hear, hear! now THIS really makes sense.

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by billybob]

So anyway, are you going to give specifics or just keep wandering off on irrelevant topics baked?

Was bigsage disciplined for having opinions that contradict this elusive staff member, or for breaking the rules of the board?

Also as far as deleting posts go, the problem there it gives the offendera wider range to be creative with their subsequent statements to other members regarding the deletion. Unless posts are massively offensive to other members (and serve no other purpose) they will generally not be deleted. Other methods such as global ignore, locking, and editing will suffice a lot of the time. (plus it allows other board members to see and judge the character of the offender themselves.

Kano has more wisdom and powers of explanation than the diluted-down blend of two undrinkable beers of his alter ego's name would suggest.

Ok, lets look at the first post and see if it makes any sense.



The topic that big sage started seems to focus on an experiment of some sort. Of course the research question (dare we call it that) focuses on generalizing an action/adventure movie with a great story into real life.



Ok, so research hypothesis #1: People who do not have faith think that they know everything.

Research hypothesis #2: Big sage doesn't think that he knows everything, even though he "professes" to know that everything will be revealed. This particular hypothesis seems contradictory (i.e. I don't know everything but I know everything will be revealed.)

Profess: To affirm openly; declare or claim (courtesy dictionary.com).




Ah, a methods/procedure section perhaps, an account of a naturalistic observation?



"We" are concurrently allied and yet at war with the same individual at the same time. "War" is not operationally defined. The "we" term is never operationally defined, and neither is "agent" (even though it is mentioned that there is a transcription)

However, "we" can assume that this agent is a physical person because "the agent" has a face that we can read and observe. I'd also like to point out that if we are doing an experiment on "how to notice" such an agent, talking about the abstract concept of "war" is actually a diversion. We still have no idea what in the hell an agent looks like, even though supposedly we can "see" this individual's face.



Is this the discussion section of the experiment? Or the results? So finally, bigsage has the last most righteouss laugh. While experimenter satisfaction may be a motivational factor in research, this particular statement stands as another diversion away from the original research question as well as the stated research hypotheses.



Courtesy: Dictionary.com

Is it appropriate for someone who is in accordance with morality and virtue to have the last laugh? Sounds like a vindictive reaction rather than a moral claim, as morality and virtue are intended to prevent the separation and "war" of peoples. Yet we are also informed of the following--



So you have someone who is having the last "morally upright" laugh, and who also happens to believe that there only exists one love for all people (even though it is supposedly essential that "we" need to notice the "agent"-- classic "Us vs. Them" paradigm, demonstrating by definition that there is more than 1 love.



Again, this refers to singling out one individual who is clearly not part of the morally upright "we", and yet a part of the "1 love".

Confused? I'm still confused.



No comment.


[Edited on 5-11-2003 by MKULTRA]

I thought all this bigsage business was finished, and I happen upon this thread created by Baked.

I'd like to just comment about that fiasco. bigsage opened a thread to get attention, but made it more of his stage to perform utter nonsense. If you happened to pick out and understand fragments of what he was saying than I applaud you for your logic and reasoning skills. As I and many others didn't understand any comments bigsage made..

Baked.. you seem to be of sound mind. Try to make sense of this

MRE:


bigsage's response"


MRE Asked:


bigsage replied:


Evidently I am one of those agents.. even though my only goal was to find out why he believed ATS was being infiltrated. I never spouted any personal comments at him.. I just asked my questions to try and understand and he kept on with his performance, pussy footing around..

So Baked.. if you understood him well enough. Answer my questions.

Sorry, forgot the rest:




I see no evidence of "sociodemographic" compilation, no demonstration (nor operational definition) of a reptilian mind, and no referral to programming (nor operational definition) in the research statements.

To further add to the confusion:



Courtesy: dictionary.com



In addition to there only being "1 love", now the original poster is claiming that his/her research has sociological implications.



If we are dealing with "reptilians" and "agents", then we are not dealing with sociology.

OK,I was the one who put Bigsage on Global Ignore.

I did so because I received a number of complaints on the issue of him posting his irrelevent philisophical musings in the middle of threads and taking them off topic.

Masked Avatar describes Global Ignore as a ATS behavior modification program which makes it sound like something out of Anthony Burgess' Clockwork Orange.

This is not the case.

If I see a fair number of members involved in various topic discussions and one new member comes and ruins their discussion and takes it off track then I have a duty to the majority of members to do something.

One of the tools at my disposal is Global Ignore.I can make a members posts invisible therebye allowing the thread of discussion to go on without the inane ramblings of one new member destroying the enjoyment of the majority.
The advantage of using this tool is that I also have the ability to remove the Global Ignore.
Bigsage already had 3 warnings and so I felt this was not having the desired effect and not wanting to see a new member banned I put him on Global Ignore for 24 hrs.It was always my intention that it should be for 24 hrs.
I do not have the ability to remove posts from the forums in question.For me that was not an option and as I was alone at the time I had to act in some way.

I have no problem about justifying my actions as a moderator I do it anyway in Cosmic

[Edited on 5-11-2003 by John bull 1]

I have no problems with the decision you outlined above either, John bull 1.

But no, I did not link the Global Ignore policy to Anthony Burgess.

In fact, on the other thread, I was quite specific. I linked it to Skinner, because the application is analogous, and I specifically disattributed the work of Pavlov and Bandura.

I always found Big sage highly entertaining and strangly interesting. I do agree that his babbling did often get in the way of threads and I totaly don't agree with the abuse that he is supposed to have been giving out. Ahhh well.