Anyone who was here during Peter's original time on this board knows I am among his harshest critics. Peter Cuthbertson was responsible for the creation of the Roving Moderators. MJ and I spent one very long day deleting one post that he posted over and over and over again. We had a special moderators meeting just because of Peter. So I'm not a big fan.

The way Luigi handled removing the conversation Peter started was wrong. He gave no warning and did not post an explanation until he was asked about it, and then he immediately closed the thread to any more conversations. Worse, he was wrong, as I have pointed out about a hundred times: Before today Peter was never banned by the Chief. The first person to ever be banned from this site was Brian Webber. Peter left in a huff.

MJ e-mailed the Chief and Phil did agree that Peter should be banned and he has no problem banning him. As of right now Peter is banned. So I'm golden with that going forward and it's no loss on this board to lose Peter as a poster.

I have a huge issue with deleting a rack of posts with no explanation and no way to find out what happened or why. It was very arbitrary and doubleplusungood.

As was pointed out in the deleted posts, Peter had been completely civil so far in this incarnation.

It's been a couple of years, and perhaps he's matured. I wouldn't have been so quick on the ban. If it was up to me, I'd have given him a chance, to see what he had to say and how he would say it.

But then, it's Phil's site, not mine.

Well, gee, that's what I get for working. I miss out on stuff like this. Just how bad was the thread Peter started? Or was it?

I'd be very wary of Peter posting here again on one hand, on the other, it doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given a second chance. After all, Vargo* was pretty bad when he first started to post here years ago. Since coming back last year, he's been very, very civil.

*Pardon me for using you as an example, Derrick.

Excellent 1984 ref, Mark, sums up my feelings perfectly.

PETER IS BANNED.

PETER NEVER POSTED HERE.

PETER NEVER EXISTED.

My major problem with the deletion of the thread was that there was no explanation until prodded. To me, it would have been courteous to say, "I deleted this thread because, as far as I know, Peter is banned. Because he is banned, he may not post here." Simple, to the point, and preventative of a big scene.

But that's just me.

Okay, let’s take this in order…

Warning
I’m not sure what “warning” you’d prescribe, guys. Should I say that “Hey, guys, I’m about to delete this thread,” and then do so a few hours later? I’ve never observed moderators doing this, and I’m not very inclined to start such a trend, as I see no need for it. When someone who has been banned shows up, it is my understanding that a mod can and should delete their posts immediately, as banning is an absolute, not a question of degree. As for whether he was banned, see below.

Explanation
So I did not post an explanation until I was asked about it? And just how much time passed during this? A few minutes? That’s pretty much what passed before Snick asking me about it, and my response. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this. Am I to understand that Mark, MJ and Snick honestly had no idea why I deleted the thread? Was it that shocking to you? Indeed, if you didn’t share my conclusions about whether Peter belongs here, and had no idea why I deleted the thread (which incidentally, also consisted of material from as early as December that had nothing to do with Peter), then why did you move to actually have him banned today, and are okay with that?

Peter’s Status
I actually thought Peter had been banned from Nitcentral. I now learn that he was not. So, mea culpa. But there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, individual moderators can ban visitors from their boards, and as far as I’m concerned, Peter is not welcome at any boards I am moderating, so Peter’s being banned from Nit-C is quite irrelevant. Second, the point is now moot, since you have now revealed that he is banned now.

Peter’s Civility
I must admit I’m perplexed at this one. Just because Peter chimes in to say “hi” means he’s changed? Oh really? On what planet? Would it shock you to know that Peter was indeed civil when speaking to Benn on ICQ years ago when he was still active here? Did that change his behavior when he was at Nit-C? Obviously not. People like Peter obviously like to take advantage of people’s forgiving natures, allowing time for things to cool down between arguments to slide under the emotional radar before starting up the next cycle, hopeful that in true Ramses fashion, people will somehow “forget.”

I don’t think so.

Peter crossed the Rubicon into bile and invective-filled vitriol, blatant lies, outright hatred, violation of Nit-C rules, and even laws against criminal trespass, a long time ago. As far as I’m concerned, there is no return. When you send computer viruses to people via email, link disgusting pictures of people’s anuses, inundate other people’s property with spam, make widespread bigoted remarks, and so forth, you forfeit the right to any further benefit of the doubt. A new incarnation, Scott? Really? How do you figure? From a couple of posts made over a period of a few hours, you can really tell this? Wow, that’s something. Or are you just seeing what you want to believe? Peter’s hatred and disrespect went straight to the core of his being, which is not something I see necessarily changing because of the passage of a mere two years, and I see no evidence that this has changed, or that one or two “Hi, there” posts is a sign of the contrary. The lack of decisiveness and sticktoittiveness with respect to Peter on the part of those who are all too willing to engage him in banter with this “welcome back” attitude, like some battered wife constantly going back to her abuser, is certainly appallingly disappointing, as much as it was when people condescendingly gave a free pass to Jwb simply because he has Spina Bifida, as if that had anything to do with his behavior towards others. A second chance, Benn? Hasn’t he had far more than that already? And while Vargo’s posts from some time ago had a few broad generalizations and logical fallacies evocative of Rona’s posts, I don’t recall him ever approaching the level of behavior that Peter achieved.

Indeed, Brian Webber was banned for activity that was far LESS inflammatory that Peter’s, so where’s the consistency? Or is that okay because it was ScottN that Brian last insulted, whereas Peter and Jwb’s most famous target was Mikey, who is no longer an active visitor? Is that all it is? Who the person’s main target is? Or do we not adhere to a policy of consistency, and forbid such behavior regardless of who is on the receiving end of it?

Welcome back, Scott? Sorry, but I don’t think so. Not on PM, not so long as I’m moderator there.

So I did not post an explanation until I was asked about it? And just how much time passed during this? A few minutes? That’s pretty much what passed before Snick asking me about it, and my response. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this. Am I to understand that Mark, MJ and Snick honestly had no idea why I deleted the thread? Was it that shocking to you? Indeed, if you didn’t share my conclusions about whether Peter belongs here, and had no idea why I deleted the thread (which incidentally, also consisted of material from as early as December that had nothing to do with Peter), then why did you move to actually have him banned today, and are okay with that?

Corrections and notes are in order:

I have no idea how long the time frame was between deletion and prodding. I was not online at that time. I came in, saw that the thread had been deleted, saw Snick asking what the heck happened, and your response.

Last I saw, Peter had said, "Hi, how are you?" and then poof! It was all gone. So yes, I wondered if he'd said something offensive SINCE that time, but had no way to inquire.

Finally, I did not move to have Peter banned today. I emailed the Chief to ask him how HE wanted to handle Peter. My recollection was that Peter was in the process of being banned, but bailed before it could happen, so technically, was not banned. Recollections are wrong. I wanted to get that cleared up.

That is all I have to say.

You know, seeing that your mind is closed on the matter, Luigi, I don't think I'm gonna debate the matter with you. Besides, it's a moot point anyway.

MJ was following up to see if we'd forgotten if Peter was banned or not and get some insight from the Chief. She and I do that regularly because we're very careful.

Yes, you can ban whoever you want from PM and Peter once posted images of aborted fetuses to a thread. So there's no case for us ever putting up with his nonsense.

But you deleted everything, did not leave an explanation, and then closed the frickin' thread to any more posts. I don't know what message you meant to send, but to me it was that my opinion on the matter was not welcome. That's an arbitrary use of power if there ever was one.

I no longer feel welcome at PM.

There is some confusion here. While Phil did not ban Peter originally, MarkN certainly did while he was moderator (remember the big 'ol deletion of all Peter posts). So I think Luigi was certainly within his rights to delete Peter's messages; I just think he shouldn't have closed the thread and perhaps left a longer explanation.

I do agree with Scott, though, that there is the possibility Peter has changed. And since Peter did attack Scott at times, as well, I don't think you can make a connection as simple as "Well, Scott was mad at Brian and not at Peter."

I think I should bring up that banned users' posts have a special spot in the Garbage Dump, so they probably shouldn't be deleted, but rather placed there.

I for one was curious as to how the "new" Peter was going to play out. I wondered if a couple years out of the artificial world of high school might have broadened his viewpoint a bit.

Ehhhhh, probably not...

Benn, there's a difference between having made up one's mind and having a closed one. I don't see why having formed a conclusion, and an informed and reasoned one at that, which I’ve explained in detail, means that I have a closed mind. In fact, doesn't that type of equation on your part smack of closed-mindedness itself? I have not only stated my reasons, but even admitted that I incorrectly thought Peter had been banned. I also conceded to Mark Morgan last night on AIM that I was wrong to think that everyone would immediately understand why I deleted the thread (the initial reason I didn’t think an explanation was necessary). How is this “close-minded”?

Mark, I’m sorry that that was the “message” that you got from the deletion and board closure, but I explained to you last night why I closed the thread. I told you that I didn’t want any more posts from Peter, and decided to close it until the matter had blown over. Why you’re now repeating that notion that your opinion is not welcome—without so much as a mention of the explanation I gave last night—I don’t know, but there was nothing “arbitrary” about it. How can it be “arbitrary” if I gave a perfectly valid reason for it? Disagreeing with my reasons or with my approach is one thing. Saying that they were nonexistent or whimsical is another. Opinions are not welcome there? Really? Is that why the first paragraph of my first announcement as moderator states “…and if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve these boards, do not hesitate to make them, or to offer constructive criticism.”? And why I had an involved discussion with TomM on that board regarding his quite valid criticisms over my restructuring, including an apology by me for deleting something that he valued? And why that entire thread with him is still there? Calm down, Mark. You’re quite welcome at PM. Peter, however, is not. Why so many seem to be giving Peter the benefit of the doubt, but presume to distort my position, I don’t know. Perhaps I send some viruses or spam to win everyone over? Or perhaps just take on a new “incarnation”…

Nick, the Garbage Dump is (correct me if I’m wrong here) for Roving Moderators to place questionable posts pending a final decision by the regular moderator of a given board. But in this case I am the regular moderator of the board in question, so as I see it, outright deletion is within my purview, and Dumping would be redundant.

---

Quote:

Nick, the Garbage Dump is (correct me if I’m wrong here) for Roving Moderators to place questionable posts pending a final decision by the regular moderator of a given board. But in this case I am the regular moderator of the board in question, so as I see it, outright deletion is within my purview, and Dumping would be redundant.

---

Regular mods are also (or should be) able to dump questionable messages and then to contact Phil and ask for his advice on what to do about them after he's seen them for himself.

And just for the record, I never banned Peter, though at that time I asked Phil about if it was possible to do so using IP numbers (he's just now reminded me by email that Peter was in fact "uninvited" before, and also supports Luigi's post deletions). What I did do, though, was close both PM and RM and temporarily implemented a "member's only" status, allowing only those people whom I felt wouldn't be disruptive on those boards. After Peter had apparently left then I of course reopened the boards to everyone again.

And while I was also at first a bit surprised by Luigi's deleting Peter's posts, and the subsequent responses, when I thought about it later I wasn't upset by it, and understood why it was done, feeling that it was right considering Peter's past here. However, yes, some explanation might've been nice as well, but to me it's a just piddly little thing.

I haven't yet commented on this situation for several reasons. Primarily the fact that over the last 24 hours I have only had a couple of brief opportunities to check in here. But also because I can fully understand and sympathize with both Luigi and with those who felt he was a bit too abrupt.

I was surprised when Peter “stopped by to say 'hello,'” partly because the timing was so convenient, but mainly because I thought, like Luigi, that he had been banned. I was also a little surprised at how civilly he was behaving. (Because of all these factors I considered the possibility that it wasn't really Peter, but I could think of no good reason for someone so well behaved to pretend to be Peter.)

I was equally surprised to find the thread deleted, apparently without explanation for a while. There was no way to tell how much time passed between the deletion and Snick's post. I accept Luigi's explanation, however, since sometimes it takes a while to do all the administrative details of moderating a board, and Snick might very well have posted during that time.

As far as the deletion itself, I ask myself how I would have handled it if it had been RM where Peter decided to make his re-appearance. Believing that Peter was banned, I would probably have deleted the thread as well. Personally I post the explanation before deleting a thread rather than after, but that's a matter of taste (though it would have avoided one of the problems).

All-in-all I have no problem with Luigi's actions.

As was pointed out in the deleted posts, Peter had been completely civil so far in this incarnation.

It's been a couple of years, and perhaps he's matured. I wouldn't have been so quick on the ban. If it was up to me, I'd have given him a chance, to see what he had to say and how he would say it. ScottN

In general, Peter was civil on the non-Musings boards, where he was not running up against opposing philosophies. Likewise in this thread, he was still only exchanging pleasantries. It was too early to tell. I might have been willing to give him a second chance on the non-Musings boards, but I'm not sure that I would have welcomed him onto the Musings boards without a trial period elsewhere.

I’m not sure what “warning” you’d prescribe, guys. Should I say that “Hey, guys, I’m about to delete this thread,” and then do so a few hours later? I’ve never observed moderators doing this, and I’m not very inclined to start such a trend, as I see no need for it. Luigi

Actually I have done just that. If I think that a thread (usually a new thread) is heading in an unacceptable direction, I'll explain why I think so and that unless someone can show me that I'm missing something and that it is a valuable discussion, it will be gone within 24 hours.

I don't think that it would have been appropriate in this case, however. I would probably have just deleted it, as I described above.

It's more than okay for you to use me as an example Benn. IT's amazing what a course in Modern Geometry and logical thinking will do to my ability to understand a form arguements, such is the life of a math major.

Anyway, my own thoughts. I personally am not a fan of over active moderators. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions, even extreamly bigoted ones. Violating the actual rules of the board could be a good ground for banning if proper warnings have occured. I believe that this did happen in the case of Brian. He was sour after the election and honestly couldn't talk without turning anything into a vast right wing conspiracy. That in and of itself was not wrong, annoying, but well within the rules of posting. He did use profanity a good amount, so that alone (according to the rules of the board) was good enough to ban him. I think that deleting ALL of his previous posts was a bit extream, but thats just my opinion. As for the other people ever blocked from this site, I wasn't here when that happened, so I really can't weigh in on that.

It's more than okay for you to use me as an example Benn. IT's amazing what a course in Modern Geometry and logical thinking will do to my ability to understand a form arguements, such is the life of a math major.

Just wait til you take Analysis (unless you already have)!

Personally, Math Analysis was enh... I liked Complex Analysis. For some reason, I always got a kick out of just stepping around a singularity when integrating. I'm easily amused.

My most favorite class, though was Abstract Algebra (group/ring/field theory).

Thank you very much Derrick, Josh, Scott.

My brain just exploded from horror, and now how am I supposed to host that baby shower tomorrow? Hmmm?



I do not like math. At all. In any way, shape, or form. Math is the bane of my existence.

Well, MJ, the reason that I liked that particular class so much is that it was about 25 people, and there were about 4 or 5 of us who really got it, and we sat in the back of the room and heckled the prof.

I didn't take Algebra... I like Applied Math/Stats better than all that pure stuff.

Go Partial Differential Equations!

To respond to the Garbage Dump inquiry: All moderators have access to it, so they can place posts there.

As for the Dump's purpose, well, I emailed Phil suggesting a special place be created in the Dump for banned users and he agreed, so it seems it serves that purpose as well. My reasoning for suggesting putting banned users' posts in the Dump was so that moderators wouldn't have to worry about recording the IP address should Phil wish to pursue that avenue. Also, it helps to have the posts should Phil need to demonstrate to the ISP that this person is an offender to the site.

In any case, Luigi, it certainly is within your purview as moderator to delete posts and I have no desire to infringe on your moderatorship; I was just pointing out that there is an alternative to deleting that may be better suited to banned users.

Me, I record troll IP numbers before deleting their posts. But thanks for the suggestion.

er, we still got some Authentication error messages lurking about, and Rene is , well,
not in love with JohnALang to say the least.

Awhile back, MikeC dumped some stuff on the Spock's Brain board and someone else dumped
George Takei's gay things.

Wish I saved those posts. Anyone got em?


please delete Not 's post about police blotters in bad news. I almost got mugged. If I didn't turn the corner..I wouldn't be on Nitcentral or anywhere

Anon: I'm not going to delete posts that are simply questioning you. I delete things that are personal attacks, and if the thread goes haywire and offtopic I close them.

I don't put posts in the Dump, either. When we developed the Dump with the Chief, it was for the roving mods to put potential ad homs and the regular mod could put them back if he or she didn't agree. Since I agree with my decisions, I don't use the Dump.

I would like to politely and reasonably (since that is the kind of person I am)protest the recent actions by mr. Luigi Novi down on the political musings board.

He has decided to summarily ban me from the political musings section of this site. Due to what he calls repeated improper behaviors and attacks that I allegedly started. As well as not conducting myself in a reasonable and logical civil manner.

Well as I stated before to him I certainly do try to conduct myself in a resonable and civil manner. The dificulty comes when there are diametrically opposed idealogies present, as well as one of those idealogies is distinctly differnt or disliked by the person in power. I feel that is is a situation where the message is disliked so the messenger must be silenced.

As you are all aware I am a major critic and opponent of gross and unrestricted capitalism and exploitation of the poor and lower classes in America. I have repeatedly pointed out that capitalism is not working and is not benefitting the lower classes in america. I have used statistics from forbes, the us govt, internal data from companies as well as news articles to support my position. However everytime I have done so those numbers or data have been ignored or disputed in a dismissive manner. I can tolerate that as it every person's right to have their own opinion on things and their sources give them different numbers than my sources or they interpret the data a different way. As we all know statistics can be used to back almost any position. However given the framework of the discussion it is all one has. And Luigi has and had repeatedly calimed that he needed me to present facts in these discussions. I have done so.

But the flashpoint was the most recent insulting and berating attack I received due to a mistakenly placed off topic post.

As you are aware the recent protests about the illegal alieans and immigration have caused discussion about that to become important. I had been making some posts in the government control board as there was not an immigration board. After a couple of such posts Luigi created a board specifically for immigration, however he failed to inform or announce the creation of said board. He then proceeded to politely ask me not to place off topic posts in the governmental/socialism board. At the next immigration related post I attempted to comply with that request and searched for a more appropriate place for it. The methods used where last day, last week, main section search under political and legal musings. For one reason or another I did not find the immigration board, it may have been a system issue, an issue on my computer or merely simple human oversight, regardless the mistake was done and I placed the immigration post on the governmental/socialism board. I did attempt to highlight why I felt it was still connected due to the governmental controls on immigration and such.

Unfortunately Mr Novi felt that that was not an on topic post so he deleted it. Let me say again. He deleted it. Instead of moving it the post was removed from the site. (at least the public area) And I received a very impolite and insulting (IMO) dressing down.

Now while I am sure that Mr Novi will disagree with me on this part I must state that as a moderator it is MR Novi's duty and obligation to inform and announce any and all changes he does to his boards. Failure to do so can result in unfortunate off topic postings. Those postings though are not the fault of the user and a responsible and mature moderator would accept their duty and acknowledge their failure. Luigi did not do so.

The discussion continued after that with ScottN pointing out that he also was unaware of the immigration board's creation. Luigi's response to that was to create a slightly smart alecky posting that said that common sense and knowledge of his methods should have led users to the board. Thereby attempting to place the blame for any mistakes on the user instead of the system or himself. I followed that with an also smart alecky staetment of apology accepted. Luigi then proceeded to go into blame denial mode by saying that I was the one who failed and was trying to blame others for my mistake. (Though later he did make a half hearted attempt to share some of the burden for the issue)

This then turned into a metarant about my debating style, my lack of civility (which only comes into being when I have things thrown at me that I find insulting or derogatory, obviously Mr Novi finds different things insulting), among other things.

And when TomM politely (and quite correctly)pointed out to Luigi that it would not have been difficult for him to have made an announcement and/or have moved the offtopic post to the proper place he responded with a post that basically asked whose side TomM was on. When it appears that all TomM was doing was asking Luigi why he took such an agressive stance on this.

Things then took an even worse turn as MR Novi's ego did clash with my temper and we both made some long posts (of which mine have been summarily deleted by Luigi ,including a news article which had aboslutely nothing to do with Luigi, myself or anyone on these boards, instead of being made available for public perusal. But then that is his standard method of poeration. DO not give the opponjent any room or ability to defend themselves.) with comments and points that did not help calm things down. And the posts where I attempted to refute and defend myself from luigi he has deleted so I cannot point to them in defense. All because as he claims I do not check my facts (false I do research my comments), I engage in unprovoked ad hominium (BS I don't start a fight but I will finish it), I constantly produce logical fallacies (Which is just a way of saying he doesn't like the ideas I am presenting), That I flagrently and consistently ignore polite admonishments as well as the rules (When has it ever taken anyone else more than one simple commetn to get me to chill? I'll be the first to admit my temper can get me goign a bit strong but most of the time a simple hey dude will pull me out of it.), Hypocrisy (lets not even get into this one, I am far from being the only hypocrit around here), Bigotry (Hmm yeah right. I am bigotted towards no one group ethinic or religious or economic just certain individuals within those groups. Thats called being judgemental. Somethign which Luigi and every other person on this planet engages in on a daily basis.) And the most personally insulting he claims I speak on subjects I have little information or knowledge of. Well thanks for knowing what I actually know or not. I am well aware of my limitations and how to resolve or work around those limitations as well as what key points within my varied and diverse background relate to certain circumstances. In otherwords I am not just some ignorant redneck spitting in the wind. As I have been portrayed.

And here is the final kicker: in Luigi's own words what he said to me that would get me banned: The next time you attribute words to me that I did not say, or otherwise attack me or anyone else, either with an ad hominem fallacy, or any other invective such as “bite me”, I will not only delete your posts, but ban you from PM altogether

Well I complied with that lovely and polite directive and still have wound up banned and deleted (so you cannot see that his decision was done arbitrarily and summarily without due process) I just thought you should know the circumstances surrounding Luigi's latest abuse of his moderator powers.

Oh and while I may not agree with or even care that much about Rona he has also made that same threat to her. So while I may not be in the same category as her, two people who disagree with and have opposing POV/idealogies from Luigi being threatened with banning (one threat being committed) is not indicative of a fair, reasonable or balanced moderator.

And what is even more saddening is that all of this could have been avoided if Luigi had taken the responsible and mature action of accepting even some of the blame, understanding that mistakes do occur and that his failure to inform or announce the change on his board directly led to the off topic post being placed inappropriately.

R, my friend, I might suggest just taking a break for a while. Talk on Kitchen Sink/Religious Musings, take some time to calm down.

I've been considering it. I have been under quite a bit of stress with various issues in real life, which I have tried to avoid unloading around here (especially given the way someone tries to out do everybad thign that has ever happened.) but this with Luigi I don't feel is my fault.

I am an advocate for the poor and do not see capitalism and trickle down as working. And yes facts and logic and reason are all fine and dandy but a person has to temper them with Compassion and understanding to be a good human. For whatever reason that is anathema to Luigi and it appears that any criticism of capitalism and corporate america is treason and sedition and unwanted and unwelcome. I will apologize and admit that I have allowed my temper to simmer a bit closer to the top than perhaps I should have which has led to me being easily set off but I really do feel its a case of to kill the message which he hates he has to kill the messenger.

Oh well if Luigi wants to throw a temper tantrum and it makes him feel good to throw his weight as moderator around then so be it. This could have been easily avoided but Luigi's ego will not allow him to admit when he is wrong and I will not accept full blame for something that was a result of someone else's failure to do their duty and meet their obligations.

I'll still be around sometimes I guess, maybe. This site has definately changed since the beginings. It has grown colder and less fun in many places. Definately PM since Luigi's moderatorial assignment.

OK this is a copy of a post I made down in PM but since Luigi has a closed mind and is being anal retentive and not allowing me the right to defend myself I will copy it here. This is in repsone to a posting by Josh M who was trying to figure out what has gone on. Made all teh more difficult with Luigi's suppression and destruction of evidence.

No actually what I did was politely and appropriately defended myself and tried to explain to Luigi what was going on. I was attempting to make peace with him and play by his mandates.

Also Luigi did not listen when I did point out that I do check my facts and though he may not agree with them they are facts from legitimate sources. I have not now nor ever made anything up when it comes to facts. And luigi is the one that claimed he did not make disparaging comments about the poor. While posting a Stossel biased report that is very negative and sterotypical of poor people.

Unfortunately Luigi has already closed his mind and was going to ban me no matter what I said or how I said it as his Bias against me and my idealogy as well as his ego wanting to proove himself flawless and right in regards to his mistake with the postings that will not permit him to change his mind is what got me banned.

MikeC: I know this will be deleted but I will copy it up top so that at least my voice is heard.

I am sorry for not backing the Stossel is a putz comment up in my last posting but I was bit angry. This is some of the lies and falsehoods he has said. These are from the watchdog group fairness and accuracy in reporting. Stossel has also gone on record as a confirmed and totally devout libertarian and has stated that any governmental interference in a free market is wrong and evil.

In 1994, two ABC producers resigned in protest because their research on the cost-effectiveness and success of government regulations was dismissed as contrary to the ideological slant of the report "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?"

• In 1999s "Is America # One?", Stossel claimed that Hong Kong was the only place in the world which had a budget surplus when in fact 11 countries, including the US, also had a surplus. The report was riddled with other errors, and one of the people quoted on camera, University of Texas economist James Galbraith, complained that he was taken out of context and his views misrepresented.

• In a 1999 20/20 report, Stossel claimed that Parkinson's disease claims more lives than AIDS in an effort to slander the AIDS lobby and prove his thesis that political clout and not science was behind the allocation of research funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This claim is blatantly false; AIDS is the 14th leading cause of death in America.

• In 1998s "Greed", a shameless celebration of exploitive robber barons and our baser excesses, Stossel claimed that factory wages were up 70% over the last 15 years. In fact, in raw numbers they were up only 55%, but when adjusted for inflation, they actually fell six percent. Almost no one appeared on camera to take issue with Stossel's point of view.

There are many more examples (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has done some excellent work documenting and publicizing them) which have attracted years of criticism, yet ABC continues to air his reporting relatively unchallenged. Hopefully, the reprimand he received regarding the organic food report will mark the beginning of a trend toward more accurate and less biased journalism, but probably not as ABC has rewarded his work with a promotion to co-anchor of 20/20. The most frightening thing about Stossel is his "Stossel in the Classroom" project funded by an obscure nonprofit foundation which is spoon-feeding his biased reporting to a new generation.

And this is for JoshM:
And no JoshM I did not intentionally ignore or blithly ignore his request. i had told him so in the begining of the post that he deleted. I also tried to make a case for why the immigration post that I made belonged in the governmental controls section. Immigration and the controlof it being a necessary thing for any government for a variety of reasons.

I did try to make peace in regards to this and I rplied with the smart alec apology accepted after his first smart alecy response of Maybe. Or, common sense and knowledge of my m.o. regarding moving posts might've spurred interested parties to simply look at the PM page. Since the software places new topics at the bottom, one might've looked at...........the bottom? With the fight goign on from there. I admitted I made the mistake of not seeing the board he had created. He denied he made a mistake and tried to shoulder the blame off on anyone else but himself. And from there it was on.

Thanks R. I would like to point out though (note: I have not seen any of Stossel's programs--I've just read his book) that none of that necessarily renders his study on the unemployed false. Do you have something to support your assertion on that regard?

I know I am looking for it. I have found several references to it in Blogs and other pages (and many positive references form conservatives and capitalists blowing smoke up his arse) but not sufficient proof to meet the Luigi test that I can access. A couple of pages have had info on it but they require membership in the site. Further anythign else I'll drop down to the worst thing on tv board as that is most definately where Stossel belongs. And given his record on making all sorts of other things up I wouldnt be surprised if the homeless people in freeloaders was actors or something.

This was a response to Luigi I made justa few minutes ago. Since he will probably ignore it and delete it I place it here so that my voice will be heard and he will not be able to silence the opposition.

Oh and I still find it an abuse of your power to remove any and all posts that where made before your "banning" of me which effectively gives only your side of any discussion on this and does not permit me to easily defend myself. That is basically railroading the trial and makign a kangaroo court. But then again since you have already said your decision is final and I doubt you will be willing to change your mind given your previous behavior I doubt I can expect fair and equitable treatment. Or any compassion or understanding either.

R, I missed the blow-up in PM that led to your banning. I'm sorry that you won't be able to continue our discussion as I was hoping to continue once my schedule cleared up again.

That said, your most recent posts will not help in this situation. Instead, they will only hinder any resolution that you might consider fair. Continuing to post in PM after being banned, along with accusations of bias, will only strengthen his resolve.

If you truly want to be able to be able to rejoin PM, there are, from my POV, only two productive options. 1) Convince Luigi to allow you back in. This will take time, and will require you to avoid specious accusations. It may require private communication, if you can do so, to hammer out any differences you have; or 2) Appeal to the Chief. Send him an email and explain the situation to him calmly. He may not simply reinstate you, but since he is the owner of the site, his word is final.

In response to your 5/11, 11:09 pm post on the PM main page, where you said,

>And really Luigi you do realize that by removing the posts that I had made before your "banning" of me you are violating my 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech as well as my right to provide evidence in my defense.
-R

Luigi's actions do not violate your 1st amendment rights. This is a private message board, owned by Phil Farrand. He is not bound by the 1st amendment, which applies only to governmental agencies. We are here at his pleasure, just as if we were in his living room. He is well within his rights to edit or delete posts, and even to ask you to leave if he so chooses, and to delegate that authority to others. Your suggestion that Luigi is acting beyond his authority is without merit.

Well so was I Dustin. It was interesting to say the least.

And his behavior is just strengthening my stubborness/resolve/anger over being mistreated and summarily silenced with no chance for a defense or even any consideration for my POV. And as for the accusations of Bias I go with what i see and thats what I see.

As for your two suggestions.
1: Do you really see him being a reasonable person and admitting his mistake? I don't. Not given his previous behaviors and his current attitude. Especially his My decision is final statement. Seems like once you are found guilty in the mind of Luigi you are always guilty with no chance or hope for redemption. And as for communication I would like anything said between Luigi and I to remain public and on the record.
2: I have already done so. I did that on the first posting after finding out about the "banning"

As for my rights that is a matter of debate. If this was a private forum requiring membership your analogy might be a bit more correct. As this is a PUBLIC forum with open posting it is more akin to the local cafe where folks gather to chat and discus things. When you open a place up for public access that changes the rules slightly. Yes Mr Farrand owns this and has delegated some of his authority to people that still does not permit gross violations of people's civil rights in a public environment. So my assertations about Luigi's behavior are well within meritable boundries.

Response to MikeC since Luigi keeps deleting my conversaion with him.

Well luigi deleted the rpost where I mentioned I checked it out of the library. I tried to read it but couldnt get past his attitude iin the first few chapters. As for the corporate shill thign he may not be as big a one as stossel but he is still very derogatory toawrds anyone who questions or is negative towards corporate america.

And yeah i may not agree with everythign everyone does on his list (I may be left of center but not that far left or stupid) but I did notice there are noone from the far right conservative views ssuch as the christian taliban or anyone within the bush II regime.

He placed several conservatives on the list, including Michael Savage, Roy Moore, and Jimmy Swaggart (admittedly the majority, which he declares himself, are liberal).

And R, this isn't a First Amendment issue. It's a PRIVATE website. If it wasn't, then Brian Webber, Peter, or John-Boy couldn't have been banned without a stronger reason.

Okay, R. Now that you've had your say and your side I would like to table this discussion. I will leave this thread open so that Luigi can, if he chooses, tell his side of the story after which I will probably close the thread.

As for your civil rights, the Bill of Rights refers solely to governmental actions does not apply to this website. Public or private membership is irrelevant--civil rights are in relation to governmental bodies, which Phil, Luigi, nor myself represent. While it might be frustrating that Luigi banned you from PM it is not a violation of your rights. (I do not visit any of the "musings" Permanent Floating Riots so I have no knowledge or opinion of Luigi's actions.)

MikeC: Yeah he placed a few moderately to intermediately conservative individuals on the list but still like you said the majority are liberals or at least not that conservative.

If you say so about the rights. This is neither the time nor the place to argue that (oddly enough the very place it would be appropriate I am not permitted to speak within.) And you are very correct it is frustrating to have done nothing bad enough to deserve this sort of mistreatement other than oppose someones personal biases.

And Mark as you have treated me with civility, respect and politeness now and in the past I will honor and comply with your request and unless someone says something here that requires a direct and immediate response I will discontinue my discussion here.

I have enjoyed and been entertained as well as occasionally educated by the discussions on this site and will value most of the people I have met here. If any of you that are cool with me are in southern ohio you are welcome to kick back a few at the local bar.

If you define Michael Savage as "moderately" conservative...

Well it had been sometime since i last listened to him or paid that close attention to him so I had him placed in intermediately....After looking him up on goggle. Yeah he's far far far far far far to the fifth right. Alsmot makes robertson look liberal.

I find little merit in Luigi's decision to ban R. The fact that he has a somewhat abrasive style and holds very strong opinions are not justifications for banning. It should be expected that, on a board with politics as the subject, we're bound to see heated discussions. Furthermore, whether R argues effectively or is sufficiently logical is unequivocally not relevant to whether he should be able to participate in discussions. It is not the role of Nitcentral moderators to monitor the quality of posts beyond defusing flamewars and removing the most extreme and inflammatory posts.

What bothers me further is that Luigi was a direct participant in the discussion in question. Did R employ the ad hominem fallacy? It seems like it. That certainly weakens his argument; it is not grounds for banning him. This may not be a free speech issue, but John Stuart Mill's argument that false arguments cannot be refuted or exposed unless they are allowed to be made holds as much here as it does anywhere else. In short, logical fallacies are not grounds for banning. Moreover, Political Musings by nature includes debate that is considerably more heated - and, yes, often personal - than would be found elsewhere at Nitcentral (well, apart from RM and perhaps LM).

All this leads me to think that a moderator should recuse himself from questions of banning a poster when he himself is involved in a discussion with that individual. There is, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest or an abuse of power, and I think that applies in this case.

I believe the moderator certainly has the discretion to remove people from his or her boards. Speaking for myself, I would not have banned R (this is not saying Luigi is wrong, it is saying my opinion). I agree with most of Luigi's posts regarding the quality of his arguments, but I do not believe that is grounds for banning. Then again, as I have been criticized in the past for, I am pretty lenient in this regard.

That's my essential point - the quality of someone's argument are irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to post here. Insofar as moderators exercise only the delegated authority of the Chief, I do not believe it falls within their power to enforce any kind of standard of post quality. That seems to go well beyond the neutrality that moderators should at least appear to have.

It is not so much an issue of leniency, as it is toleration. Attempts to limit discussion on the basis of weak arguments will be inherently corrosive to discussion and will limit the diversity of voices found at Nitcentral.

That's true--the issue is whether or not R's arguments, by nature of personal invective, were not just weak but offensive. Apparently Luigi thought so.

Well Josh Thank you for the compliment. I think. ;-) Yes Abrasive is one adjective that has been attributed to my debating style. Blunt, Um as subtle as a mack truck, aggressive, and sometimes downright offensive. It all depends on how badly the person I am debating disagrees with my POV and how much my temper gets set off.

And as for personal invective I have tried to avoid that until and unless I feel that I or my folks have been insulted or derogatory comments made about us. Or my temper just gets pushed past the boil over point by repeated lies and quoting others as your own argument. (I dont like to fight but I wont back down or walk away from one either)

By the quoting others thign. I mean John Stossel seems to be a god to Luigi as everytime the argument gets hot and heavy he pulls something out from him. I personally find Stossel to be a reprehensible lyer and fraud when he calls himself a reporter. He is a propagandist and his views carry no weight in an argument against or with me. Does this mean that if I was moderator I would ban Luigi. No.

Why is that? Because as a moderator a person does have a higher set of standards they must hold themselves to. Dictating debating style and content is not one of the duties of a moderator. As long as difinitive site rules are not broken then the differing style should be self regulated or otherwise modulated according to public trials.
I am and woudl be willing for a fair and equitable hearing on the subject of this banning and if a hearing or arbitration would find against me then I would accept it. (I have done so in the past IRL over other contract issues) Either that or we could go meet back of the barn and duke it out marquis of queensbury rules style.

The basic thing does appear to be that Luigi and I have diametrically opposed ideals and viewpoints. He thought some of the thigns I said where offensive. I also feel and felt that certain things and the way he said them where offensive to me. I also feel that Luigi is biased against my POV and beliefs in regards to capitalism and was looking for an excuse to "ban" me. So while I may not have been totally right in this neither was I totally wrong, and on the flip side neither was Luigi at first.

But after the incident with the misplaced immigration post and his refusal to even consider that it was an honest mistake it just showed to me that he was being provocative and looking for a reason to remove someone who diametrically disagreed with him and his POV.

So while people may consider my arguments weak, be it because i dont bring in and name drop big "reporters" or couch my terms in fancy words or appeal to the more emotional side of things, I do not try to be directly offensive.

All I ask is that Luigi reconsider his decision (which I sincerely doubt given his statement that his decision is final, his previous behaviors with the other posters he has "banned", and his scorched earth response to simple resistence and activism.) and while an apology would be sweet and wonderful I am not going to even beign to hold my breathe for that one.

Thank you for at least being reasonable and open minded enough to listen and discus this. That is more than Luigi seems capable of.

Oh and in case you don't get to see it down below MIkeC:Wow you actually thnk I have a case? From Luigi's attitude and words I didn't think he would change his mind. Especially given the way he has treated others before.

And I am sorry but this is resistence. Opressed peoples always find a way to fight back against those who have wronged them. Unions go on strike, political activists march, I ignore Luigi's "ban" because I do not recognize the validity of it or his authorization to do so. And I most definately question his motivation and motives for doing so.

As for the other things I think I have taken the kitchen sink as far as it can go until and unless luigi responds. Also Luigi has my email address but I do not have his. Otherwise he most assuredly would have heard from me directly. And as for Mr Farrand I hav ealready emailed him but you know how long that takes.

Mike and Josh:

R was not banned for the quality of his posts, his lack of logic, his abrasive style, or his strong opinions. I made it clear why he was banned on the PM board, so I'm not sure why the Straw Man argument of the quality of his arguments is being discussed as the reason for his banning.

R was banned for his abusive, rule-breaking behavior, towards not only myself, but others as well, which included not only ad hominem arguments, but profanity and vitriolic insults as well, despite the fact that he was given warning to cease that behavior. Given that I've been politely listening to his "ideologies" since at least as far back as September 2005, and have been co-existing with differing opinions for years here at Nitcentral, including during my time as a moderator, his accusation that I am biased against ideologies or suppressing opinions is not supported by the evidence. His continued behavior has only further underscored his inability to follow rules. He not only continues to brazenly post here, apparently thinking that the rules regarding banned persons don't apply to him, he justifies this with misplaced arguments about the First Amendment, apparently offering no explanation as to why rules enforced by moderators do not apply to him. He and his wife have also attacked me on other boards, then claimed that it is I who operate on this "level", and even blamed me for adding to the stress of his family's health and custodial problems.

He claims he is interested in a dialogue, but obviously, he is not. He continues to repeat his lies about my statements, like the notion that I am for "unrestricted" capitalism, despite the fact that I made it clear that I wasn’t. At least Twice. He makes derogatory remarks about my reliance on the research by John Stossel, implying that I am merely marching in religious lockstep with him, naturally never acknowledging that sometimes disagree with Stossel, and at length and in detail. Should we chalk this up to more dishonesty of R’s part? Or the same contempt for double-checking facts that he insists is not a problem for him? He says I'm suppressing others' ideologies and opinions, but doesn't explain how this can be so if I've conducted myself for the past several months up until now by merely responding to his posts to explain why I disagree with him, never once banning or threatening to ban him. He claims that this also holds true with regard with my recent warning to Rona (despite his earlier request on Wednesday—prior to his ban—to not lump him in with Rona), but doesn’t explain why then, I took no action against her during our discussion on the Andrea Dworkin board, which included similar behavior on her part there. (It was actually MikeC who dumped a post of hers, and I would restored it.)

He doesn't explain how calling someone an "SOB" or an "arse" or saying that they have no values is not a violation of Nitcentral's rules, or how saying such things about people, simply because they do not share your sociopolitical beliefs is not itself an example of attacking someone because of political bias, offering merely the rationalization that whether his statements were offensive were just what I thought of them, implying that whether accusing someone of “licking someone’s nuts” is a violation of the rules against flaming is somehow subjective. If he did have explanations for these things, aside from the same “that’s just the way I am” excuse that Brian Webber used, then at least he could provide a point of view that I could take into consideration when adjudicating such matters. But he doesn’t. He isn’t interested in such things. When I’ve pointed out that reason, logic, facts and evidence are the proper methodological tools for exploring empirical ideas, he responds with the Straw Man argument that I am letting such things “control” me, that this is mutually exclusive to being a “compassionate” person, and that I am a “cold-hearted SOB”. Point out to him that ad hominem arguments are forbidden by Nitcentral, and he doesn’t respond. Tell him not to insult others, and he will imply that his comments are not insults, but that yours somehow are. Tell him that he’s banned because of his, and he says that I’m doing this because of my “ego”, my “guilty conscience”, and that trespassing on board’s he’s been banned from is not a violation of the site’s rules, but an act of “rebellion” by someone who is being “oppressed”, a rationalization for false victimhood up there with Peter Cuthbertson’s assertion that he was a victim of “eccentric bigots”, Brian Webber’s whine about no one listening to him, John-Boy’s own lies having been attacked.

The problem, therefore, is not that I banned him for his style or his paralogical posts. It’s that he isn’t capable or interested in a coherent, intelligent, civil exchange, and in following Nitcentral’s rules. Using the passive voice by calling him merely “abrasive” absolves him of the truth about his behavior towards others.

I would respectfully suggest that you examine the pattern in his posts (and mine) in greater detail in forming your conclusions.

Do both sides feel like they've had their chance to speak?

Um I have one last rebuttal I am working on in another window so please be patient. ok. Then I will be relatively done.

Luigi really nice post there. I see that there is a major failure to communicate here.

Ok first off I do not use profanity in excessive or unusual levels. If any "profanity" at all is used it is of such a minor degree as that which is found in PG rated movies and television shows. If you are on the web and in political musings you should be old enough to handle that. Vitrolic insults only occur when I feel that I have been insulted as has occured in the past. (Dustin's comments that people can't get jobs becuase they lack ambition, your rude and bereating posting about the offtopic immigration post, Your repeated posting of stossel comments about how poor people are only poor becuase they have a better "Free ride" than working people, etc...) And as for politely I do not totally see that. Whenever I have questioned or criticised capitalism or john stossel you have gotton rather uptight about it. Not exactly polite behavior.

And as for the addition to the families health and custodial problems. Where did you get that from anythign I am posting or have posted? My wife has dual binary embolysm (Blood clots in the lungs) she is a diabetic. She is having some troubles right now that started about a month ago. In the past month she has been in and out of the hospital and not able to do her usual levels of activity involving the kids and housework. This is not a problem to me but to her she feels like she is being a burden. That is what I meant by her feelings of not being able to do anything. For you to honestly think that I am blaming you for my wife's health problems shows a real lack of understanding basic communications and aslight degree of paranoia.

As for the custody issue unless you are my exwife's exhusband, his wife or otherwise involved with one of the sheriff's departments or my son you had no part in that and ther eis no way I could even begin to blame you for the actions of a rather spaced out jerk that my exwife had the stupidity to leave me for.

As for my continuing to post in PM it was part of a resistence movement to get you to come forth and discus things. I think I have made my case perfectly clear and your continued attitude of scorched earth is very embarressing as a moderator. But if you are not willing to reconsider your position then neither am I.

In those posts you do sound liek you are against "unrestricted" capitalism. I retract that for those posts. HOWEver there are other posts that have come across as sounding like you are in favor of unrestricted capitalism or at the very least only restrictions which are not really restrictions. As for your statement about John Stossel. I am sorry but one time out of many does not make you a detractor of stossel. In the privitization discussion you quoted him. In the comunism discussion you quoted him. You got very anal because I made a smart aleck wisecrack about his moustache and jumped to the conclusion that the only reason I disliked him was becuase of his moustache.

And yes you have always said that my arguments or ideas would not work and then proceeded to qwuote the established stossel or other capitalists view of why it wouldnt work. You should realize that since these people are in favor of capitalism they are going to say that anything else is not going to work. You have not provided sufficient evidence to me that capitalism works as well as you and the "experts" that support it say it does. Especially since I can and do find other experts equally skilled and educated who agree with my point of view. And yes you have been rather tolerant until recently when things did start getting heated after the mistake you made with the immigration post. Then for some reason you appeared to snap.

“licking someone’s nuts The posting that used that statement was not directed at any person here on this website and was used in a general format about certain people in general and not any one person in specific. To nitpick about that is anal.

You say you go by words actual definitions and then use them in combinations and patterns that add up to create a meaning that is not just the words but the composite of all the words in that phrase. It is not just what a person say s but how they say it that creates the impression of offense or innoffense. Take the post where you berated me about the immigration post:
What part of "don't place off-topic posts" here are you not getting? I ask not to do so, and you just go right ahead and do so anyway?

What do you mean where is the immigration board? Are you that unable to do just the least bit of investigation? Is it so hard to just look on PM's main page and see that I created a new board for it? Or check the Last Day page? Seriously, I know doing any sort of double-checking or investigation is akin to kryptonite for you, but if you want to navigate these boards, it would behoove you to at least do some of it, rather than blatantly defying a polite request regarding post relevance.

Now I ask you is anything in that posting even remotely polite, inoffensive or non hostile? I'll tell you how I read that. Very insulting and derogatory. It sounded like you where calling me dumb and blind and otherwise being very snarky. In response to that Scottn and I came to the conclusion to shrug it off but since TomM came in and said somethings you disagreed with that questioned your comments (which you also appeared to get quite snarky with)

Luigi Novi: And how do you know this? R said that I berated him "instead of being polite. That is factually untrue, because I was polite....at first. To focus on the second post is to deliberately ignore the first one, which is intellectually dishonest. So it's not a one-or-the-other scenario, but rather a initial-politeness-before-latter-sterness. In order to accurately assess how I behaved, one has to take stock of the entire exchange. Why focus only on the second post and say that Oh, you spoke to me this way "instead" of that way?

Now lets look at this factually untrue. Factually untrue. Well aside from being an oxymoron it is another way of calling someone a liar. Something can either be a factor untrue. Bu then again when it comes to truths in politics there are three yours, mine and relaity truth.

You also got upset because I ignored the first post and focused on the second snarky one. As I have stated (both in the post you deleted) and around here I placed the post there because it was the best place and I did not see the immigration board. Instead of accepting that a mistake could have been made you proceeded to blame me (that is what the entire content of the second post read as. Especially after your second posting stating that we should have used common sense to look harder for it. Maybe. Or, common sense and knowledge of my m.o. regarding moving posts might've spurred interested parties to simply look at the PM page. Since the software places new topics at the bottom, one might've looked at...........the bottom?
so instad of taking responsibility as a moderator you again passed the buck the the users who did not look hard enough. (And yes that is my interpretation of your words in those two posts.) And the final post that I wish to oinclude in this is What do you mean "yes and no"? I didn't apologize for anything; I pointed out how you could've done something resembling "checking" when looking for your post, instead of blaming others.
again saying it was my fault for the misplaced post after I had apologized and conceded that there may have been some mistake as well as ScottN saying he did not see that post. And after you had failed to announce the creation of that topic.

When you where called on that you proceeded to start in on your usual rant about me placing words in your mouth and ignoring your politeness and not respecting you. Aside from when I get mad or otherwise upset about something I am quite respectful. The pattern of my posts does show that if you look at everythign I have ever posted on the entire site. For some reason it is only on political musings that I am this horrible beast, at least in your description of me.

\blue[When I’ve pointed out that reason, logic, facts and evidence are the proper methodological tools for exploring empirical ideas} And as I pointed out Logic is only the begining for looking at human interactions and lives. By using nothign but cold hard "facts" you can justify all sorts of crimes against humanity. The klan, the nazi's in WWII all used cold hard reasonable facts to justify their crimes. I do not like the idea of using nothign but facts to look at human interactions and would favor a system that does take human lives and value into account. And by value I am meaning beyond the mere monetary value.
And yes I do see them as mutually exclusive. When I am trying to find a problem in a toaster or a car I use cold hard facts because the car has no emotions and is nothign more than lump of metal and plastic. When dealign with people one MUST take into account the emotional factor otherwise they are being unfeeling, insensitive and are incapable of coming to a solution that is truely fair and equitable to all people. Not just the rich or wealthy.

So you are calling me a false victim? Or what here? Unlike the others you lumped me with (which I notice all had committed crimes or actions against the entire site not just your boards.) you and your boards are the ONLY one where I have had a disagreement to this degree. Even on RM TomM did not have the same degree of problem with me. Even when Zarm and I clashed swords and it got superhot there was not this degree of issue.

Also may I point out some quotes from the begining of this board about your actions as moderator? The way Luigi handled removing the conversation Peter started was wrong. He gave no warning and did not post an explanation until he was asked about it, and then he immediately closed the thread to any more conversations. Worse, he was wrong, as I have pointed out about a hundred times: Before today Peter was never banned by the Chief. The first person to ever be banned from this site was Brian Webber. Peter left in a huff.

As I have no recollection of what went on with Peter I am only forced to look at the facts as presented on this site. As it appears Peter came into PM started a discussion of some sort which you not only summarily deleted without any public discussion but banned peter. Now I will admit that later on you did apoloize and explain your reasoning. But you also did your usual statement of people misunderstanding you. But if you want to say I have a history of making vitrolic posts lets look at some of your snarkiness from the past
Josh Gould: Rather important what falls under "etc.", wouldn't you say?
Luigi Novi: Yes. I figured anyone intelligent enough would understand what I meant. Should I spell out every single thing government must do?
Hell, I even listed books had yet to read here. And now you're accusing me of not consulting diverse-enough sources in researching the material I cite in these discussions? Do I look like Zarm Rkeeg to you? I find it very interesting, in fact, that you accuse me of this, when you give every indication of not having read one single board, in light of the fact that you keep asking me questions and making statements that are answered on the previous one.

Seriously.

Previous boards.

Try ‘em.

You might like ‘em.

Josh Gould: Your examples are limited at best, and hardly from unbiased sources.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you don’t seem to be able to refute them (or even read them all), aside from this ad hominem comment.

Could you elaborate on how Stossel is biased, how he is any more biased that you or I, and how his bias is directly tied to arguments by him that are either empirically false or poorly reasoned?
(You really like to use that ad hom defense there dont you.)

And those are just from some recent posts. I could probably go back to the beginings and find all the instances of you performing the same actions that you accuse me of. Pot meet kettle.

The problem, therefore, is not that I banned him for his style or his paralogical posts. It’s that he isn’t capable or interested in a coherent, intelligent, civil exchange, and in following Nitcentral’s rules No the problem is that for one reason or another I seem to have finally struck that one nerve that set you off. The way you desribe my posts makes me out to be some raving madman who is just spitting insults and swearing every other other word. That is not the case and can be shown by loking at the various other posts that I have done at multiple times on the other boards on this site. yet you are the only person who decided summarily and without being able to review what I said that pushed you over the edge to ban me from anywhere on this site. You called my comments I made in deefense of myself self-serving (of course they would be self serving they are in defense of myself what else could they be.)

And your comment that your decision is final does not imply an open minded attitude towards redemption. I mean short of Mr Farrand ordering you to reinstate me what else could cause you to reverse your stance on this? Is there anything? Or have you decided that I am a worthless lost cause that does not deserve the opportunity to grace your boards with my presence?

In closing Luigi I am not perfect. I realize and admit that. But you are just as guilty of fabrication and ad hom and everything you accuse me of. Your actions since the one off topic post have been nothing but biased against me, judgemental and unfair. I do feel that you have abused your post and duties as moderator and have no moral high ground to stand on.

What's happened to NitC?

An excellent question, JD.

Mark, I didn’t notice your post at first, so since you asked if we both had a chance to speak, I will respond to some of R’s statements here, so that you can compare his to mine, and follow-up by looking that the posts we both point to to see if they support his accusations. I would suggest that if you want an accurate picture of his behavior and mine since last September, that you read those threads in question on the Communism/Capitalism boards. The reason I feel it’s necessary to make this point is because MikeC and JoshG, whom I’ve never regarded as anything other than intelligent, level-headed people, engaged in a bizarre discussion over my reasons for banning R, despite the fact that I stated my reasons clearly on PM, and I’m hoping that that’s not indicative of the manner in which you or others will view this conflict. As for the reasoning that R elsewhere employs here that does not involve a specific reference to other boards, use your own judgment.

R: Ok first off I do not use profanity in excessive or unusual levels. If any "profanity" at all is used it is of such a minor degree as that which is found in PG rated movies and television shows. If you are on the web and in political musings you should be old enough to handle that.
Luigi Novi: If you are civil enough to respect the rules of other people’s websites, then you should be able to handle the idea that it is not allowed at all, especially when you direct it at other visitors, regardless of the “levels” in which you use it.

R: Vitrolic insults only occur when I feel that I have been insulted as has occured in the past.
Luigi Novi: In other words, you feel you can rationalize violating Nitcentral’s rules. In fact, vitriolic insults are not allowed at all. If you feel someone has insulted you, then talk to them about it. If you feel they won’t respond, then do not talk to them, or contact a moderator or roving moderator or Phil.

R: (Dustin's comments that people can't get jobs becuase they lack ambition…
Luigi Novi: Dustin never said that. What he said was:

If you have marketable skills, the only reasons you wouldn't be able to find a good paying job are lack of ambition or poor interview/presentation skills.

Now you may opine that you find that insulting. But you could’ve responded to that by saying, “Well, Dustin, I have marketable skills, and I certainly don’t lack ambition. I don’t think my interview or presentation skills are poor. So what are you saying?” I can’t speak for Dustin, but given how polite and good-natured he is, I’m guessing—just guessing—that he might’ve clarified his comment and/or apologized for phrasing it in a way that offended you. Did you try responding politely? No. You responded with profanity and anger. Dustin could’ve been advised that that statement may have warranted a qualifier, like the phrase, “With many, if not most people…” But I doubt he intended to insult.

I also find your take on this comment being insulting quite interesting, in light of the way you rationalize your own profanity and vitriolic behavior, but then don’t cut Dustin the same slack when he said something that you found insulting. Why do you get to excuse yourself for saying offensive things, but Dustin doesn’t?

R: …your rude and bereating posting about the offtopic immigration post…
Luigi Novi: Nowhere in those posts did anyone insult you. You were criticized for exhibiting poor fact-checking, using the excuse that you don’t use Last Day, or this resource or that resource, as if that prevented you from doing so, and deliberately ignoring a polite request regarding off-topic posts. Since the politeness of the first post was ignored, I felt a more aggressive tone was warranted. You may have been taken aback by that, but that doesn’t make it an insult.

R: Your repeated posting of stossel comments about how poor people are only poor becuase they have a better "Free ride" than working people, etc...)
Luigi Novi: I have never posted any such thing, nor have I ever heard Stossel say such a bizarre thing.

R: And as for politely I do not totally see that. Whenever I have questioned or criticised capitalism or john stossel you have gotton rather uptight about it.
Luigi Novi: No, I’ve responded to your posts by explaining why I disagree with them. But if you can provide one of these posts where I got “uptight” about Stossel, please do so.

R: And as for the addition to the families health and custodial problems. Where did you get that from anythign I am posting or have posted?
Luigi Novi: You claimed on the Numbers Game board in Rants that I added to that stress.

R: As for my continuing to post in PM it was part of a resistence movement to get you to come forth and discus things. I think I have made my case perfectly clear and your continued attitude of scorched earth is very embarressing as a moderator.
Luigi Novi: You do not get decide, after you have been notified that you have been banned, to trespass onto boards you’ve been banned from, regardless of your desire to talk. What you should do is acknowledge warnings from the site’s moderators about your behavior, which you have received more than once in the past. You were told before not to insult other people. You brazenly ignored that warning, and proceeded to insult me. Hence, you were banned. That means that you do not post on PM anymore. Period. If you do, then you are in violation of those boards, and your posts will be deleted. This is not “scorched earth.” This is the natural, standard practice with banned visitors, and I even told you ahead of time that this would be the result of your continued rule-breaking.

R: In those posts you do sound liek you are against "unrestricted" capitalism. I retract that for those posts. HOWEver there are other posts that have come across as sounding like you are in favor of unrestricted capitalism or at the very least only restrictions which are not really restrictions.
Luigi Novi: No. I do not. The only thing I “sound like” are those statements that I actually made. This “sounding like” argument is called a Straw Man argument, and the reason why it’s a fallacy is because it allows you to essentially take one statement made, and convert into a completely different one, and then claim that the second statement is the one made by the speaker. This is not only intellectually untenable, it is also very hostile and dishonest. It introduces a level of subjectivity that makes honest discussion impossible. If I “sound like” I said this, then answer me a simple question: Why did you not provide one single quote or post in which I “sounded like” I believed this? Simple. Because it’s not true. This is why it is better to rely on the facts of one’s statements instead of simply your subjective impressions. If we were to regard this as a useful method for responding to one’s opponents, then consider this hypothetical exchange:

“I believe we should try some combination of communism and capitalism.”
“Communism! You mean like Stalin?! He murdered tens of millions of people!”
“Wait, I didn’t say I wanted to kill anyone, I just…”
“Well, you certainly sounded like it!”
“But I didn’t say I was for a dictatorship or a totalitarian government! I just said we should try a combination of communism and capitalism.”
“Heh! They tried that in the Czech Republic after the Soviet Union fell, and that guy in charge of moving that country from communism to capitalism, Vaclav Klaus, said that that ‘combined system’ was the fastest way to the Third World! Do you really want people to live in Third World poverty? Where is your compassion?”
“Wait a minute! That’s not what I said! All I said was…”
“Well, it certainly sounded like it! I’m sorry, but I’m personally insulted by the idea of advocating a system that causes poverty, and anyone who would deliberately do that to people has no compassion, and is less worth as a person in my view.”

See how intellectually dishonest the “sounds like” argument is? You can turn any one thing into a completely different thing, and typically, those who employ this tactic do not back up their accusation with specific examples of things said by the other party; they just say that that’s their “impression”, and leave it at that. If I really “sounded like” I was for unrestricted capitalism—even in the face of at least two posts where I explicitly stated otherwise—then why don’t you provide those posts where I “sound like” this. Simple. Because I don’t sound like this at all. Being for no restrictions at all is a pretty specific statement, isn’t it? And it would be in direct contradiction of those statements where I stated otherwise, right? You just invent statements out of whole cloth because you simply do not know how to read and comprehend what a person says clearly, preferring to fly off the handle over what you think they really mean. You’ve done so repeatedly on past boards, and you’ve done so here on this one. That is a clear indicator of both your lack of honesty and your hostility with anyone with whom you get into any substantial disagreement.

R: As for your statement about John Stossel. I am sorry but one time out of many does not make you a detractor of stossel.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say it did. If you want to respond to what I said, then do so. Stop responding to Straw Man arguments that I did not make.

R: You got very anal because I made a smart aleck wisecrack about his moustache and jumped to the conclusion that the only reason I disliked him was becuase of his moustache.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. I responded to your statements by pointing out that you provided no reason (at the time) for your antipathy toward him, and by pointing out that you didn’t like his mustache does not call his conclusions into question. If you feel that I got “anal”, then please quote the post in question. Anyone interested in what I actually said can just read my May 10, 2006 1:43 pm post on the Communism/Capitalism board and see that my description of the exchange is what actually occurred.

R: And yes you have always said that my arguments or ideas would not work and then proceeded to qwuote the established stossel or other capitalists view of why it wouldnt work. You should realize that since these people are in favor of capitalism they are going to say that anything else is not going to work.
Luigi Novi: What I realize is that they hold their conclusions for valid reasons, and that they are able to articulate those reasons in detail.

R: You have not provided sufficient evidence to me that capitalism works as well as you and the "experts" that support it say it does.
Luigi Novi: And that’s fine. But that doesn’t give you the right to insult other visitors, use profanity, or attack their motives or assert that they have less worth than you. Those are not only vicious insults, they are ad hominem attacks, and are forbidden by Nitcentral.

R: Especially since I can and do find other experts equally skilled and educated who agree with my point of view.
Luigi Novi: Then feel free to provide them. The problem is that you did not do this. Instead, in addition to dismissing others’ arguments or evidence by simply indicating that you would refuse to acknowledge them, you attacked them.

R: And yes you have been rather tolerant until recently when things did start getting heated after the mistake you made with the immigration post. Then for some reason you appeared to snap.
Luigi Novi: Why do you say “some reason” as if there is some mystery to your banning? I made my position quite clear, and it’s not like I didn’t give you a chance to cease your hostile behavior. The “some reason” is that you refused to comply with Nitcentral rules, after a considerable period of generosity on my part.

And you’re also missing the central point of this statement on my part: If you say that I was tolerant until recently, then how does that square with your continued accusations that I banned you or deleted your posts because of an ideological bias? You promoted that ideology as far back as September didn’t you? If I am that sensitive to people with your beliefs, then how do you explain the fact that I took no such action toward you back then? If I am similarly biased against Rona, as you alleged, why did I allow her such carte blanche on the Andrea Dworkin boards last year, which included constant attacks upon me?

R: “licking someone’s nuts The posting that used that statement was not directed at any person here on this website and was used in a general format about certain people in general and not any one person in specific.
Luigi Novi: Anyone who reads the threads beginning in September, and sees the pattern of your comments knows that you were making a clear allusion to me.

You began attacking me last year for my position on capitalism, alleging, ad hominem, that I only held the position that I did because I lived in a “golden cubicle.” In other words, you assumed that I was financially well-off. You repeated this fallacy again even after I explained to you that I’m quite poor, possibly more so than you. You then shifted your attack, claiming that for me to hold my position made no sense, because, according to you, I too, was a “wage slave.” In your April 9, 2:36pm on the Communism/Capitalism Board 2, you said,

And Luigi it is very obvious that you are also ignorant of many things. Especially given how you are a wage slave and yet you continue to support a system that extorts the public and exploits the workers. And that you have not nor ever shall be a CEO and yet you say that they are so important that they deserve to make in a week what a worker makes in a year.

Thus, when you again brought up this point about “nuts”, you were again making an allusion to me. The notion that you were instead talking about “certain people in general” is a lie, because there would be no reason to talk about such people “in general,” since historically, you’ve always divided the corporate world into executives and “wage slaves”, and the idea of a fellow “wage slave” being pro-capitalism to you was outside your paradigm, so when I shocked you with the revelation that I’m not a management type, you needed to incorporate this into your worldview by deciding that my position was counterproductive to myself, and that I was therefore a “hypocrite”. Thus, when you made this comment:

You say this isnt the first time I've been disrespectful to you. Well thats a two way street there bucko. You want repsect you have to give it. I aint exactly gotton a whole lotta respect either. The only people I have contempt for are those who wanna push or keep the poor down while licking the nuts of the rich hoping for a few of the table scraps. Esepcially when they are poor wage slaves themselves. Thats just plain hypocritical.

…you were again justifying your attacks on me. Not some hypothetical group out that there you never previously identified as a problem prior to my informing you that I was not rich.

R: You say you go by words actual definitions and then use them in combinations and patterns that add up to create a meaning that is not just the words but the composite of all the words in that phrase. It is not just what a person say s but how they say it that creates the impression of offense or innoffense…Now I ask you is anything in that posting even remotely polite, inoffensive or non hostile?
Luigi Novi: No, and there’s a good reason why. When I tried being polite to you, it didn’t work.

And in any case, slightly sarcastic tone of the comments you quoted doesn’t come anywhere near the level of vitriol you have leveled at me. I have never cast aspersions on your values based on your geographic location, used profanity against you, threatened physical violence against you, and so forth.

R: Now lets look at this factually untrue. Factually untrue. Well aside from being an oxymoron it is another way of calling someone a liar.
Luigi Novi: Wrong on both counts. First of all, the phrase is not an oxymoron, since an oxymoron is a word or phrase in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined. In the phrase “factually untrue”, the word “factually” is used as a descriptive qualifier, or adjective. In other words, the statement is not untrue as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of fact.

Second, it is not a way of calling someone a liar. I already explained to you the distinction between the two, that lying requires deliberate intent, whereas in some cases, someone may say something that they incorrectly believe to be true, and once again, you simply ignored that post, preferring to simply repeat the fallacy again, rather than refute my prior response to it. I could take you far more seriously in your complaints if you did not insist on such repeated dishonest behavior.

R: so instad of taking responsibility as a moderator you again passed the buck the the users who did not look hard enough.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. In the second-to-last quote-and-answer exchange in my May 10, 1:43pm post, I acknowledged that I was partly to blame. JoshM also noted this.

R: Aside from when I get mad or otherwise upset about something I am quite respectful.
Luigi Novi: And on the subject of political/economic systems, you do seem to get mad or upset quite often. In any case, it is not for you to decide when you get to be disrespectful, or to rationalize breaking the site’s rules by virtue of your anger. I’ve certainly gotten angry at times when you attacked me or Dustin, and indeed, your comments about what it “sounds like” I’m saying make me angry. Do you see me responding with profanity? Or threats}? Or lies? Or distorting your words? I simply respond by refuting your statements, so the idea that getting upset justifies lack of respect is false. If you personally find that you cannot become upset without being disrespectful, then do not come here, since most other visitors here do not have that problem, and that those who do don’t exactly have very good standing.

R: The pattern of my posts does show that if you look at everythign I have ever posted on the entire site. For some reason it is only on political musings that I am this horrible beast, at least in your description of me.
Luigi Novi: It’s not in my description of you. It is simply true that you never behaved this way with me in other discussions, but on that one topic, you did so.

Luigi Novi: When I’ve pointed out that reason, logic, facts and evidence are the proper methodological tools for exploring empirical ideas…

R: And as I pointed out Logic is only the begining for looking at human interactions and lives. By using nothign but cold hard "facts" you can justify all sorts of crimes against humanity.
Luigi Novi: This is precisely the sort of bait-and-switch I’m talking about. We are not talking about HUMAN INTERACTIONS. Look closely at that passage of mine that you just quoted. It says, empirical ideas. Not human interactions. For exploring questions of empirical fact, the best method we have is the Scientific Method. That means facts, evidence, logic, reason, an avoidance of logical fallacies, the acknowledgement that knowledge is provisional, and so forth. If we want to explore the question of which sociopolitical/economic system has historically worked the best, for the example, then facts and reason are what we use. Not emotion. Emotion does not allow one to form coherent empirical conclusions. Try solving a mathematical problem or examining evolution with “emotion” and see where it gets you. This has nothing to do with “human interactions”, but merely determining the answers to questions in matters of fact. That is just a different concept that has nothing to do with what I said.

R: The klan, the nazi's in WWII all used cold hard reasonable facts to justify their crimes.
Luigi Novi: No they didn’t. Their ideologies were/are based entirely on lies.

R: And yes I do see them as mutually exclusive. When I am trying to find a problem in a toaster or a car I use cold hard facts because the car has no emotions and is nothign more than lump of metal and plastic. When dealign with people one MUST take into account the emotional factor otherwise they are being unfeeling, insensitive and are incapable of coming to a solution that is truely fair and equitable to all people. Not just the rich or wealthy.
Luigi Novi: Compassion and adherence to proper empirical methods (as well as civil principles of debate) are not mutually exclusive, and it is ridiculous to argue that anyone who adheres to the latter is somehow not capable of the former. As a matter of example, I want more freedom, and less poverty. Therefore, I should advocate a system that promotes these beliefs. Because I believe that excessive government control leads to more poverty, and less freedom, I am against those things. If someone asks me why I believe that that system promotes more freedom and less poverty, then I will use proper empirical methods and civil debating tactics to explain why. Everyone does this, or attempts to do this, with varying degrees of success. For example, you argued that companies do not need CEOs, and provided a list of co-ops to prove this. The belief that companies do not need CEOs was the conclusion, or belief. The facts/evidence/reasoning/logic you used to illustrate why you held this belief was that list, which you researched and posted. So there is no contradiction between compassion and the methods by which we determine what is either factually true or reasonable. We simply disagree on the what those facts tell us, as when, for example, I point out that many of those companies you listed, like True Value and Land O’ Lakes, indeed have CEOs, and that others, like Sunkist, receive subsidies from the government, instead of being fully self-sufficient, or when you insist that those CEOs are “different” from other types of CEOs, and so forth. We all use reasoning to bolster our points of view. That doesn’t mean we’re not compassionate.

R: So you are calling me a false victim? Or what here? Unlike the others you lumped me with (which I notice all had committed crimes or actions against the entire site not just your boards.) you and your boards are the ONLY one where I have had a disagreement to this degree.
Luigi Novi: Which is why you were banned from my boards, and not Nitcentral. What’s your point? That this behavior is acceptable as long as you confine it to one moderator’s boards, and it only becomes unacceptable when it spreads to others?

R: As I have no recollection of what went on with Peter I am only forced to look at the facts as presented on this site. As it appears Peter came into PM started a discussion of some sort which you not only summarily deleted without any public discussion but banned peter. Now I will admit that later on you did apoloize and explain your reasoning.
Luigi Novi: If you concede that I explained my reasoning, then why do you state the falsehood that I banned him, when the fact that matter, which I explained in that very post that you allude to, is that I thought he already was banned?

R: But you also did your usual statement of people misunderstanding you. But if you want to say I have a history of making vitrolic posts lets look at some of your snarkiness from the past…
Luigi Novi: The difference between what you refer to as “vitriol” “snarkiness” and “insults”—aside from the fact that mine are far less harsh and inflammatory than yours (assuming they could even be called “insults”)—is that when I criticize someone, it for legitimate reasons pertaining to their statements and behavior on these boards. I do not, for example, use profanity, make threats of violence, distort other people’s words, claim that people have less value or worth because of their sociopolitical beliefs, or cast aspersions on where they’re from, and each time I make a given accusation or criticism, I back it up with detailed reasoning and evidence. When I state, for example, that you have either repeatedly lied about my statements, or just not bothered to do proper research in getting the posts and quotes correct, I prove it by pointing people to the exact quote on the board in question, sometimes with a link.

You, on the other hand, cannot refute this in the same way, because if you did quote my words accurately, you know that they would not support your bold accusations.

R: (You really like to use that ad hom defense there dont you.)
Luigi Novi: No, I simply point out when people use it, and since you have used it, it becomes necessary to point it out.

Again, this is an example of your indirect rhetoric. If at any time, I’ve made the accusation that someone used an ad hominem argument falsely, then why don’t you simply cite it? Why don’t you quote the exchange, and then explain why it’s not an ad hominem argument? Simple. Because you, like Brian Webber and Rona, seem to have no apparent viewpoint on ad hominem arguments, or for all I know, even know what one is. If you did, then wouldn’t you chime in with your views on that subject, perhaps giving your opinion on what constitutes an ad hominem argument and what doesn’t, and explaining why examples that I’ve pointed out of this do not qualify? Why will you not answer such criticisms directly? If you feel that a given statement that you’ve made is not an ad hominem argument, then why won’t you discuss it?

R: No the problem is that for one reason or another I seem to have finally struck that one nerve that set you off.
Luigi Novi: Sure. You set off that little alarm in my head that goes off when I hear pro-communism or anti-capitalism arguments-----------nine months after you began making them. Sure. LOL.

R: yet you are the only person who decided summarily and without being able to review what I said that pushed you over the edge to ban me from anywhere on this site.
Luigi Novi: You have not established that I did not review what you said before banning you. As soon as you can, please do so. As it is, the only person who’s gone off any edge, if their behavior is any indication, is you.

R: You called my comments I made in deefense of myself self-serving (of course they would be self serving they are in defense of myself what else could they be.)
Luigi Novi: Objective.

R: And your comment that your decision is final does not imply an open minded attitude towards redemption.
Luigi Novi: How can you be capable of “redemption”, when you have continued to insult me, assume motives on my part that are not consistent with the record, make false accusations, and repeatedly distort my words? How can there be “redemption” if you refuse to admit to the things I have pointed out here about your behavior, and insist on rationalizations for it?

R: In closing Luigi I am not perfect. I realize and admit that. But you are just as guilty of fabrication and ad hom and everything you accuse me of.
Luigi Novi: Oh really? Now I’m the one who fabricates things? And uses ad hominem arguments? Now that’s a new accusation. Okay, can you point out examples of me fabricating statements on your part, as I pointed out you’ve done with me? Can you point out examples of my using ad hominem arguments?

I am aware, Luigi, that you did not just ban R for the "quality of his arguments." (See how I pointed out you perceived them as not just poor arguments, but OFFENSIVE ones?) I was stating, that in my opinion, I did not view R's posts as offensive enough to warrant banning. In my opinion, I would have just dumped the posts that contained profanity/insults.

I was very clear that I was willing to support your decision and I am sorry if you considered my discussion "bizarre." What's difficult is the fact that it's hard to review events. I saw some of R's posts that got him banned (I'm not sure if I saw all of them), but I don't know if Josh did. Again, let me clear: As moderator, you have the right to ban posters. Based on your criteria, it seems as if you were within your rights to ban R. I am not attacking you; I am just disagreeing with you.

Luigi you have a very interesting definition of what is polite. I have never felt that you have been polite towards me since we began discussing the problems with capitalism.

As for the talking heads I do and have brung those quotes and statistics into the discussion when appropriate. However I believe that during an argument one should not just simply parrot the words of others. If you cannot put the words into your own then its not your argument its someone elses.

You called me a liar when I did not Lie. I merely told you what happened to the last person that called me a liar.

So the past month has not been exactly lovely in the real world and the one place i go to relax and enjoy thigns has blown up and just added to the stress thanks to Luigi.
If you would pay attention and not get so touchy and anal about things you would see that I was referring to the fact that this site is one that I go to enjoy and relax. Your overreaction and inults have made it less enjoyable for me and that has added to MY personal stress. Not my wife's health or anything outside of me, myself and I. Get it straight Luigi.

By review I meant a public review. You are a moderator involved in the dicsusion with me. You do not have the right to summarily decide for yourself and on your own to ban me or anyone you are involved in an argument with as you are too close to the situation to be fair, objective and honest in your decision.

That is why I do not recognize your authority and validity in "banning" me and continued to post on PM. I do thank you though for letting me win by closing PM down totally. That is so childish that to win this argument you will destroy the thing you where placed in charge of.

And you did not answer my direct question to you what steps will you reinstate me under, short of mr farrand ordering you to do so?

---

Quote:

Mark, I didn’t notice your post at first, so since you asked if we both had a chance to speak, I will respond to some of R’s statements here, so that you can compare his to mine, and follow-up by looking that the posts we both point to to see if they support his accusations.

---

OK Mark you are quite right. I do not feel that I did anything excessively different than Luigi and it is just his personal hatred and bias against me that led to his actions. I am owed an apology form him and do not owe him anything more than I have already done so.

Also Luigi about Peter. That also prooves that you do not check your facts and act in a summary matter. You may have thought he was already banned but YOU DID NOT DOUBLE CHECK YOU FACTS. You did not ask nayone else if Pater had been abnned. You merely saw him in your domain, disliked him and his posts and banned and removed him without consultation or consideration. Both hallmarks of a tyrant.

Also I discussed my cooments on the numbers game with my wife, my stepson and a freind of mine on yahoo. None of them coudl see how I was blaming you for anythign outside of the troubles that are on this website. Trying to say that I am blaming you for events going on in the real world is just indicative of your further hatred against me and bias towards me. Look at it this way. If you where not looking for reasons to hate me or looking for negative things to say about me or actions to blame me for you would see that I did not blame you for any real life events.

---

Quote:

You did not ask nayone else if Pater had been abnned. You merely saw him in your domain, disliked him and his posts and banned and removed him without consultation or consideration. Both hallmarks of a tyrant.

---

The issue with Peter was not so much the banning of Peter, who frequently trolled and should have been banned a long time before; it was just sort of the suddeness of it and the fact that it was done based on an incorrect assumption (that Peter had been banned). It was not the act of a tyrant; if it had been, don't you think Phil would have done something other than BANNING Peter?

Mike, the fact that you did not read all of them is why I call your conclusion into question. How exactly is it that that offensiveness of calling me a “cold-hearted SOB” a simply a matter of perception? Or the manner in which such a comment violates the rules? Or saying that Dustin Westfall has less worth as a person because of his views? Or that he sold out his “rural values” because of them? The rules are clear, R has repeatedly violated them, despite warnings. If you haven’t read the entire threads, then I would suggest you do so (keeping in mind that fact that the post he made that got him banned was deleted—though I have it archived).

I would also point out that the behavior that R has continued to exhibit here goes a long way to illustrating the level of honesty and civility one which he operates. For example, I challenged him to back up several claims he made about me in my last post, and pointed out how many things he said were not true. He failed/refused to respond to them in his next post. What does that tell you?

R: Luigi you have a very interesting definition of what is polite. I have never felt that you have been polite towards me since we began discussing the problems with capitalism.
Luigi Novi: You mean back in September? Okay, tell me where this occurred. (No doubt this will be yet another question that will not be answered.)

And in what way is my definition of what is polite interesting? Where, in fact, did I even provide a definition of it?

R: As for the talking heads I do and have brung those quotes and statistics into the discussion when appropriate. However I believe that during an argument one should not just simply parrot the words of others. If you cannot put the words into your own then its not your argument its someone elses.
Luigi Novi: There is no basis for this argument. The criteria by which I am convinced of a particular idea is the manner in which the person promoting it illustrates it with evidence, examples, reasoning, responses to rebuttals, and so forth. Those who ideas impress me do this, and that is why I refer to them, and it is appropriate, when doing so, to either quote them directly or paraphrase them, both of which I do so. This is a legitimate part of forming one’s conclusions, researching them, and discussing and debating them. If I do research, and am convinced by the work of another, than those arguments become my arguments. Similarly, when I am not convinced by the particular position that someone holds on a given subject, then I say so as well, and provide the same detailed refutations that show why I am not. In so doing, I have shown that I approach the various sources I use in a critical manner. This comment by you is just a more euphemistic way of accusing me of marching in lockstep with a given idea or person promoting it, a description for which I qualify the least on these boards.

R: You called me a liar when I did not Lie. I merely told you what happened to the last person that called me a liar.
Luigi Novi: You have fabricated words on my part that I never said, and repeatedly. And you did not merely tell me what happened to the last person who did so; you threatened me, indicating in your April 25 5:57pm post on the Communism/Capitalism board that this is what would happen to me if I did so as well:

And please do not presume to call me a liar or imply that I do not understand what is being said. Last person that called me a liar to my face wound up drinking his dinners til he got better.

Luigi Novi: …and even blamed me for adding to the stress of his family's health and custodial problems.

R: And as for the addition to the families health and custodial problems. Where did you get that from anythign I am posting or have posted?

Luigi Novi: You claimed on the Numbers Game board in Rants that I added to that stress.

R:

So the past month has not been exactly lovely in the real world and the one place i go to relax and enjoy thigns has blown up and just added to the stress thanks to Luigi.

If you would pay attention and not get so touchy and anal about things you would see that I was referring to the fact that this site is one that I go to enjoy and relax. Your overreaction and inults have made it less enjoyable for me and that has added to MY personal stress. Not my wife's health or anything outside of me, myself and I.
Luigi Novi: And your point is what? You said that I added to the stress of your other problems, and that’s all I referred to. The quote you pasted here illustrates that, so my comment was accurate. You capitalize that word “MY” in reference to your personal stress. And? What’s your point? Whose stress did I say you claimed I added to?

R: By review I meant a public review. You do not have the right to summarily decide for yourself and on your own to ban me or anyone you are involved in an argument with as you are too close to the situation to be fair, objective and honest in your decision.
Luigi Novi: It is not the prerogative of the public to decide issues of banning. It is the moderator’s, and yes, the moderator most certainly has the right to summarily decide it. It is the moderator who issues warnings regarding visitors’ behavior, and the moderator who must act if visitors deliberately ignores those warnings. That is the authority that Phil has granted us, and yes, I am objective enough to do this, so much so that I put up with your attacks on myself and others for several months. If that doesn’t indicate a level of generosity and objectivity, I don’t know what would. But it is not a matter for public vote, and it never has been.

R: That is why I do not recognize your authority and validity in "banning" me and continued to post on PM. I do thank you though for letting me win by closing PM down totally. That is so childish that to win this argument you will destroy the thing you where placed in charge of.
Luigi Novi: There is not argument to “win”. You made closing the boards necessary because of your arrogant refusal to obey the rules of this site, and yes, I do have the authority to do this, regardless of whether you “recognize” it or not. I also see the same inconsistency in your posts, that you claim that I “let you win”, yet then, in the next breath, claim that I closed the boards so that I could win.

R: And you did not answer my direct question to you what steps will you reinstate me under, short of mr farrand ordering you to do so?
Luigi Novi: You failed to answer several challenges and refutations of your statements in my last post, and you’re demanding that I answer your questions? If you want me to answer your questions, answer mine first.

1. Why do you argue that you only use profanity or vitriolic insults in certain cases, when the site’s rules are clear that they are not permitted at all?

2. Why do you claim Dustin’s comments as insulting enough to warrant an attack on him, but do not allow this rationale for when others are offended by your comments and rule-breaking?

3. Why did you allege that I posted a comment by Stossel about poor people have a “free ride”, when no such comment was posted, and then not answer me when I first asked you about it above?

4. Why do you act as if it is somehow your decision to make to trespass on boards that you’ve been banned from, or that it is up to you to decide that one’s being banned from a given set of boards is something to be deciding by the public, when that has never been the modus operandi of any of the moderators? How can you justify a rule-breaking telling people in position of authority what they can and cannot do when that rule-breaker refuses to stop breaking the rules? You were told to stop insulting people, and that that would be your final warning. You responded by insulting me. In what way, therefore, would responding by banning you not be an appropriate consequence of this?

5. What is your response to my refutation of your advocacy of Straw Man arguments (or, as you put it, the “sounds like” argument)?

6. Why did you imply that I claimed to be a detractor of Stossel, when I never said any such thing, and when I made clear what the point was that I sought to illustrate by mentioning a subject on which I disagree with him?

7. Please tell me where I got “uptight” about Stossel, and tell me why you did not answer this question when I first put it to you.

8. If I am biased against your beliefs, as you continuously say, then why is the evidence not consistent with this? Why have I been happily responding, for the past several months, to your posts in which you promote government control and criticize capitalism without deleting your posts or banning you? You say “for some reason”, but why does it not occur to you that that simply isn’t the reason? Are you that unable to understand that you insulted other people, even after I warned you to stop, and that that is the reason you were banned? If so, why?

9. I illustrated how your profane and inappropriate “licking” comment was clearly directed at me, and not at “certain people in general”, as you falsely claimed. Why did you not answer this? What is your response to the material I provided that clearly shows that you were talking about me?

10. What is your response to my explanation of the distinction of lying and merely stating a falsehood? And again, why did you not respond to this when I first pointed it out to you on the Communism/Capitalism board?

11. Why have you repeated the statement that I never took part of the blame for the immigration post matter, when it was clear that I did, and when JoshM even pointed it out himself? Again, why did you not respond to this after I mentioned it in my last post above?

12. Why, after I point out that the tools of the Scientific Method are the best ones we have to explore issues of fact and reason, do you repeatedly use the bait-and-switch non sequitur of saying that in using those tools, that they “control” me, that this is mutually exclusive from compassion, and that using such tools to explore matters of fact is the same thing as exploring human interactions? Where, in all the posts in which I correctly pointed out that this was the correct methodology for empirical matters, did I say that it was also the correct methodology for human interactions?

13. Why did you not respond to my rebuttal of your comment about my “liking that ad hominem defense”? Why, if you dispute instances when I cite ad hominem, do you not simply say why, in your opinion, a given statement is not an example of ad hominem?

14. Why did you accuse me of fabricating things and of making ad hominem arguments—an accusation you have not made up until now—but not illustrate or elaborate on that charge with one example? Why did you say that I am guilty of everything that I accuse you of, when one of the things for which people such as yourself are so well known is the act of running away from answering a question directly (14 examples of which are right here), something that I strive not to do at all?

R: OK Mark you are quite right. I do not feel that I did anything excessively different than Luigi…
Luigi Novi: Okay. Please show me where I used profanity against you, threatened you, attacked your on the basis of where you were from, attacked you on the basis of how financially well-off I thought you were, told you that you had less worth as a person because of your beliefs, assumed sinister motives on your part when the evidence clearly indicated less sinister motives, ignored polite requests on your part to stop insulting you, trespassed on boards you moderate after being banned, and so forth.

R: Also Luigi about Peter. That also prooves that you do not check your facts and act in a summary matter. You may have thought he was already banned but YOU DID NOT DOUBLE CHECK YOU FACTS.
Luigi Novi: Please. You can’t even compose a post without checking enough to make sure that you don’t say things like “you facts”. By contrast, an occasional mistake on my part is hardly representative of my overall habits, and it’s not like I don’t cop to them when appropriate.

R: You merely saw him in your domain, disliked him and his posts and banned and removed him without consultation or consideration.
Luigi Novi: So in other words, you don’t believe me when I stated that I thought that he had been banned, and was simply following up on that? Can you tell me why not?

R: Also I discussed my cooments on the numbers game with my wife, my stepson and a freind of mine on yahoo. None of them coudl see how I was blaming you for anythign outside of the troubles that are on this website. Trying to say that I am blaming you for events going on in the real world is just indicative of your further hatred against me and bias towards me.
Luigi Novi: You clearly blamed me for adding to the stress of those things. Those are your words, which I quoted above.

In closing, I’d like to address the other visitors to this board. I’m sorry that it has come to this, but after eight months of rule-breaking behavior by R, not to mention quite civil responses to when others have attacked me on other boards, I think I’ve done a fairly good job of remaining civil and objective in the face of hostile behavior. What I ask from you is this:

Consider what R’s position essentially means in the greater scheme of things. If he flames someone, then he has a ready answer for it. It’s justified, because he was offended, or because I have somehow acted worse. If you warn him about this behavior, he will ignore you, as he’s done on more than one occasion. If you delete his posts or ban him, he will not recognize your authority or respect the fact that Phil put you in charge of a set of boards, because he feels that he alone should get to decide how his own rule-breaking should be adjudicated (you know, because that’s really “objective” of him). The natural conclusion of this position is that he can do………………..anything. Now if you’re not sure about this situation because you haven’t read the threads in question, then I’d ask that you do. Most of you who have participated in this current thread are moderators, and can access those threads even though they are closed. I can even email you a transcript of them. You can observe how R has behaved since his banning, which includes not only attacking me on other boards, but his behavior here on this. Look at those 14 instances in which he fabricated words on my part, or failed to answer quite legitimate questions on my part about his positions, and if you want to chime in with an opinion on this matter, then I would be curious to know what your take is on those things. If any one of the things I cited in that list—or elsewhere in this post are not cogent, then please tell me. And if a majority of them (or even all of them) are, then would you not say that my decision has been reasonable?

Phil Farrand's Decision.

I emailed Phil last night to inform him of R's banning. I explained to him the situation, provided a transcript of the various threads, including the posts that were deleted, and also directed him to the other boards where R has been posting, including the ones that had to closed, the Lost boards where and his wife insulted me, and the Moderator Actions board. His response, which I just received now:

Luigi!

The Political Musings board has always been a handful to moderate! Thanks for holding the line on this. If you think "R" should be banned, I'm with you!

Thanks for all your good work!

Phil

Luigi, okay.

I thought R calling you (indirectly) a SOB was incredibly out of line and the post should have been deleted. I see some of his other things (such as his comments to Dustin) as being ridiculous and flimsy, perhaps worthy of deletion, but I'm not sure about banning. The fact that he never responded to you implies many things, but again, it does not imply banning to me. I did read the thread, but it is hard to do so now obviously with R's posts deleted (are they in the Dump?).

Regarding Phil's decision: Fine. That's Phil's perogative and I respect his decision--I would personally have preferred a fuller discussion of it in the Moderator section of this website, but seeing as how it is your board and not the whole community, I can understand.

I would advise R to respect this wish, continue his discussions at RM and Kitchen Sink, among others, and perhaps work at an eventual reinstatement. I would not advise him to keep posting at PM or continue arguing with Luigi.

Note--I've also posted something in the Moderators section of the site about my feelings on the issue.

Mike, I didn't say that his refusal to respond "implies banning".

As far as the thread, beginning in September, it's all there, as the only posts that were deleted was his second post on immigration that he placed on the Communism/Capitalism board, the post that got him banned, and the ones he made subsequent to his banning, which didn't really comprise part of any "thread".

I've just emailed you an unedited transcript of the threads that date back to September that include his flames.

I've posted on the Moderator Messages board as well.

Hello all. I am R's wife. My husband collapsed from a heart attack this afternoon. He is in the local hospital in stable condition. He will be there for a few days according to the doctor for observation to make sure there was no lasting damage done. The paramedics did respond quickly and revive him in time they think though.

He wanted me to tell the few friends he has here that he will be alright and will not give up. But not to expect him to come back. He is going to be taking a break from here. He is sorry that things came to this and wants to know that those he considers friends are still welcome, and those who are enemies can rot in hades.

Luigi, I know that I cannot hold you totally and personally responsible for everything that has gone on in his life and all the stress he has been under, his worry about my illness and my inability to do anything about it have not helped. Neither has his inability to find a job, even though he has been trying his hardest. But your words, attitude, and actions have hurt him deeply and I do blame you as a contributing factor in his collapse today. You are a cold hearted SOB who lacks compassion for your fellow man and I sincerely hope that someday, somehow, you learn compassion. I want you to know that if anything happens to him I will never forgive you.

As for everyone else that he has spoken so warmly of here, I wish you nothing but the best and hope that your future is well. There is nothing that any of you can do or need to do, except if it is in your heart or nature to pray then do so if it makes you feel better. Our family is with us and we are working together to get through this.

I too will not be spending time on the internet due to my own illness and helping keep him from jumping right back on his feet after this. Thats the kind of person he is though. A deep cut is just a scratch, he would give you the shirt off his back if he was freezing to death, and he would take the food from his own plate to feed you. I don't understand why you did what you did Luigi but I hope you are happy.

Mary, I'm very sorry to hear about your husband's condition. I hope he gets better. Take care.

I hope R gets better as well and I think it would be best for him to take a break as well.

My best wishes to your husband as well, Mrs. R. My thoughts go out to him and yourself in this time of need.

Allow me to add my wishes as well.

And mine.

I send my best wishes as well.

However blaming Luigi for anything is stupid. R didn't have to keep coming back here and argueing if it was stressing him out so much!

I was preparing a rather large post in response to Luigi's and R's posts, but that seems rather pointless now.

I will simply say that I will keep you and your husband in my prayers.

And my wishes. I hope he gets well.

Anon, I also wish nothing but the best for R and hope he makes a full and speedy recovery. I hope things get better for both of you.

Mrs. R, Me sorry too.

I think it's time to close this thread and open a second board.

Agreed. Anybody who wants to post condolences for R and his wife, feel free to start a new thread if you wish.

I was just wondering for how long this "ban" of Luigi's is going to be in effect? If he thinks its for life thats a bit harsh for minor infractions that are not really that much more than what he himself has done. If its for somethign more reasonable (30 - 90 days) then I am more than willing to play along and go into exile for the duration. Otherwise the battle for freedom, equality and fairness will continue.

And I still say that since Luigi was involved in the argument he should have been forced to recuse himself from the consideration of "banning" anyone. A moderator who is involved in an argument with a poster should not have the right to "ban" them without a fair and impartial thrid party trial or arbitration as that person cannot be objective enough to rule without bias. OR at least the appearance of spiteful and retributive behavior. I mean you do not allow lawyers in trials to also be the judge for a reason.