Hiring Moderators

[RationalBiker]

Erroneous psychologizing will not help make this forum a better place.

[Marc K.]

Mindy:

Just so you won't think your illogic goes unnoticed, a review of our conversation:

- You asserted that David Odden was insulting and should be removed as moderator.

- I gave an argument defending his words as not insulting but as logical and defending him in his capacity as moderator.

- You never defend your assertions with an argument nor do you answer my arguments.

Instead, in your most recent post to me, I count no less than 10 rhetorical questions, 7 insults and 6 suppositions -- none of which mentions your original assertions or addresses my arguments defeating them. In this thread you have displayed the very characteristics that you have condemned. To illustrate your fatuousness I have answered some of your questions in kind.

The quote was a statement that people were upset. You agree with it? Are upset people automatically in the right?

The quote says nothing of people being "upset" -- but are upset people automatically wrong?

Or is there a sub-text to which you wish to add your amen, without having to state it explicitly?

As if the rest of my post (which you never address) didn't exist.

I try to only deal in text, subtext is your domain.

Do look up your fallacies. I suppose you mean I have an answer to your best points?

Are you sure that isn't an authorized fallacy? I was sure it was. Maybe it's really called argumentum ad fatigum or argumentum ad tantrum or argumentum ad nauseum.

Since you never answered any of my points, what is the name of the fallacy for attacking the person and not the argument? I'm sure you know that one.

Or are you wishing, impotently, to imply that my arguments are weak? Please do be specific as to which argument, and what weakness, thanks.

You have made no argument in this thread, just undefended assertions so it would be hard to call them weak, they are non-existent. The returned book argument you made elsewhere, mentioned here, is weak, at least from an Objectivist point of view. I hope you aren't implying that wishing could be potent? Nope, I suppose that would be an impotent hope wouldn't it.

Let's see, you may set your limited experience up against mine, not knowing what mine is, but then feel insulted when it is pointed out to you that you come out short? Which of us knows the posting experience of both of us? You, who stated yours, or me, who read yours and knows my own? Which of us is in the position to make the comparison? I've known chickens who reasoned better than this. (Just a little oddity of speech, there, to spare you the "boredom" of my typical argument.)

You seem very defensive and I have no idea what I said to elicit such emotion from you. I'm not even sure to what you are replying, the only thing I can think of is this:

I will further agree with Sophia in that I think David Odden and softwareNerd are two of among five or six people who make this site what it is, which, in my opinion, is probably the best site of its kind on the web. If you want to see what a poorly moderated, tolerant site looks like go to Objectivist Living. I perused there one day after someone here had linked to it. While there are a few good people there, it is for the most part a cesspool of rude, ignorant, Rand-Peikoff-Schwartz hating, anarcho-liberals.

and I just don't see what you find insulting there. I expressed my opinion about Objectivism Online Forum, compared it to Objectivist Living and suggested you visit it to make your own comparison. Nowhere do I compare our posting histories or denigrate yours. If you have been there already I would expect either an "I agree ..." or a "You are wrong ...". Why so defensive? Maybe you like it over there and Rand bashing doesn't bother you?

And if you know chickens that can reason, then I'm sure I'll see you at the next carnival.