Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

How does that work?

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

There's an awful lot of crap over which there is not the slightest doubt in your mind. It's really of no interest to me what you think on this subject.

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Certainly it was one in particular, kafei himself.

This thread was started by a banned sockpuppet, and maintained tediously by a banned troll, who exasperated everyone with his inability to add anything of substance to his arguments, or to admit to understanding why what he said was devoid of substance. Can't we just let it slide into oblivion now? there's nothing to be learnt here.

theropod wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, However, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Again I ask you what do you think "his claims" actually were and how were they supported?

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, However, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Again I ask you what do you think "his claims" actually were and how were they supported?

His claims are obvious: The man persisted that this particular drug induced mystical experiences. Whether or not that is the case, I haven't the slightest interest. But let any say that Kafei himself was not utterly convinced of this.

Destroyer wrote:I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Conviction is a funny thing. He could be convinced that he was on to a fundamental metaphysical truth about how taking drugs let him experience being on Jupiter and yet also convinced that when he said there was ongoing research proving it he was lying his arse off. Some people seem to think that (what they imagine to be) the fact they are right excuses any resultant bad behaviour.

What benefit this little morality play accrues is another question.

Destroyer wrote:
Again I ask you what do you think "his claims" actually were and how were they supported?

His claims are obvious: The man persisted that this particular drug induced mystical experiences. Whether or not that is the case, I haven't the slightest interest. But let any say that Kafei himself was not utterly convinced of this.[/quote]

Was he claiming those were experiences of something actually mystical?
I mean, claiming that drugs induce psychedelic experiences is not claiming anything interesting, is it?
It could be we agree, that was all he did, over and over again, which wasn't really contested and has no real significance to anything. Isn't that trolling?
Is there something substantive that you think he claimed, that had any evidential support?

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

You still haven't answered the question Destroyer. Why should conviction and/or persistence in and of themselves be worthy of respect?

To be fair, he has. He's not demanding respect for Kafei's views (although, let's be honest, there's probably an undertone of that and fear about his own posting idiosyncrasies), he's demanding that the forum rules should be the only grounds for banning someone, and that if you believe what you're saying you're not saying it with the sole (or main) intention of provoking or inflaming others, which is roughly what the rules say.

The problem is that (and as I said before I am ambivalent about the actual answer) whilst all of us seem to more or less agree that Kafei does genuinely believe *something* about psychedelics and mystical experience, that does not excuse, for example, the 20 fucking pages of him pretending he didn't know what you meant when you said you'd never been a theist. Nor does his declaration that what he's saying does not constitute religion exempt him from the rules on preaching.

So, was he a troll? Maybe, maybe not. Is that the only quantifiable way we could describe his behaviour here? Also maybe, maybe not*.

However, this will all be redundant as Destroyer has said he doesn't care what we think about the matter, but persists in holding forth here, to us, anyway. Even though it's offtopic (and that is against the rules) to comment about moderation, which is his entire point.

I would hazard a guess that given his discomfort with discussion (despite these being discussion boards) most of us would reciprocate, and be prepared to weigh his opinion with just as much care as he weighs ours.

*Maybe we could get Johns Hopkins to design a questionnaire asking us all, then it would be 100% scientific.

Thommo wrote:To be fair, he has. He's not demanding respect for Kafei's views (although, let's be honest, there's probably an undertone of that and fear about his own posting idiosyncrasies), he's demanding that the forum rules should be the only grounds for banning someone, and that if you believe what you're saying you're not saying it with the sole (or main) intention of provoking or inflaming others, which is roughly what the rules say.

The problem is that (and as I said before I am ambivalent about the actual answer) whilst all of us seem to more or less agree that Kafei does genuinely believe *something* about psychedelics and mystical experience, that does not excuse, for example, the 20 fucking pages of him pretending he didn't know what you meant when you said you'd never been a theist. Nor does his declaration that what he's saying does not constitute religion exempt him from the rules on preaching.

So, was he a troll? Maybe, maybe not. Is that the only quantifiable way we could describe his behaviour here? Also maybe, maybe not*.

However, this will all be redundant as Destroyer has said he doesn't care what we think about the matter, but persists in holding forth here, to us, anyway. Even though it's offtopic (and that is against the rules) to comment about moderation, which is his entire point.

I would hazard a guess that given his discomfort with discussion (despite these being discussion boards) most of us would reciprocate, and be prepared to weigh his opinion with just as much care as he weighs ours.

*Maybe we could get Johns Hopkins to design a questionnaire asking us all, then it would be 100% scientific.

This pretty much sums it up. I am happy to leave it here, in the knowledge that everyone associated with this thread can form their own opinions on the matter.

My opinion, is that the man has been in unfairly dismissed.

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:Plus this forum has a section especially for raising questions about, and discussing, the board and the running of it, and this ain't it. Why you'd be hoping to get the members to examine what transgressions they can observe is beyond me. We didn't ban him.

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Excellent well poisoning there and an interesting comment when kefai demonstrated little to no integrity in this thread whatsoever. Whether he believed the crap he was selling here or not is beside the point. He consistently misrepresented the science and the evidence he presented here, even after being corrected over and over again.* It doesn’t matter whether dishonesty in discussion here is to the membership or to oneself, it amounts to the same outcome – a thread of thousands of posts that obfuscates facts and goes nowhere. That’s not why this discussion board exists.

It is for that very reason that I reported him calling for him to be banned which thankfully produced the desired result.

*additionally, spamming these threads with the same lengthy Youtube videos over and over again, not citing, quoting, or even paraphrasing the content with time stamps. There should be a rule about Youtube spamming as evidential support in the FUA but that’s for another discussion.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:To be fair, he has. He's not demanding respect for Kafei's views (although, let's be honest, there's probably an undertone of that and fear about his own posting idiosyncrasies), he's demanding that the forum rules should be the only grounds for banning someone, and that if you believe what you're saying you're not saying it with the sole (or main) intention of provoking or inflaming others, which is roughly what the rules say.

The problem is that (and as I said before I am ambivalent about the actual answer) whilst all of us seem to more or less agree that Kafei does genuinely believe *something* about psychedelics and mystical experience, that does not excuse, for example, the 20 fucking pages of him pretending he didn't know what you meant when you said you'd never been a theist. Nor does his declaration that what he's saying does not constitute religion exempt him from the rules on preaching.

So, was he a troll? Maybe, maybe not. Is that the only quantifiable way we could describe his behaviour here? Also maybe, maybe not*.

However, this will all be redundant as Destroyer has said he doesn't care what we think about the matter, but persists in holding forth here, to us, anyway. Even though it's offtopic (and that is against the rules) to comment about moderation, which is his entire point.

I would hazard a guess that given his discomfort with discussion (despite these being discussion boards) most of us would reciprocate, and be prepared to weigh his opinion with just as much care as he weighs ours.

*Maybe we could get Johns Hopkins to design a questionnaire asking us all, then it would be 100% scientific.

This pretty much sums it up. I am happy to leave it here, in the knowledge that everyone associated with this thread can form their own opinions on the matter.

My opinion, is that the man has been in unfairly dismissed.

No-one said you can't have your own opinion.
All that's been pointed out to you is that it is a fact Kafei refused to engage a rational discussion and just kept repeating PRATTs.
Now you might have the opinion that those facts should not matter, but those are the facts.

Destroyer wrote:I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

You could be right, but it's a speculation. I think conviction calls for something more substantial than the iterative spam that Kafei produced, literally repeating the phrase "á la the Perennial Philosophy" in post after post (I counted on the order of 10 to 20 literal repetitions). Sure, conviction could lead someone to repeat a mantra dogmatically. You may recognize a kindred spirit, there. The above-mentioned phrase is not the only one Kafei repeated word for word in post after post; look for "the science that has been established", too. Look for mentions of the name "Roland Griffiths", to which I am adding, unfortunately, in order to explain to you a concept of which you should be much more aware. The point is this: If you can only find a handful of ways to say the same thing, your conviction does not extend to working on ways to get your message across to different folks by using different phrasing. You may draw your own conclusions, but if disability or malice makes a hash of conviction, then what are you pleading for, here?

The thing about spamming text in open threads is that it can be found by search engines; the more a string is repeated, the more likely it is to appear in generic web searches, a fundamental strategy of spammers. Kafei has already done as much damage in that department as he was permitted to do. Nobody even needs to discover this sorry excuse for a thread, but if they search for the phrase "Perennial Philosophy", this thread only improves the search rank of text produced by Kafei, and this is the reason that the forum's present moderation policy on spammers and trolls is a bit weak.

felltoearth wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

The power to ban Kafei was ultimately with the moderators, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that it was indeed the participants in this thread who got him banned.

Anyway, I must get back to Liverpool and City right now.

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Excellent well poisoning there and an interesting comment when kefai demonstrated little to no integrity in this thread whatsoever. Whether he believed the crap he was selling here or not is beside the point. He consistently misrepresented the science and the evidence he presented here, even after being corrected over and over again.* It doesn’t matter whether dishonesty in discussion here is to the membership or to oneself, it amounts to the same outcome – a thread of thousands of posts that obfuscates facts and goes nowhere. That’s not why this discussion board exists.

It is for that very reason that I reported him calling for him to be banned which thankfully produced the desired result.

*additionally, spamming these threads with the same lengthy Youtube videos over and over again, not citing, quoting, or even paraphrasing the content with time stamps. There should be a rule about Youtube spamming as evidential support in the FUA but that’s for another discussion.

This will be my final post in this thread.

There may well be justifiable grounds for not accepting Kafei's defence of his argument as containing evidential scientific support - as he himself kept insisting. As for obfuscating facts, that is the opinion of Kafei's opponents in this debate, and therefore of no interest to me unless presented with unbiased evidential support... Obviously, the man was repetitive: he had numerous opponents and refused to surrender.

However, his fundamental claim, that a certain dose of this particular drug induced mystical experiences has only been seriously challenged by a handful who claim to have taken that amount themselves without experiencing the mystical. So, when all is said and done, it is just their word against Kafei's claims. That is the sum total of this whole debate irrespective of all else that has gone on here.

Bullshit.

Claiming fMRI’s provided empirical support for CME’s was, is and always will be a lie. His opinion had nothing to do with this fact. It’s not a matter of his “word” against anyone’s. If you cannot see why this is true I fear there is nothing left to say.

RS