MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Let me ease your concerns by clarifying that it was bot directed at you. It’s figure of speech. 

CB. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?
CB. Let me ease your concerns by clarifying that it was bot directed at you. It’s figure of speech. 

Chris, Assuming you meant, "it was not directed at you", I'm somewhat confused by "are you ok with that, Leslie"?

I repeat,  I'm not okay with equating the goose — fact-based comments related to the subject of the thread — with the gander — inflammatory, baseless propaganda.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

It was more than Google searching Chris. His behavior was way out of line. You make your good arguments based on free speech and fair play, and it’s hard to disagree in principle. But in fact he was disruptive and more. 
 

I know I am in the right, here. It’s not the fault of the forum posters, it’s the way this has been moderated (or the lack of). This is the archetypal double-standard. Disruptive describes a fair few of us, or anyone posting an alternative opinion or news source.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Can you supply definitive evidence of this? Otherwise, I think you may find this is libel and could get in trouble, Leslie. 

Chris, Are you asking who threatened me? Or who claimed that Koch stalked them?

Every lawyer knows never ask a question you don't know the answer.  

@Matthew Koch’s cousin is a lawyer. I’ll forward it on to Matthew and ‘que sera sera’. 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Matthew Koch’s cousin is a lawyer. I’ll forward it on to Matthew and ‘que sera sera’. 

Remember to include that I didn't make the claim.  I repeated a claim made by individuals I trust are knowledgeable of the incident. My experience with the Koch's of the internet is to exercise caution.  His posts are indicative of someone slightly unhinged.

You can also tell the cousin that I'll provide him with records of Koch's attempts at intimidation, gender bias, the works.  Be my guest, Chris.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

5 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Matthew Koch’s cousin is a lawyer. I’ll forward it on to Matthew and ‘que sera sera’. 

I was going to ask if you're in private communication with Matthew Koch. Did he share publicly that his cousin is a lawyer?

[Leslie Sharp]

11 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I know I am in the right, here. It’s not the fault of the forum posters, it’s the way this has been moderated (or the lack of). This is the archetypal double-standard. Disruptive describes a fair few of us, or anyone posting an alternative opinion or news source.

Has anyone suggested that your posts could be compared with those of disruptor Matthew Koch? Do you not recognize the distinction, and are you okay with Matthew's baseless inflammatory comments on what was meant to be a serious discussion thread? Do you agree that the end result was "chaos" which brought the forum into question in general?  Was that his agenda?

[Leslie Sharp]

34 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Respectfully, that’s nonsense. In my opinion you can’t get over the fact that you felt humiliated, for days in debate. You hold @Matthew Koch partly responsible for retorts. Isn’t it time you got over it, moved on? Just a week ago, you said you weren’t sure if you could. I even reached out with an olive branch. You and @Matthew Koch both slighted eachother. 

Felt humiliated?  Where did you come up with that distortion, Chris? You're aware it's a reflection on your discernment.

You seem obsessed with Mr. Koch, and I consider him a distraction, and an energy vampire on a serious forum. Why are you beating this horse?

Can you place my remark "weren't sure if I could" in context?

[Bob Ness]

18 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Felt humiliated?  Where did you come up with that distortion, Chris? You're aware it's a reflection on your discernment.

You seem obsessed with Mr. Koch, and I consider him a distraction, and an energy vampire on a serious forum. Why are you beating this horse?

Can you place my remark "weren't sure if I could" in context?

Just drop it, Leslie. It's important not to feed the them.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I guess the bar is low in 2023. 
There is a contradiction here. You claim he is ‘dangerous’ but, then you continue to disparage him. Wouldn’t that put you more at risk? 🙂  

It’s a bit like you implying I am a Russian paid agent or something similar. Wouldn’t that put you in danger? 

I am also astonished that @W. Niederhut thinks @Benjamin Cole is a problem. He is a nice guy who speaks his mind politely. 

If I implied you were a Russian paid agent, would that put me in danger? I don't know, I guess that would depend on who you were. If someone implied that about me, I'd laugh it off - precisely as I've laughed it off when folks here have implied I'm some sort of CIA plant or agent of cognitive dissonance. If I had reason to think you might be unbalanced or unhinged or actually were a Russian agent and that implying as much might set you off, I simply wouldn't imply it in even a humorous way. I'd just notify my handlers at Langley and let them deal with you.

I don't know Matthew from a hole in the ground. I know nothing but what he posted in response to me and what I later saw of his dealings with Paul. For all I know, I might find him an enjoyable person to have a few Guinness Stouts with. I don't see that I've said anything "derogatory" about him - certainly nothing close to what he said about me - except that his posts gave me concern as to who or what I might be dealing with. I don't need it, which is why I asked Kathy to delete my account.

When Matthew said he was going to put me on Ignore, I replied in a lighthearted vein that threatening to put people on Ignore is "the last refuge of a scoundrel" on internet forums. This was obviously, or so I thought, simply a play on the old saying that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. When Matthew took umbrage, I explained that I was simply playing with words. He then persisted with the "scoundrel" theme and embarked on what others described as stalking and I at least say was rather odd and concerning behavior. I tried to deal with that in a lighthearted manner as well, but he persisted and even badly mischaracterized the material he was finding. Whereupon, I didn't demand that he be punished or banned but simply said the hell with the forum.

Perhaps Matthew is entirely harmless. But I, Paul and others should not have to have these sorts of concerns when posting on an internet forum. It appears to me that Matthew was given ample opportunity to rein himself in. He chose not to do so.

I believe you're off-base in your belief that Matthew was banned for anything to do with his political views. Good Lord, the forum puts up with near-insanity from both ends of the political spectrum. I'm not privy to any inside information, but I believe the moderators simply decided his behavior was of a type they were unwilling to put up with. I believe your efforts to turn this into a libertarian "cause" about free speech, fairness, authoritarianism and whatnot are badly misguided, sincere as they may be.

I've been summarily banned from four major Christian forums - not a word of warning or explanation - despite the fact that the depth of my theological studies and understanding exceeds that of 99.9% of my fellow Christians. Sure, it irked me and my followers at the time, but I had to admit my posts didn't mesh with the culture the forum owners were trying to preserve and were upsetting to some of the most valued forum regulars. It was indeed authoritarian and unfair in some abstract sense, but I could understand it and live with it.

Internet forums just aren't public forums where the First Amendment applies. They are private enterprises, operated according to the rules of the owners. If we don't like the way they are administered, the answer is to move on. I've been on forums of many types since the dawn of the internet, and I don't think I've ever been on one where at least half the participants didn't think the moderators were arbitrary and capricious authoritarians. Maybe you can start the very first truly libertarian internet forum, perhaps in conjunction with a utopian commune, and see how that goes?

[Leslie Sharp]

4 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Just drop it, Leslie. It's important not to feed the tr@lls.

I'm new here, Bob, and thus far I've no sense Chris is a xxxxx, unless perhaps on behalf of Koch.  I hope he doesn't prove me wrong.

And you probably know from experience that allowing declarative statements such as "you felt humiliated" to go unchallenged indicates the commenter is "right."  I didn't feel humiliated. I did however see Koch's stripes, agent provocateur. Let's hope Chris is not so mesmerized that it's not lost on him. 

[Bob Ness]

9 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm new here, Bob, and thus far I've no sense Chris is a xxxxx, unless perhaps on behalf of Koch.  I hope he doesn't prove me wrong.

And you probably know from experience that allowing declarative statements such as "you felt humiliated" to go unchallenged indicates the commenter is "right."  I didn't feel humiliated. I did however see Koch's stripes, agent provocateur. Let's hope Chris is not so mesmerized that it's not lost on him. 

Yeah, I know. And I appreciate your participation. It's important not to feed them. They'll starve to death and go somewhere else.

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Yeah, I know. And I appreciate your participation. It's important not to feed them. They'll starve to death and go somewhere else.

I hear you.

[Matt Allison]

If there is this much lobbying spam for the misogynistic misinformationist Mathew Koch in the public forum, I shudder to think of the interminable missives directed at the mod's private inbox.

Stop trying to gaslight everyone, Chris Barnard. This is an embarrassing spectacle.

[John Cotter]

The pile-on here against @Matthew Koch and @Chris Barnard is a convenient distraction from the fact that moderator @Mark Knight has still not addressed the important points Chris Barnard has put to him.

Why is Mark Knight unable or unwilling to address these points?

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The pile-on here against @Matthew Koch and @Chris Barnard is a convenient distraction from the fact that moderator @Mark Knight has still not addressed the important points Chris Barnard has put to him.

Why is Mark Knight unable or unwilling to address these points?

Chris is piling it on Mark don’t you think? Is Mark obligated to respond? It seems like most of us are in agreement that Matthew was corrosive, and are not upset he is gone. Mark is within his rights to do so. Would you agree?