Ban Mitch?

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

How bad is Mitch's behavior?

0 = Unacceptable, he should go
6
40%
1 = Horrible, I dread his posts
1
7%
2 = Poor, needs improvement
3
20%
3 = Average
2
13%
4 = Better than most
1
7%
5 = Good, a model member
2
13%
 
Total votes : 15

Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:28 am

I am not kidding about this banning of Mitch idea. How many people on this forum have been attacked by this guy at some time? Why should we continue to put up with him? Shouldn't the forum expect some level of civil conduct from it's members? Why not have him banned for at least a short period to teach him that his behaviors are not without consequences?
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby StillSearching » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:27 am

Why not just ignore him? And I mean truly ignore him, not just click the ignore button. Don't engage him in conversation. Don't read his posts or quotes of his posts in other people's posts. Don't read his PMs, just delete them. Just de-Mitch yourself. You've got bigger things to concern yourself with right now, besides getting yourself worked up over someone you only know from screen text.

Not attacking you. Not defending him. Just my opinion.
"...only an opponent who really understands your view can be a dangerous critic: no one is impressed by criticism that embodies plain misunderstandings of the view criticized."
Richard L. Purtill
User avatar
StillSearching
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:31 pm
Affiliation: Heretic for Jesus

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:27 am

That's probably good advice and actually I have ignored him quite a bit in the past by just not responding to his comments. But I have a very strong belief that lines of communication should remain open. I have been more than gracious in opening up to him but he shows zero restraint when he feels like he is making no traction with his arguments. BTW, this poll and my request to have him banned stems from years of this kind of abuse over many different people, not just me. I think it is time that something was done about his behavior.
Last edited by gary_s on Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:59 pm

I can't select any of the above. He's too valuable as a "Look what Christianity did to this guy" example, lol.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby OzAnt » Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:31 pm

Wow, this forum's been busy these last couple of days...

After reading this,
mitchellmckain wrote:P.S. I am trying to do things gary's way of talking about what is courteous and all that crap. I find that really tedious. But ok, I give it a try. ...yawn... The problem is that all that stuff is social relative convention without an ounce of objective justification. Logic doesn't really support it, and so I find it really like waking out into no man's land. And if you embark on some big argument about such junk I will just drop it and go back to responding in kind as I usually do, because the topic really bores me.
my knee-jerk reaction was to want to, as Gary put it, vote Mitch off the island. I mean, Jim's right,
JustJim wrote:He will never, EVER change the way he is.


But he's fascinating at the same time. I mean, how often do we get to interact with somebody so desperately trying reconcile their scientific upbringing with a bronze age belief because of the premise that the question isn't 'is there a god' (which Mitch views as meaningless (because ultimately he sees it as a given based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence)), but rather 'what is god'? See, I don't have a problem with trying to get a handle on what something is before making an informed opinion on whether it exists or not. My problem is with coming to the conclusion that something (of which there is no verifiable but only anecdotal evidence of existing) exists and then having to go through bizarre and convoluted mental gymnastics in an effort to make it fit. But, damn, it's fascinating at times.

I think KTR's hit the nail on the head when he says,
KTR wrote:He's too valuable as a "Look what Christianity did to this guy" example, lol.
I'm just too busy finding it disturbing to find it funny. But yeah, none of the above work for me either.

Ant
In a nutshell, philosophy is questions that can never be answered and religion is answers that can never be questioned.
User avatar
OzAnt
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:10 pm
Location: Australia
Affiliation: Look up. No! not @God, @avatar

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby JustJim » Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:59 am

StillSearching wrote:Why not just ignore him? And I mean truly ignore him, not just click the ignore button. Don't engage him in conversation. Don't read his posts or quotes of his posts in other people's posts. Don't read his PMs, just delete them. Just de-Mitch yourself.

I, of course, agree. I already suggested the same thing.

Gary wrote:But I've have a very strong belief that lines of communication should remain open.

I don't see how banning Mitch would keep lines of communication open. I also don't see how totally, completely, absolutely ignoring Mitch wouldn't have exactly the same effect as banning him, at least so far as your interactions with him are concerned.

Something else to consider, Gary. Your close-to-obsessive recent concerns over Mitch are having NO discernible effects on Mitch's behavior, but are having obvious negative effects on your health and sense of well-being. I think you need to find a way to let Mitch and your frustrated, angry feelings about him go. If you don't, you'll only keep hurting yourself. You won't be changing him.

I wish you well, Gary....

Jim
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, refuses to go away...."
User avatar
JustJim
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:30 am
Location: Ohio - USA
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:24 am

I'm just too busy finding it disturbing to find it funny


I live in the United States of Jesusland, Ant. My options are:

Laugh, Cry, Political Activism, War.

I don't cry, I won't war.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:37 am

JustJim wrote:
StillSearching wrote:Why not just ignore him? And I mean truly ignore him, not just click the ignore button. Don't engage him in conversation. Don't read his posts or quotes of his posts in other people's posts. Don't read his PMs, just delete them. Just de-Mitch yourself.

I, of course, agree. I already suggested the same thing.

Gary wrote:But I've have a very strong belief that lines of communication should remain open.

I don't see how banning Mitch would keep lines of communication open. I also don't see how totally, completely, absolutely ignoring Mitch wouldn't have exactly the same effect as banning him, at least so far as your interactions with him are concerned.

Something else to consider, Gary. Your close-to-obsessive recent concerns over Mitch are having NO discernible effects on Mitch's behavior, but are having obvious negative effects on your health and sense of well-being. I think you need to find a way to let Mitch and your frustrated, angry feelings about him go. If you don't, you'll only keep hurting yourself. You won't be changing him.

I wish you well, Gary....

Jim


I agree as well, but when these things happen, most times people don't want others to suffer the same indignities they feel theyve suffered.

It's partly a vendetta against Mitch's cruelty to Gary, but it's possible that it's an attempt to save others from that cruelty or being constantly reminded of it. Because even ignoring Mitch doesn't mean you won't see the quotes and comments Mitch makes with people who get into battles with him -- reading one of mine or Doc Mundos responses to Mitch means seeing Mitch's behavior in all it's technicolor nuttery.

I don't ignore Mitch because I want to highlight his behavior. Nothing he says bugs me because I don't give him any control over me. Its one of the reasons why phrases like "Fuck off" are so valuable.

I think being ignored by him is awesome because I can rip apart his position and not worry about him replying (though we all now he "peeks"). My take is this-- no one has such an impact on me that I need to ignore them on a forum. Each of us posess all the cards in this poker game. I hold no cards against any of you, and nne of you hold any cards against me. I can pay or fold as I wish and nne of you can do anything to change that. And the same applies to each of you.

If you beleve Mitch is a fucktard (and I do), then approach him like a fucktard. But don't lose a minutes sleep over what a fucktard says, because... Well, who wants to be controlled by a fucktard?
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby JustJim » Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:22 am

Keep The Reason wrote:Because even ignoring Mitch doesn't mean you won't see the quotes and comments Mitch makes with people who get into battles with him -- reading one of mine or Doc Mundos responses to Mitch means seeing Mitch's behavior in all it's technicolor nuttery.

When I see other people quote Mitch's stuff, I just skip the quoted parts and only read their comments/responses. I get the gist of what Mitch must have said, without having to deal with the ways he says things and the insults and mischaracterizations he so freely wields. I agree completely with Gary's (and yours, and DrMundo's, and others') summary characterizations of Mitch's general nastiness and seemingly intentional misrepresentations of what people say, in obvious (to me) attempts to distort what they've said and turn their arguments into things they didn't actually say or mean, in order to build a (straw man) argument against them, and not against the arguments they've actually put forth. But I've also argued with Mitch till I was blue in the face too many times to even remotely suspect he'll ever begin to admit he might be wrong, let alone stop with the insults and character attacks that so constipate him. In his world, he is always right, and everyone else is either completely wrong, or not sufficiently right to warrant respect from him. He'd argue with Jesus, for Christ's sake....

Keep The Reason wrote:I don't ignore Mitch because I want to highlight his behavior. Nothing he says bugs me because I don't give him any control over me. Its one of the reasons why phrases like "Fuck off" are so valuable.

Maybe I've just been so saturated with Mitch's "mitchiness" over the past couple years or more that I don't feel any need to highlight his behavior for others. Regarding control, you're probably right about that. I just know I'm a lot happier here with Mitch on my ignore list and actively ignoring his posts when he's quoted by others.

Jim
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, refuses to go away...."
User avatar
JustJim
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:30 am
Location: Ohio - USA
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby NH Baritone » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:43 am

Participation in this Philosophical Phun Phest is entirely voluntary. Surely there are other, often more rewarding ways to spend your time, if you so desire. If you continue to hang out here, I don't want you to endure discomfort, but I have always been of the opinion that, if you are seated next to a crying baby, you move yourself rather than insist that management relocate the baby.

And honestly, the idea that you would participate in a forum where Christians try to defend their faith, and would simultaneously expect NOT to encounter consummate jerks, strikes me as naïve.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:09 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:I think being ignored by him is awesome because I can rip apart his position and not worry about him replying (though we all now he "peeks"). My take is this-- no one has such an impact on me that I need to ignore them on a forum. Each of us posess all the cards in this poker game. I hold no cards against any of you, and nne of you hold any cards against me. I can pay or fold as I wish and nne of you can do anything to change that. And the same applies to each of you.


Very good point. This has generally been my attitude as well. I don't really have a problem with getting insulted so long as the offender is prepared to get blasted by a wave of my own firebombs. And I have proved this over and over by responding to his posts with reason and restraint...until he acts like a fucktard, as KTR put it. I don't usually go completely ape shit on him, but in this case I just had steam to let off. And after being on the receiving end before and being so willing to discuss things with him, it just strikes me as ridiculous to have to put up with his retarded behavior, particularly when he is acting with such hypocrisy.

NHB wrote:If you beleve Mitch is a fucktard (and I do), then approach him like a fucktard. But don't lose a minutes sleep over what a fucktard says, because... Well, who wants to be controlled by a fucktard?


I agree.

And to NHB, I still believe Mitch deserves to be banned from this forum. Yes, I understand participation here is completely voluntary, but I also believe that if a majority of the members all agree that one member is being disruptive, then it's perfectly Democratic for them to vote him off. It's happened before and a lot of forums are monitored for this sort of thing. So there is ample precedent for what I'm advocating. It isn't out of left field. But you don't have to agree if you don't want to. Although consider this. What if more Mitch's show up here and they continue and continue until we have 20 people all like Mitch? It could happen. At that point I'm sure most of the reasonable members would have left out of frustration. And this means that by leaving the forum unregulated, a virus was allowed to take over the forum and ruin it. It only seems sensible to take some mild steps to avoid such things.

And honestly, the idea that you would participate in a forum where Christians try to defend their faith, and would simultaneously expect NOT to encounter consummate jerks, strikes me as naïve.


The odd thing about this is that Mitch's religious beliefs don't even factor into his behavioral problems. He actually agreed with me on the facts of evolution, but is an asshole on the silly details of what you call it. It would be one thing if there were something truly foundational that we disagreed about. He just doesn't like it when I say evolution without common descent is a different model.
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:19 pm

Wow, someone voted Mitch to be average? That's really amazing. So whomever you are, you believe that the average member behaves no better than Mitch? Ouch!
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby OzAnt » Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:23 pm

gary_s wrote:Wow, someone voted Mitch to be average? That's really amazing. So whomever you are...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Mitch :-D

(Just to be clear though, I'm not saying it was Mitch or even suggesting it was Mitch. I'm simply pointing out that my opinion is low enough of him to not be surprised if it was him.)

Ant
In a nutshell, philosophy is questions that can never be answered and religion is answers that can never be questioned.
User avatar
OzAnt
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:10 pm
Location: Australia
Affiliation: Look up. No! not @God, @avatar

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:09 pm

OzAnt wrote:
gary_s wrote:Wow, someone voted Mitch to be average? That's really amazing. So whomever you are...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Mitch :-D

(Just to be clear though, I'm not saying it was Mitch or even suggesting it was Mitch. I'm simply pointing out that my opinion is low enough of him to not be surprised if it was him.)

Ant


Well this never occured to me but yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if it were mitch voting mitch as "average". LOL. :smt005
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10371
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby NH Baritone » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:13 am

gary_s wrote:
NHB wrote:If you beleve Mitch is a fucktard (and I do), then approach him like a fucktard. But don't lose a minutes sleep over what a fucktard says, because... Well, who wants to be controlled by a fucktard?

I agree.

And to NHB, I still believe Mitch deserves to be banned from this forum. Yes, I understand participation here is completely voluntary, but I also believe that if a majority of the members all agree that one member is being disruptive, then it's perfectly Democratic for them to vote him off. It's happened before and a lot of forums are monitored for this sort of thing. So there is ample precedent for what I'm advocating. It isn't out of left field. But you don't have to agree if you don't want to. Although consider this. What if more Mitch's show up here and they continue and continue until we have 20 people all like Mitch? It could happen. At that point I'm sure most of the reasonable members would have left out of frustration. And this means that by leaving the forum unregulated, a virus was allowed to take over the forum and ruin it. It only seems sensible to take some mild steps to avoid such things.

That quote was taken from KTR, not from me. Because I frequently work with mentally retarded individuals, I have come to an understanding that the term "retard" (or variations thereon) is crude, distasteful, and harmful to those who already face enormous struggles to live on this planet.

And honestly, the idea that you would participate in a forum where Christians try to defend their faith, and would simultaneously expect NOT to encounter consummate jerks, strikes me as naïve.

The odd thing about this is that Mitch's religious beliefs don't even factor into his behavioral problems. He actually agreed with me on the facts of evolution, but is an asshole on the silly details of what you call it. It would be one thing if there were something truly foundational that we disagreed about. He just doesn't like it when I say evolution without common descent is a different model.

My point is that almost EVERY religious apologist employs tactics common to "jerks," i.e., blatant disregard for human relationships. Darrel Ray has pointed out how "The God Virus" transforms a person's vocabulary, emotional state, posture, etc., when participating in their religion and when responding to challenges to their beliefs. That transformation often takes little account of the connections between speaker and listener. It is the truly rare person who, when confronted with an argument against their religious faith, will respond, "maybe." (And I think that Scott, at times, can be one of those rare people.)
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Next

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest