Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    life sciences

proximity1's Achievements


Atom (5/13)



  1. Technical note: many here shall be quite pleased to hear that, due to a construction-site accident, my usual internet access is now and for about a week to come (as I understand it) severely limited. In the circumstances, I'm using that very limited time for other internet needs rather than reading and replying here. I'll get back to this when the repairs have been effected.
  2. Try informing yourself further. DId you read the article by Greenwald I cited above? The following comes from it ( and there are links to other articles which further substantiate the flawed reasoning going on by Trump's critics in this case: Fact : the Podesta e-mail files which Wikileaks published were "protected" by a password which was "password." The most damning aspect pointing up the veracity of this fact is that, a) Podesta has never flatly denied its truth, nor have there been any of the screaming headlines of its falsehood which should surely have quickly followed if it had not been true. Instead, critics replied with the claim that this "lacks evidence." It does not. Assange verified in his interview with Hannity that, indeed, Podesta used "password" as a password. in the face of this, the Obama administration's campagin reveals itself as shameless propaganda of the "WMD" sort.
  3. I've cited numerous examples in threads of a non-science topic (Politics, for example), noting about various comments from the in-group's members the kind of shoddy reasoning which is quickly censored when moderators find a newbie posting (even in a non-science area) comments of which the moderator simply doesn't approve. There may indeed by flaws in the reasoning--the fact is that these kinds of flaws are common here in non-science threads from the mutually-supporting in-group. They simply are ignored, left to stand. And when I noted them, I got called down for--guess what!?--that's right: rule violation. I'm expected--epxlicitly called on- to have a prepared a clear case in advance, full of examples. Well, that's not because this is what's routinely done here by all in all areas of discussion. It's because my thesis is sensitive and the in-group members don't like it. Again, their opinions in non-science discussions are not subjected to the sort of hostile scruntiny that Tom O'Neil received for venturing into a theory about the VM. While I didn't find his arguments particularly compelling, I saw no reason to come down on him in the way that was done. I could have mounted a stronger defense of his position--without regard for the congency of his arguments on the VM--but I didn't bother. What O'Neil actually sought and asked for was some specific assistance from a person competent in programming who might help him run a statistically-based analysis of his ideas and see if the results bear out. In short, he was looking help in advancing a test of his theory. According to his critics here, such a test should have certainly shown that there was no valid correlation going on. And I happen to agree with that expectation. But it's no good reason to have given him such rude short-shrift. That he was trying to find a developer for a testing program should have been allowable without prejudice as to the theory's merits per se. Again, no less preposterous things are maintained here and they're maintained by members in good standing and who enjoy the favor of all the right people here so they get nothing like the severe treatment that O'Neil got. I've been answered with ad hominem arguments, begging the question, diversions from the point, name-calling, hyperbole and none of it has drawn any correction from a moderator. The occasions when another member has even dared to timidly take my views in this matter as having even a possibiltiy of some, however partial, validity are fascinating in their rareness. It speaks of a community which either has a coincidental herd-mentality or which lives under a certain accepted intimidation as "well, that's how we roll here." Don't make no waves, don't rock no boats. In O'Neil's case, there's a clear bias at work in the way he was treated--and that's something apart from the merits or lack of them in his theory. What's going on is a stubborn, wilfull self-serving blindness. This comes as no surprise to me. However, it comes some 140 posts into this thread. Moreover, despite all that effort, which I don't doubt in the least, the moderating practices remain utterly opaque. A regular participant like Tom could have no idea that his effort would be so roundly squashed. Yes, several of you posed questions and made critiques of the flaws. I don't object to that. What I object to is a so complete and summary dismissal of his effort to enlist some programmer's help. No one here bothered to disprove his theory. Instead, the fact that it wasn't liked was entirely sufficient to shut down his appeal. Had he been allowed to find that programming help, the statistics should have done your work for you-- he'd have seen, on testing the expectations, that they don't bear out. This crusader-attitude here where a non-science topic is concerned is really clearly biased in my view and I've given examples of how it isn't consistent. You don't like it, but, yes, as for "one example," you've got several. Try being just a tiny bit more honest with yourself. I would say what's most lacking, obviously, is even a start at some genuine transparency. The moderating processes are utterly unaccountable to the readership. That this may be a common feature at many sites doesn't make it any the more just in principle.
  4. No, I don't. The pretense from the site's moderators and its favored clique that, in effect, "we just don't get it" is laughably transparent in its disingenuousness. These people are quite intelligent. They get it. Pretending to be astonished at allegations of bias are ridiculous from such smart people. Throughout the thread, any disinterested reader can follow their various tactics-- from calls for a thorough exampled case-like dossier of proofs (when the evidence is literally reeking) to calls for "if you don't like it here, just leave," are those of people who are practiced in deflection, double-talk, resort to their own self-serving double-standards. Nothing is more predictable than that they'd make a pretentious show of their "tolerance" by allowing this thread to go on for a while. But that didn't preclude their moving it and peppering it with moderator thinly-veiled threats--all the usual treatment that out-group members can expect to get here.
  5. "whistle-blower"-schmistle-blower, the point is not about the use, whether strictly apt or not, of the term "whistle-blower." The information revealed in the Podesta e-mails constituted information of genuinely legitimate interest and use to an informed electorate in the course of a presidential campaign. RE the above emphasized assertion, see : and the article to which the reader's comment responded : The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer Glenn Greenwald January 11 2017, 3:35 p.m. Nothing "Alt-right" about this article, its author or the site at which it is published. Your retraction of the assertion that "the only outlets claiming that it was whistleblower are RT (a Russian outlet) and some alt-right websites (note the Julian Assange Show is broadcasted on RT" is weclome.
  6. @ 128 : That suggests that you, who happen to be a moderator, have gone from thread to thread reading numerous--or all--of my recent posts. It's not that hard to do: the threads number about three and the posts number--today--something under a dozen I guess not counting this one. And I guess your doing that is just sheer coincidence--unrelated to the fact that I've been raising points critical of aspects of the site's operating habits, unrelated to my being part of what could arguably be called this "out-group" I've mentioned in the course of my argument in _this_ thread. But your very recent reading of post after post of mine today across three threads wouldn't be a calculated act of surveillance because we know moderators here harbor no invidious bias against members of some hypothetical "out-group." So you must merely find my comments interesting--and not some potential source-material for a critical post which you had already formed some expectations of being able to present, given sufficient time following my posts. We know that moderators don't just go looking for rule violations on the part of out-group members because there are none here--and no biases of motive or intent in finding and calling out violations, either. Everything moderators do here is done innocently. People alleging bias here are simply axe-grinders--unlike moderators, who never dream of doing such stuff. Meanwhile, I was specifically challenged to show where there was clear evidence to support my claims or risk seeing the discussion closed--not because the topic itself is unwelcome but simply because, in fairness, the charge wasn't supported with good evidence. How exactly I was supposed to collect this evidence without looking for it in both examples of in-group favoritism as well as out-group members getting attention, correction and warning for the same faults which go uncommented when in-group members commit them--that wasn't explained. As I say, it occurs to me that there's a routine double standard applied here with out-group members held to impossible demands and expectations from which in-group members are excused.
  7. @127 "I don't have the time to read every post, but I do for the most part have the time to read every reported post." Of course you don't-- no more than I have time to track, log and classify every moderator-act of Swansont and present it tied up with a bow as irrefutable proof that this site's moderation fairly screems its biases--and, above all his biases. There are simply too many. It would be briefer work to just collect any valid-sized random sample of his interventions among newbies and among his in-group allies and make comparisons of disparaging terms he employs across the two samples--but I lack both the technology and the time for even that task. However, it's the kind of work the social anthropologists I cited with the NYT article can do qnd that's why I recommended that they do some analysis of the practice here.
  8. @ 19 Often Wikileaks can independently check and verify submissions because the facts alleged don't depend on knowledge of the source's identity. That one _may_ submit anonymously surely doesn't preclude WL's occasional need to know the source's identity or their pledge to protect that source's privacy--does it, in your opinion? Do you seriously dispute that, as a logical necessity, unless you allege that Assange is lying (as Delta1212 contends we should always assume to be the case), Assange would have to know--or be confident of another's knowing-- the identity of the source or he couldn't state categorically that the source was _not_ Russian or a state actor, right? In this case it seems from what Assange has said that it's clear that: the Podesta emails came from a source who either voluntarily revealed his or her identity to WL because that supported the person's account, or WL informed the source that WL couldn't publish without this knowledge. And thus Assange or his trusted assistance know this S ID And the S is an insider, not a "state"/government actor or a foreign based agent. Why should that view be rejected? Do you see anything there implausible? If so, what? @ 2O : "I did not say that no evidence presented by Assange is credible simply because it comes from Assange." "In fact, I specifically referenced the fact that, were Assange presenting credible evidence, then attacking his credibility instead of addressing the evidence would indeed be an ad hominem. I said that Assange has not presented any evidence, and in the absence of evidence, I am disinclined to take his word for it." ----> @13 : "Delta1212 Primate Senior Members 2,267 posts Posted Today, 01:16 PM "I stopped believing anything Julian Assange says a long time ago. The man is a hypocritical egomaniac with a personal motto of 'privacy for me but not for thee.' "
  9. @ 17 Again: if the patently shoddy attempt in post 17 isn't rebuked for its fallacies, how except moderator bias does one account for what would draw withering rebuke if it had come from an out-group member-- one pushing an unfavored opinion? Assange's claim is dismissed preemptively on nothing but the assertion that no evidence sourced on his word is receivable as credible for no other ground than that he is the source-- a classic ad hominem argument. For Swansont : "Exhibit D" _____________________ @ 16 : "Exhibit E"
  10. First, Delta1212 @ 13 offers us an ad hominem argument against Assange. No challenge of that from CharonY or any moderator; yet ad hominem arguments are classic faux pas of reasoning. But, well, who cares? It's acceptable here to attack Assange in that manner. It's "in-group" approved practice. Second, In order for Assange to know that the source wasn't Russian or even depending on the Russians, he had to be aware of the source's identity--and he is. He has said the source comes from within the ranks of the U.S. political establishment. You weren't aware of this? You do know that Wikileaks requires sources to demonstrate that their claims are bona fide, right? You do know that, unless Wikileaks can verify either the data's veracity or the source's credibility beyond all doubt, or both, they don't publish, right? Thirdly, RE this: " cybersecurity analyses have shown that a security breach was behind the leaks, i.e. assuming legal access is more than unlikely, and I am not sure why you would try to argue otherwise." Which cybersecurity analyses? The servers and portable drives had been tainted as evidence before the F.B.I.'s own analysts bothered to examine them for this, hadn't they? Do we know which specific hardware was breached? Was it Oodesta's own? Some others in his e-mail circles? Who's word are we taking on this point? And why? Fourth, re-read this carefully, for it's exactly right: "Even Assange is not asserting that they were obtained illegally." {sic} Where's the usual moderator-enforced intellectual rigor invariably demanded "toute de suite" from the out-group's members? For Swansont: "Exhibit C"
  11. @ 123 Let's be clear: I am reporting on my personal anecdotally-based experience here in this site--though that experience goes beyond my own posts and includes what I consider biased treatment of others with whom I have nothing more in common than posting comments here. In thread after thread of a non-science sort, secure in-group members hold forth ad libitem with nothing more beneath their high-wire act than anecdotal experience. And they're typically not called down for failing to present a raft of peer-reviewed data to back up their anecdotes. How about that!? True--I have certainly not done what it seems you'd like to require me to produce on demand: an annotated case file of examples which conclusively show to _your_ satisfaction that the bias I see as rife here exists. Tell me straight out if that is the sort of burden you're seeking to place me under. Otherwise, specifically, exactly how many examples do you require I submit? And, please: lay it all out in advance; I am not going to enjoy completing a deliberately tedious and onerous homework assignment only to learn that I must then follow up with a subsequent set of demands. If this were my professional work, I'd subpoena your entire record of moderating interventions and assign a staff of legal assistants to comb through it and compile from one hundred to five hundred of the most glaring examples of your biased judgements. Then, I'd call you to take the stand and testify under oath about that body of evidence. If you were the sort of reasonable person I would so prefer you to show yourself to be, instead of acting like I'm just under nothing short of a prosecutor's burden to build and present a case beyond a reasonable doubt, you'd instead receive my comments alone as sufficient cause for you to undertake some simple and voluntary introspection about your fairness as a moderator. Instead, a fascinating defensiveness is what characterizes your responses. Are you so completely alien to the concept that you might actually be biased in your practice here that the suggestion of it fills you with only resentment and not the slightest idea that there could be something to it and that, to see it, you needn't have a full legal brief prepared? Again: is your post @ 123 in your capacity as a moderator or something else? It's that kind of ambiguity I mean by a convenient double standard. ETA : IN this thread alone, for example, I had to restore the hyperlink to the New York Times article when a moderator deleted the link to the full article I'd included. That's an example of a candidate for a "Freudian slip"--even if inadvertently done. Then, in exchanges with Strange, I alone objected when he took my words out of context. Why didn't a moderator see fit to make that objection? @ 124 ••• The long term members here are the most factually honest people I've come across in any forum ••• ••• I can't join you in that judgement. As for this : ••• "you would see feisty arguments between everybody at sometime or other, regardless of how much they may like the person..... even between mods. Evidence is king and if someone believes the other is wrong then they will say so. There have been more than a few occasions when normally amiable members have had to 'have a shower'. The ones between people where a particular subject may be their day job are quite fun to watch. Peer review is alive and well. here." It's rather my point: you and they simply constitute this "in-group" I refer to. There is certainly nothing about such a group which precludes their disagreement among each other. Indeed, as they can nearly always be counted on for loyalty _to each _other_ vis à vis an out-group forum member, this intramural disputation they can show is the more comfortable for the fact that they know they're safely among their mutually protecting peers.
  12. @ 11: RE: "I am surprised that OP does not take into consideration that the information was obtained illegally and did not actually expose any criminal actions (i.e. would not even come close to whistle blowing)." In fact, the best source (Julian Assange of Wikileaks) has repeatedly said that the data came from a source within the U.S. and, as I understand it, was one which may well have had legal access to the files. No one has shown anything in compelling public evidence to the contrary. No credible source has refuted Assange's assertions about the provenance of the data. Instead, the elite-supporting mainstream media harp on and on about Russian sources as though Assange had not definitively rebutted that claim. Note: we're concerned here with the e-mail files from John Podesta and their revelation's reamifications for the campaign of Hillary Clinton. This doesn't mean that Russian, on its own account, never makes attempts to break into and steal data via networked somputer communications systems. I don't doubt the Russians attempt this. The point, however, is that all of the information revealed was, according to all the best publicly-available information due to sources which were not dependent on the Russian government for access or for the files. The point is that, in taking into account the content of these revealed e-mail messages, not only were prospective voters doing nothing wrong, not only were they legally entiteled to take such information into account, the fact that many did so does not by any sane stretch of the imagination constitute "interference" or "meddling" in the U.S. election. As has been pointed out repeatedly, any reputable U.S. news organization which could have come into possession of these same data should have been eager to and expected to reveal them to the public in their reporting. Come on! ____________________ (Rrealclearpolitics.com) WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: Russian Government Was Not Source For Podesta, DNC Emails Posted By Tim Hains On Date December 15, 2016 JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS: Our source is not the Russian government. SEAN HANNITY: So let me be clear: Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC. ASSANGE: Correct. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/wikileaks_julian_assange_russian_government_was_not_source_for_podesta_dnc_emails.html) Assange: "Our source is not a state party. So the answer -- for our interactions -- is no," Assange told anchor Sean Hannity from his quarters at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has lived under diplomatic protection since 2012. (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politics/assange-wikileaks-hannity-intv/)
  13. @ 121 Basically, my view is that the terms of the rules of behavior in these discussion fora are rather vague and that this is only partly due to the inherent nature of language itself. It's also partly due to the fact that vague terms allow the site's moderators and decision-makers to apply rules with a convenient arbitrariness that makes a comfortable seat for their own biases. In short, they and those ((ETA) other members) who are reliably their silent or vocal supporters constitute what amounts to a de facto “in-group,” here with a self-protecting culture that perpetuates the biases. Those of the in-group will typically deny their its existence and their part in it, seeing themselves as “just like everyone else here,” but they defend what amounts to a little closed-shop rule which keeps those who are “in,” “in,” and keeps the rest—especially those who don't openly conform to dominant opinion here—on the back foot, second-guessing what is allowed and what is not allowed. This does not mean that in the rules and their application there's a complete and total lack of any clear idea of what is not allowed. It means, rather, that there exists a double-standard of interpretation and application by which those who are seen as friendly and supportive get easier, less strict and more forgiving treatment in the supervision of the content of their comments, the rigor of their arguments and reasoning which others, not viewed as friendly and supportive are denied. It is very hard for me to escape the impression that if they're treated differently it is because they are not regarded as among the “in-group.” Nor am I claiming that it's impossible to find any exceptions at all in a site the homepage of which cites, at this writing : 926,277 Total Posts 83,845 Total Members . There are bound to be a relative few cases which serve as tokens to which the staff can point and claim that these (rather rare) examples prove that there isn't any such systematic bias or double-standard at work here. The point is that, even if taken all together, these cases fall very far short of demonstrating the typical practice. They demonstrate the atypical because they are not the same as what is usually done the great majority of the time. I don't mean to suggest that the above completely exhaust all the aspects of my views on the topic but it presents the essentials as I see them.
  14. I'm leaving it at this for the day : Re: "It was your word. I am not a mind reader. False. It wasn't "my" word in the context in which _you_ used it in that instance. Thus, you took a word I used out of its original context and used it disingenuously in a different context. That's an intellectually dishonest tactic. And since you say you're not a mind reader, you ought to refrain from taking my words out of context. RE my: For what do I owe an apology specifically? & your: "Accusing them of hypocrisy when you really meant bias." See above. That's your opinion, not mine. Re : "Unsubstantiated claims of bias." Again, your opinion. I don't regard your opinion on that as having any definitive probative value as you're not a disinterested party to this discussion. "You could apologise to the whole membership for just being an annoying tick, while you are at it. :)" Implies that what you're finding as _my_ "being an annoying tick" in this case is a widely-held view. And you've taxed _me_ with unsubstantiated allegations! Again, do you speak from the position of one of the approved in-group here and have, by that place, a privileged status? I think an impartial arbiter is missing here.
  15. @ 116 "Does that mean that you admit your original charge of hypocrisy for enforcing the rules was misguided and wrong?" No, it doesn't mean that. Note. ----> ETA : Actually, though this thread is entitled "Hypocrisy" the actual allegation is more correctly stated as "bias." So, again, in typical fashion, you substitute one word for another of mine to try a make a damming case that's not quite accurate. Can you explain your point? "would you care to apologise to the moderators now?" For what do I owe an apology specifically?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.