Please note

[chiggerbit]

Poor Jeff. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Dreamsy, what do you mean when you call someone a troll? Are your just insulting them, or are you making a reference to a dynamic? <p></p><i></i>

[Avalon]

Calling someone a troll for the sake of namecalling is rarely useful. Observing trolling as a verb and making people aware that someone is trying to stir up shit is a very different sense.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Again, you are a guest on a board that Jeff pays for and moderates. If he says he doesn't want anyone to use emoticons because they annoy him, you can either refrain from inserting the silly l'il old gifs or go away. If he says he doesn't want participants to call each other Mary Poppins, or to discuss the merits of Thin Lizzy, then abide by his rules. Or go away.<br><br>I can't fathom why anyone thinks they have a *right* to say whatever they want on an Internet bulletin board run by someone else. You don't. Do you have the right to walk into someone's house and draw on their walls in crayon?<br><br>And the "disinfo agent" attacks are the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Hurling that particular insult stops any meaningful conversation dead in its tracks. Dimwitted people can't have a discussion or a disagreement about ideas -- they need to make it <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>personal.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> It's much easier to scream "Disinfo Agent!" than to rebut an argument with reason and fact.<br><br>But really, even if you disagree, it doesn't matter. Jeff makes the rules, and if you want to play in his sandbox, you gotta follow his rules. If that makes you uncomfortable, tough shit. Go somewhere else where no one cares about the quality of the discourse. They're quite easy to find.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[streeb]

I completely agree: "Jailbreak" is awesome, but "Bad Reputation" is Thin Lizzy's best album. <p></p><i></i>

[dragon]

The sign on the front door of the forum says 'Welcome to Open Discussion....', Professor.<br><br><br>When you get inside the door, you find there are rules. It's kinda, sorta, 'Open Discussion'. You can't discuss the holocaust, unless you parrot the official world government line, even if you have facts and references to back up what you say. Now we learn that it is forbidden to label someone as a disinfo agent, even if that someone really is a disinfo agent. <br><br><br>I think the forum needs a moderator, a cut-out for Jeff so he doesn't have to get too close to this thing. He can spend more time guiding its direction by tossing out topics for discussion instead of worrying about whether someone is stepping on someone else's toes. <br><br><br>If disinfo agents become a protected species, they will take over this place like weeds in a garden. It will quickly sink to the level of the lowest common denominator of understanding. <br><br><br>Me, I'm still waiting to hear more about this "movement" that Jeff said we were in. <br><br><br>Dragon <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

Here's the thing. It's not that I mean to give comfort to "disinfo agents," it's that the accusation is almost always unverifiable, and some of the most toxic venom that can be injected into a discussion.<br><br>As for it <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Makes RI sound like a cult"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that I ask posters to respect this, I can only say my intention is precisely the opposite: to make this a healthy place for critical free thinking. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Dragon,<br><br>You still seem unable to understand your rights on this board -- you have none. You have no free speech here. Jeff can tell you what the boundaries are and you are obliged to follow his rules. It's really that simple.<br><br>And how, pray tell, can you determine that someone is a disinfo agent? Do you remote view them? Can you detect the negative orgone emanating from their words on the screen?<br><br>You can't determine if someone is a disinfo agent from their words and ideas. If you think you can, you're deluded. So if you can't debate ideas, even those you disagree with, without pulling out the D word, you are intellectually bankrupt. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If disinfo agents become a protected species, they will take over this place like weeds in a garden. It will quickly sink to the level of the lowest common denominator of understanding. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The lowest common denominator is making personal attacks and unfounded allegations instead of debating the merit of ideas and facts. We've already hit the low, which is why Jeff tries to enforce some very basic rules of civility.<br><br>I find it amusing that anyone thinks this discussion board is magnet for disinformation agents in the first place. The paranoiacs and the deluded are the prime sources of bad information -- there's no need for professionals to step in. <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

it's best to label the content of the message as "disinfo-based" rather than the poster? ie - the message not the messenger. If someone is posting dis-info I'd think it would be OK for others to say, hopefully with some usefull evidence or reasonable argument, that that the content is based on bad/wrong/manufactured info, but it's not OK to attack the messenger. The trouble-making aspect of the disinfoagent type can be dealt with as any other type of disruptive poster.<br><br>for instance, if someone were posting that Katrina surviors were shooting at rescue helicopters, it would be fair to state that that info is probably disinformation but no need to call the poster of that info an 'agent' (unless of course it's ol' whatshisname - who seems to have helped start these rumors in the first place, but I doubt he'll be posting here anytime soon.) <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

professorpan<br>_____________________________________________<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>You still seem unable to understand your rights on this board -- you have none. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>You have no free speech here</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. <br>_____________________________________________<br><br>Jeff- is proffessorpan speaking for you? <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

depends how people understand the term.<br><br>Those who believe free speech means the liberty to say <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>anything</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> may be uncomfortable here, because I am trying to establish <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>very broad</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> parameters for responsible and meaningful discourse.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

As a matter of right, Jeff can do whatever the hell he wants. I'm guessing that's what Pan meant. As for what Jeff <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>should</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> or <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>will</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> do, I agree with him. He wants this board to have some credibility and not be taken over by people like Thumperton. Like Pan said, sort of like you might not want a bunch of fuckups coming over and trashing your house. Maybe there's some confusion about where this line is at the margins, but actually, I kinda doubt it. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/11/06 8:08 pm<br></i>

[professorpan]

Sunny,<br><br>I'm not presuming to speak for Jeff. But some participants here seem to think a message board is a protected forum for free speech. It isn't. The moderator and owner of the message board can determine the rules.<br><br>That's all I'm saying. I find Jeff's rules to be liberal and fair. If you want to debate Holocaust theories, bitch about Jews ruling the world, or scream "disinfo agent!" when someone disagrees with you, there are many, many forums where the moderator will be happy to allow it. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

If you want to debate Holocaust theories, bitch about Jews ruling the world, or scream "disinfo agent!" <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>when someone disagrees with you, there are many, many forums where the moderator will be happy to allow it.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I'll say! I came across a link that confused me for a couple of moments, thought at first it was a Jewish site as most of the articles were about Jews. But, as I wound my way through it, I found that it was anti-Jew, and regardless of who the site belonged to, it was extensive, and toxic. Someone(many?) had put a great, great, great, great, great deal of time into it, and it was freaky. <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

__________________________________________________<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>If you want to debate Holocaust theories, bitch about Jews ruling the world, or scream "disinfo agent!" when someone disagrees with you,</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>_________________________________________________<br><br>I defy you to show me where I have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>ever</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> debated Holocaust theories ( for the record:Holocaust deniers are scum) bitched about Jews ruling the world ( same scum, different day) or screamed disinfo agent toward any specific poster. My questions regarding this issue are ones of principle.<br><br>Jeff- I ask you- is it ok for a poster to imply someone is an anti-semite for posing questions? <br><br>How dare you? <p></p><i></i>