of the post, or they will be candidates for deletion. So an Open Thread is the place for miscellany and whatever. Feel free.

Comments

[Blogger Brian]

Ah, a blast from the Kung Fu past. Thanks to The Rambling Taoist, I just watched some philosophical snippets from this classic TV series.
http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com/2009/08/tao-in-another-format.html

Pretty cool. I'll pretend I'm David Carradine in my Tai Chi class this afternoon.

[tAo]

Neut er all made the following personally derogatory statements, which were posted over on/under Brian's article/topic of:
August 18, 2009 Shoddy religious arguments keep being repeated:

Neut er all said:

"this is an antichurch blog, it is not presenting or proposing anything, so if you make a comment that may be misinterpreted as pro church, then brian and his brainless follower Tao will be anti you"
Posted by: Neut er all | August 19, 2009 at 04:21 AM

-- This comment posted by Neut er all, is in violation of the new guidelines which prohibits the making of personal attacks or personally derogatory name-calling (such as: "brian and his brainless follower Tao") under any of Brian's topics other than perhaps the Open Threads. And so as such, it should be deleted by Brian.

"Before brian and his gang wade in to demand proof or tAo makes his ridiculous and entirely predictable comments"
Posted by: Neut er all | August 19, 2009 at 08:08 AM

-- This comment/post by Neut er all, is also somewhat in violation of the new guidelines which prohibits the making of personal attacks or personally derogatory comments (such as: "or tAo makes his ridiculous and entirely predictable comments") under any of Brian's topics other than perhaps the Open Threads. And so as such, it too perhaps should also be deleted by Brian.

[Blogger Brian]

tAo, you're right. I deleted the first comment, leaving up the second since it wasn't quite as brainlessly offensive as the first. Commenters, it's OK to criticize ridiculous thoughts, concepts, or philosophical positions. But attacking the messenger rather than the message is the stock in trade of those without a coherent argument. Plus, its boring to read this sort of crap.

[tAo]

Brian,

Thanks and I want to be clear that I wasn't trying to pick on "Neut er all". I was only saying that if we (myself included) are going to refrain from making derisive remarks about people themselves (and not just about their their message), then any and all comments that fail to adhere to that standard, should be deleted.

And I agree that that second comment was more on the borderline and it wasn't exactly personal. I included it only to add to my point. But I pretty much expected that you would let it pass, which was fair and correct imo.

If we all try to adhere to this standard, and any comments that don't meet the mark will definitely get deleted asap, then I think the comment forum will have a much nicer vibe. Of course there will still be disagreements and debates about various subjects, but at least no more negative personal static.

I know that I too have been guilty of doing that sort of thing in the past, but as you and I have discussed elsewhere, I have recognized that doing that sort of thing makes for an unpleasant atmosphere, and so I have already happily and willingly adopted the new guidelines. And I hope that everyone else will too. And if they don't, well then their comments should just be erased, deleted. It makes a little extra work for you, but if you are OK with that for now, then I think others will soon catch up.

So I'm all for deleting anything (even my own comments) if they screw up and resort to derogatory name calling and similar BS. I don't think we (or rather you) should tolerate any slack on this. The sooner we clean up this crap and keep it out of here, the better.

I am sure that other guys like Tucson and George and even most of the regular folks here (with the exception of a few die-hard antagonists) feel the same way you and I do. And if we all can agree, then there shouldn't be any more problems with it. So I think we've made some progress. I also hope that the anti-churchless guys will start respecting that this IS your site. The only question in my mind is whether or not some people will heed the warning and can let go of the past and get in tune with the present.

Best wishes to all.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Given the history, this is AMAZING!!

Let us see if it holds up.

Robert Paul Howard

[Neut er all]

Hi Brian
I am wondering why you have not removed the comment from tAo posted over at Floating in a Boundless Sea?
He has breached your new rules several times in his post
for example tAo says "Jarendra/Ashy said:" and "So Jarendra/Ashy, you just don't have any idea or a clue what you are talking about." which to just about everyone here who knows Ashy, is far from complimentary.

tAo goes on to say "So therefore, the only real "fool" around here, has got to be YOU Jarendra."

Brian, as you have not removed tAo's comment, you presumably believe this is somehow not personal and is constructive to the topic being discussed.

Surely you are not biassed towards tAo and prejudiced against me sufficiently to ignore your own rules so recently implemented?

Or is there some other reason? Dont tell me you didnt notice, or that you didnt consider these personal comments to be personal!
I see this as yet another confirmation that this blog should be called Church of the Senseless

[Blogger Brian]

Neut er al, if you dislike this blog so much, why do you keep reading it? If a vegetarian spent a lot of time on the Cattlemen's Association blog, I suspect she'd get irritated also.

Some comments are on the line regarding personal attacks. Some comments go over the line. It's a judgment call. I make the calls, because I administer this blog.

[Robert Paul Howard]

To all:

I request that you might consider my August 20, 2009, at 10:48 AM comment/reply to Brian on his HinesSight blog. I do believe the "principle" involved there is like the one involved here.

Robert Paul Howard

[Blogger Brian]

Note to those who persist in mindless rants and name calling and then wonder why I'm deleting their comments: it's because you're engaging in mindless rants and name calling. Try saying something that makes sense, respectfully.

If you don't like the way I run my blogs, I'd like to suggest that you start your own blog. Choices have to be made on any blog. I've chosen to demand that commenters on my blogs refrain from personal attacks and stick to discussing substantive subjects.

I don't mind criticism of how I run my blogs. But calling me a fool isn't substantive criticism. I'm tightening up on not-allowing personal insults to pollute comment conversations, and that includes insults directed toward me.

[Neut er all]

I am posting this to the open thread and using the guidelines Brian has just posted. This comment is about this blog and Brian does not mind criticism. I do not care how Brian runs this blog, but I do care when Brian claims this is a Churchless blog, yet runs it like a religious leader. Let me explain.

Brian has set new guidelines, they are good ones, and I absolutely approve. I am taking care not to overstep these guidelines in all my posts, including this one.
However, over in the Floating in a Boundless Sea post, tAo accuses jarenda of being Ashy and further calls him a fool. I have pointed this out as a breach of new guidelines, but Brian exercises his right and makes a judgement call, pronouncing this not sufficiently personal. Fine
But if I post a comment that makes exactly the same comments, ie, suggest Brian and tAo are one and the same, and call Brian a fool, then my post is deleted.
This is a situation where so called judgement calls are not made on the merits of the content, but on who posted them and to whom they are directed.
Religious leaders must protect their beliefs, and Brian is running this blog along the same guidelines.
I accept that Brian can run this blog anyway he wants, but I do not accept that in so doing, he deceive others.
This practice has been common here, Brian deletes posts not on their merit, but because he is losing his argument. Brian does not like to lose arguments, and employs a wide range of diversionary tacticts.
So, like a religion, dont be deceived by Brian and his alter ego, tAo

[Blogger Brian]

Neut er all, thanks for learning: you didn't directly call me a fool -- just indirectly. Your progress toward coherence is appreciated. I note that you are commenting from a German server source. Amazing how many blog visitors I've been getting from Germany lately. (I wonder, though, how many are unique.)

FIrst, Jarendra is indeed Ashy. I let him continue to leave comments out of the goodness of my compassionate heart, even though he broke a promise to stop commenting if I left up one last rant.

Second, I do have to make a judgment call as to how far back I go on enforcing the "no personal attacks" rule. If I deleted all of the old comments with personal insults, I'd be spending a heck of a lot of time deleting. So I'm moving forward, rather than backward.

Obviously you can't stand this blog and its churchless sentiments. I never delete comments because I'm losing an argument. That's utterly false. I delete comments because they violate the policies I've set up: no commercial or religious "spam," no mindless rants attacking the very existence of this blog; no personal attacks (meaning, comments need to focus on criticizing the message, not the messenger).

So you're wrong. But, hey, we're all wrong sometimes. Just be respectfully and coherently wrong when you comment, and I'll leave your comments up.

[Neut er all]

Brian, someone is copying and pasting my exact same post a second time, -- odd?

You have deleted my post where I point out that you have made statements of fact that I personally know to not be true. You have stated that you have checked my IP and that I have posted as another name, you make this as statement of fact. Now other readers will not know who to believe, you or me, BUT, I know, I really do know, and I know for an absolute fact that I have not posted under the name you state that I have used. I know this for myself, and you have so provided me with evidence that you are prepared to make false statements once, and so I cannot trust anything that you say. You make statements for your own purposes, just like religious leaders.
Your crusade is falling apart Brian, your little blog nest of lies and deciept is exposed, at least to me.

[Neut er all]

Brian
I keep posting and you keep removing, simple, I will post when you are asleep, you can remove in the morning when you wake up, but at least some will have been able to read it.
I can do that several times, or find other ways to ensure my comments make it through your censorship.

Why am I so insistent? Because Brian, you are as much a fraud as those you accuse and ridicule on your blog. This is not a name calling comment, it is a statement of fact, which is why you keep deleting, you dont like the truth when it is thrust under your nose

So listen up everyone:
Brian has made statements of fact about me. When I posted under another name, he assured everyone that I was also using another name. NOT TRUE. How was he so sure?, Well he logged the IP, then called upon his pseudo science skills and worked out that the probability of me being this other person was exceedingly high, beyond reasonable doubt.
What is wrong with this analysis
Two things:
1) I know for a fact which names I have used as pseudonames, and Brian is wrong
2) and more importantly, when not sure, say not sure, when dont know, say dont know, but do not accuse and make statements of fact about another person when you do not know

This is the way Brian makes his personal attacks on people, and as chief blogger, he has the power to retain or delete posts

So what can you believe about what Brian writes on here?
Given that Brian is prone to making statements as factual truths when they are incorrect, then I leave it up to you readers to figure out what you want to believe and what you dont want to believe, its as much faith in Brian as any other religion

Brian, save your self the effort and stop deleting my posts, I will repost.

[Blogger Brian]

Neut er all, you're becoming ever more bothersome. I never accused you of posting under different names. I have no idea why someone is re-posting your comments under your name. I haven't made a personal attack on you. I've simply been deleting your comments where you call me a fool and rant on about how useless this blog is.

I started the Open Threads so that blog visitors could have respectful discussions about substantive subjects. You're not interested in that. Your loss. Free-floating animosity isn't healthy, so for your own well-being you should consider directing your "I hate this blog" energy in a more positive direction.

Personal insults, toward me or anyone else, will continue to be deleted. Rants about this blog's uselessness, ditto, because that's like going up to someone at a cocktail party and saying "You shouldn't exist!" Not exactly a conversation starter.

[tAo]

Here's my input on this matter:

Neut er all said: "Brian I am wondering why you have not removed the comment from tAo posted over at Floating in a Boundless Sea?"

-- As I have already admitted, its quite alright with me that Brian is free to remove ANY of MY comments that violate his policy, that are a direct personal attack... as opposed to merely being critical of the content of somone's comment. So read on...

Neut er all said: "for example tAo says "Jarendra/Ashy said:" and "So Jarendra/Ashy, you just don't have any idea or a clue what you are talking about." which to just about everyone here who knows Ashy, is far from complimentary."

-- This comment of mine was clearly NOT a personal attack. It simply states (imo), that Jarendra (aka Ashy) has no idea what he is talking about. In other words, I feel that he is incorrect and I did not agree. That was simply my opinion, and was not a personal attack. So this was not a violation. To prove it, here is my exact comment in its whole context:

[Jarendra had said previously]: "all here are dependent on some teaching or other, else their level of learning would be nill"

[I then responded with]: "The problem with that is, its simply not true. Not eveyone here is "dependent" upon "some teaching". I for one am not, and neither are some other folks here. So Jarendra/Ashy, you just don't have any idea or a clue what you are talking about."

Moving on ahead...

Neut er all said: "tAo goes on to say "So therefore, the only real "fool" around here, has got to be YOU Jarendra."

-- This one is slightly different. Yes I did imply that Jarendra is a "fool", which is a personal criticism of Jarendra. However, the context in which this was said needs to be considered. I was responding to Jarendra's previous comment where Jarendra had implied that I am a "fool", because he had indicated that others here (which clearly implied that he was referring to myself) are a bunch of "poor learned fools".

This is what Jarendra had said: "Until you get with the program, the one that Rakesh Bhasin's mother is on, she knows, and the poor learned fools in here don't"

So then I responded with: "I absolutely doubt that Rakesh's mother's "program" (no offence Rakesh), namely Santmat, has any advantage over the folks in this blog. Nor does Rakesh's mother have any greater knowledge than the rest of us here... in fact, far far from it. So therefore, the only real "fool" around here, has got to be YOU Jarendra. Yo are pretty much the only one who is making such absurd and unfounded claims and assumptions."

-- So in this case, yes, I was calling Jarendra a "fool", but only because he had already previously inferred that I am a "fool". Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, and so both Jarendra's comment and my comment were in slight violation of the new comment guidelines. But neither Jarendra's comment nor my comment were a gross violation. And also I personally don't consider the use of the term "fool" to be offensive in this particular case. However Brian is certainly welcome to delete BOTH Jarendra's comment and my comment.... or, he can simply go in and edit them by just removing the sentences that use the term "fool".

Moving on ahead...

Neut er all said: "Brian, as you have not removed tAo's comment, you presumably believe this is somehow not personal and is constructive to the topic being discussed.

-- See my comment above.

Neut er all said: "Surely you are not biassed towards tAo and prejudiced against me sufficiently to ignore your own rules so recently implemented?

-- No, Brian is not prejudiced against anyone. If you violate the policy, then your comment can and may be deleted. No one is exempt.

Neut er all said: "Or is there some other reason? Dont tell me you didnt notice, or that you didnt consider these personal comments to be personal!"

-- That is not correct. Because not all of those comments that you have indicated were personal criticisms.

Neut er all said: "I see this as yet another confirmation that this blog should be called Church of the Senseless"

-- If you violate the policy, then your comments can and should be deleted. There is nothing "senseless" about that. Just take care of your own comments, and others will take care of theirs.

Neut er all said: "over in the Floating in a Boundless Sea post, tAo accuses jarenda of being Ashy and further calls him a fool. I have pointed this out as a breach of new guidelines, but Brian exercises his right and makes a judgement call, pronouncing this not sufficiently personal.

-- Thats not quite accurate. There is nothing wrong or in violation with "accuses jarendra of being Ashy". It is my considered opinion that it is obvious to me that Jarendra is Ashy. They both write comments in the exact same semi-ranting and meandering fashion. Their comments are identical in that way. I also suspect that YOU are actually Walker/JAP, because Walker/JAP has a rather annoying and disingenuous tendency and penchant for posting under multiple different IDs.

Neut er all said: "But if I post a comment that makes exactly the same comments, ie, suggest Brian and tAo are one and the same, and call Brian a fool, then my post is deleted."

-- First of all, you are quite mistaken if you think that I am Brian in disguise. Far from it. And second, just as you have criticised me, if YOU call or attack anyone as being "fool", then your comment could be considered for deletion as well. The rule applies to everyone. So quit whining.

Neut er all said: "This is a situation where so called judgement calls are not made on the merits of the content, but on who posted them and to whom they are directed."

-- That is not true. But the decision is up to Brian, and you should respect that. I have no problem if Brian deletes any of my comments, so why should you? Why are you whining, if you are following the guidlelines?

Neut er all said: "Religious leaders must protect their beliefs, and Brian is running this blog along the same guidelines."

-- I disagree. That incorrect imo. Brian simply does not want religious ranting or personal attacks. Thats all. Brian welcomes you to share and defend your beliefs.

Neut er all said: "I accept that Brian can run this blog anyway he wants, but I do not accept that in so doing, he deceive others."

-- Wrong. Brian is not deceiving anyone. Brian has been up-front all along. It is others (for instance like Walker/JAP and Ashy) who have a tendency of being deceiptful.

Neut er all said: "This practice has been common here, Brian deletes posts not on their merit, but because he is losing his argument. Brian does not like to lose arguments, and employs a wide range of diversionary tacticts."

-- That is also totally incorrect. Brian welcomes rational arguements and debates. It is some others who are using "diversionary tactics".

Neut er all said: "So, like a religion, dont be deceived by Brian and his alter ego, tAo'

-- You are wrong again. Because I am not Brian. But I do agree with Brian on a number of things. And I also sometimes disagree. But I am definitely not Brian. And there are others here who can verify that as well.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "The problem is that your comments are not believable."

-- No, as it has been quite obvious, it is the comments (and identities) of others like Ashy and Jarendra and JAP etc, that are not believable.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "You say Jarender and Ashy are the same person, but you do not know this."

-- Wrong. Its quite obvious from where we stand that Jarendra is Ashy. Their comment writing style is virtually identical.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "I have posted on here under one other name, but you yourself accused me of being someone else, using another name"

-- Yes, its obvious that you too are deceiptful. Why don't you guys just cut the crap and be straightforward? Why the need to keep eveyone guessing? Why do you feel a need to play such stupid immature games? Well I think I know why. Your real purpose and agenda here is to be a disruptive troll.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "scientfically, I give my own knowledge higher value assessment than I do your IP knowledge."

-- You don't fool anyone dude. You are nothing but a big fake.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "The trend, seen over and over again, is that you make a statement as a fact, when you only have indications."

-- The indications are clear and sufficient enough.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "when you say I am posting as someone else, and I know that I am not, who should I believe, your or me?"

-- Well I say that (imo) you are a liar. You basically have little or no credibility. But if you would come clean and quit posting under different fake names, then perhaps that might change.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "why should I believe other statements of fact made by you?"

-- Why should anyone believe YOU? You have no credibility at this point.

Neut er all said (to Brian): "Brian, your blog is interesting, your followers bring value, why ruin it with your attitude?"

-- I'd say that it is by far YOUR attitude that sucks here. But thats apparently why you are here in the first place... to try to "ruin it".

[Neut er all]

As previously stated Brian, the incidents to which I refer occurred when I used a different posting name. you stated publicly that I was also using another name, I was not. You assured the readers that I was because you had the evidence from the IP, however, whatever you call evidence was wrong, I know whether or not I am posting using another name.
Instead of stating that it looks as if I may be using another name, or that the indications are that I am using another name, you make a bold and concise statement as if unequivocable fact, well, you were wrong.

Why do I bother making all this fuss about some IP address?

Well, it is characteristic of the way you run this blog, which is your own business and your own affair, but it is not as you claim, open and promoting scientific debate. You make statements that are untrue, and, whats more, do all in your power to cover them up, like deleting my posts, simply because you dont like this kind of exposure.

[tucson]

Neut er all,

Your endless whining is pathetic and the more you persist in it the worse it makes YOU look, not Blogger Brian. You're wasting space in the comment column with all your crap. My suggestion is to give it up and get a life. Your obsession is unhealthy and indicative of an unbalanced mental state. Seriously, if you can't move on from this trivial feud you should consider professional counseling.

[tAo]

Neut er all, you are the one who is disingenuous... as is Walker, and JAP, and Jarendra, and Ashy, and a few others. There is undeniable (and even admitted) evidence of that. So quit playing your stupid game, and attacking Brian simply because he calls it as he sees it. Why don't you stop posing under different names? Why don't you just admit all the differentt names that you have used, and then select one (an old or a new one) that you will adhere to, and then leave it at that? You are the one who is acting "untrue", and you are the one who is covering up.

[tAo]

The following comment was a response to Neut er all's last posted comment here (which btw Brian has now since deleted).

In case anyone happened to read that comment (before Brian deleted it), and they got suckered into taking Neut er all's dubious advice, I will submit my comment anyway... because both the suggestion and the info that Neut er all gave regarding installing IP hiding software was a bit misleading.

Here's the real scoop on hiding IP addresses:

The most common method to hide your IP address is to use a proxy server in one form or another. A proxy server is a computer that offers a computer network service to allow clients to make indirect network connections to other network services. A client connects to the proxy server and then requests a connection, file, or other resource available on a different server. The proxy provides the resource either by connecting to the specified server or by serving it from a cache. In some cases, the proxy may alter the client's request or the server's response for various purposes.
There are several implementations of proxy servers that you can use to hide your IP address (in an attempt to remain anonymous on the internet):

Website Based Proxy Servers:

A Website based proxy server is a website that provides a form for you to enter the URL of a website that you wish to anonymously visit. When you submit the form the website proxy server makes a request for the page that you want to visit. The machine usually does not identify itself as a proxy server and does not pass along your IP address in the request for the page. The features of these sites vary (ad blocking, javascript blocking, etc) as does their price. Some are free and some charge.

Browser Configured Proxy Servers:

There are also stand alone proxy servers that allow for you to configure your browser to route your browser traffic through that machine, which then makes a request for a page on your behalf, and then sends you the results. These are usually used at no cost to the user. Since they are accessible to the public these are often quite slow. Please see instructions for using a proxy server. There are a variety of types of these proxy servers:

◦ Transparent Proxy - This type of proxy server identifies itself as a proxy server and also makes the original IP address available through the http headers. These are generally used for their ability to cache websites and do not effectively provide any anonymity to those who use them. However, the use of a transparent proxy will get you around simple IP bans. They are transparent in the terms that your IP address is exposed, not transparent in the terms that you do not know that you are using it (your system is not specifically configured to use it.) This type of proxy server does not hide your IP address.

◦ Anonymous Proxy - This type of proxy server identifies itself as a proxy server, but does not make the original IP address available. This type of proxy server is detectable, but provides reasonable anonymity for most users. This type of proxy server will hide your IP address.

◦ Distorting Proxy - This type of proxy server identifies itself as a proxy server, but make an incorrect original IP address available through the http headers. This type of proxy server will hide your IP address.

◦ High Anonymity Proxy - This type of proxy server does not identify itself as a proxy server and does not make available the original IP address. This type of proxy server will hide your IP address.

Installed Software Proxy Servers:

There are a variety of companies and software packages available at either a onetime cost or at an annual subscription. These are usually faster and more reliable than the above proxy servers.

Anonymous Proxy Risks:

In using a proxy server (for example, an anonymizing HTTP proxy), all data sent to the service being used (for example, HTTP server in a website) must pass through the proxy server before being sent to the service, mostly in unencrypted form. It is therefore possible, and has been demonstrated, for a malicious proxy server to record everything sent to the proxy: including unencrypted logins and passwords.

By chaining proxies which do not reveal data about the original requester, it is possible to obfuscate activities from the eyes of the user's destination. However, more traces will be left on the intermediate hops, which could be used or offered up to trace the user's activities. If the policies and administrators of these other proxies are unknown, the user may fall victim to a false sense of security just because those details are out of sight and mind.

The bottom line of this is to be wary when using proxy servers, and only use proxy servers of known integrity (e.g., the owner is known and trusted, has a clear privacy policy, etc.), and never use proxy servers of unknown integrity. If there is no choice but to use unknown proxy servers, do not pass any private information (unless it is properly encrypted) through the proxy.

-- So tAo says: Ya'll just be aware and be cautious about just anyone who suggests using some proxy server or installing an unknown software program to supposedly hide your IP. Not everything is legit or secure.