I am not censoring, just choosing what is interesting to me
Well, that;s what I mean about âfollowing in their footstepsâ - see, they also
were ânot censoringâ - just ask them! Redefining words was one of their main lying techniques. I consider it a privilege to have earned a PhD in âRecognizing Disinformation Techniquesâ from over a decade of exposure to their endlessly-shifting lies and false storytelling. I mean it - I really learned a lot. Now I see it everywhere, but I learned it from them. One of the most insidious means of lying and abuse of others is their techniques of redefining words at a whim. By redefining words, one can make almost any statement seem âtrueâ, regardless of the facts. It is impossible to win an argument with someone who will keep redefining every word until they think they got their way. It is also impossible to win an argument with someone who cannot admit when they have lost an argument. At some point, successful interaction with another human requires that both have a sense of honesty, fairness, and good will. Without that, there is no hope, which is why you see some societies in endless and hopeless decay - insufficient honesty, fairness, and good will. Nobody can save such people from themselves.
Itâs funny how this message has drawn the ire of some commentators. What is it about? Kite Eigen Frequency. I did not know this subject. After some research, I could see that it had been treated, and I provided the link to a scientific publication.
This is the first time I have seen so many complaints about a subject that has already generated at least one scientific paper.
At the time of the launch of this topic, I can say that my comment was almost the only one on topic. But since the whole topic has been moved and integrated into an existing topic, my comment has been drowned in a set of complaints that have nothing to do with the original topic, nor with the existing topic.
So I can only complain about these complaints.
2 Likes
I donât know if the topic is interesting, it might well be, in some marginal cases. It was butchered however by the text, and in this instance I didnât feel like giving the author the benefit of the doubt that they may improve on it, as they didnât in too many previous cases.
2 Likes
The term âauthorâ does not correspond to the term âtheyâ.
Who is âthe authorâ? Or who are âtheyâ?
By censoring you would prevent people from expressing their opinion freely. Choosing not to read something is not censoring, merely selection.
As I am not actively engaged in moderation I am not even able to perform censoring. Anyways, we are way off topic, so this may be a good candidate for promotion to «slow chat» so those who are into eigenfrequencies may have this space for themselves
1 Like
Oh, OK, I was responding to your previous statement:
1 Like
It typically occurs with an unspecified antecedent
This is not the case, because the author is not unspecified, even if there is still an ambiguity. Therefore, âtheyâ that you use is plural, as usual in almost all cases.
The âauthorâ can refer to John Oyebanji (@AweEnthusiast) or Dave Santos. Which one do you choose?
âTheyâ necessarily refers to John Oyebanji AND Dave Santos. In addition you wrote âas they didnât in too many previous casesâ, but that cannot concern John alone, since his account is recent, dating only from July 29 of this year. Concerning Dave, this makes no sense since he is banned as you know.
1 Like
My usage of the singular they is correct, I chose to ignore the gender of the person as that is often unknown and not relevant in a discussion. Very strictly speaking I donât know their gender either, I can only make assumptions, which I have no interest in, as you should know. If I somehow used it incorrectly, despite grammar being descriptive rather than prescriptive and me not following a style guide, from context it is clear that my they is singular, as I didnât write âauthors.â
The author of the text is Santos, I donât need to choose.
I chose they to emphasize the pretense of the impartiality of the decision. It doesnât matter who they are, the decision is a consequence of their actions, not of their person.
As a fairly observant native English speaker, this would be a normal sentence:
âIf a person jaywalks, they could get a ticket.â
or
âIf anyone jaywalks, they could get a ticket.â
The author is specified:
So the term âtheyâ cannot apply, being moreover attached to a particular circumstance (as they didnât in too many previous cases).
The terms they and also the impartiality of the decision rather signal an aporetic situation by designating both the banned author (Dave Santos) on whom a so-called impartial decision is applied after the ban (!), and the account holder (@AweEnthusiast) who is affected.
Thanks @PierreB for your objectivity.
The unfair treatment of this topic by a seemingly ignorant arbiter is more confirmatory to me of favouritism towards certain concepts by current forum moderators; than allowing for open learning and cooperative research which is what the forum is for.
1 Like
Hello John, you just have given an appropriate answer on the substance. I was only talking about the form.
1 Like
I do not think this âtopicâ should be hidden. It places âmoderatorsâ in a position of âabsolute powerâ, while reducing the voice of everyone else to zero if they disagree with the endless attempts at a pretense of no idiots on here. As a subject, wind energy is a magnet for crackpots, AWE is a neodymium supermagnet. Thatâs who is here. Thatâs who tends to want to run forums on it. Deal with it. You canât hide it. Let;s have transparency of the insanity this subject attracts. One might note that there is not always that much left to say in AWE. Only so much you can expect for substituting online discussions for actual experimentation and productivity. At some point, in lieu of any actual AWE activity taking place, the idle unfounded fantasies of complete, proven, nutcases is all youâve got left. As many have pointed out in other venues, the responsible thing is not to silence views one disagrees with, it is to provide calm, reasoned rebuttals. Hiding this subject is chicken-shit.
1 Like
Yes, well, youâve got a point. But itâs too much trouble. Now much less so with Dave suspended, but still. Who wants to spend their time giving reasoned rebuttals to someone trying to police their use of âtheyâ for example, or Gish galloping or twisting words or whatever else, it just adds more noise and wastes everyoneâs time, especially the moderatorâs. The reduced attention from it being a hidden topic and it being easier to just stop replying after a few attempts is good I think. A good complaint with a chance of success would reference the FAQ but I rarely see that.
And really, just read and respect the FAQ or similar. Why should everyoneâs time be wasted by the tiny but very vocal minority who canât manage even that.
The FAQ, or similar, has that position. If an appeal successfully argues that a comment was not in violation of the FAQ then it should be successful.
1 Like
The acts of moderation would not need to be hidden if they were impartial.
1 Like
The implied need to hide supposed partial moderator actions was not a part of the reasoning. You can read some of my reasoning above.
Moderation could be more consistent though, perhaps. But since it is a messy thing, messy things will keep happening, especially if messy things keep happening.
You could, or could not really if you think about it, put this under every forward looking statement. With that it is meta-commentary and not on-topic here.