Da Blob

[Da Blob]

As the principle antagonist, I would like to point out, that posting threads, without any opposing POVs simply results in boring, self-affirmation that those not in the self-affirmation club would not be interested in viewing.

Like the OP "wasn't Nietzsche the greatest human who ever lived?"
could generate a few confirming responses and that is about all.

The problem is from my point of view, is that a lot of anti-religious bigotry, is being paraded as science or philosophy when it is neither.

However, if the members want to have an "Atheists Only Club" perhaps it should be called that instead of the Philosophy subforum.

As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion...

 

[Duxwing]

Re: Do we need our own sanctuaries?

As the principle antagonist, I would like to point out, that posting threads, without any opposing POVs simply results in boring, self-affirmation that those not in the self-affirmation club would not be interested in viewing.

Like the OP "wasn't Nietzsche the greatest human who ever lived?"
could generate a few confirming responses and that is about all.

The problem is from my point of view, is that a lot of anti-religious bigotry, is being paraded as science or philosophy when it is neither.

However, if the members want to have an "Atheists Only Club" perhaps it should be called that instead of the Philosophy subforum.

As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion...

You've fundamentally misunderstood the point of the philosophy subforum. The idea isn't to remove the discussion of God(s) at all, but rather to prevent otherwise calm threads from becoming hopelessly derailed by theological disputes that were assumed away in the OP.

-Duxwing

 

[Cavallier]

Re: Do we need our own sanctuaries?

As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion...

And thus you yourself point out why you are going to be banned from this forum...again. At no point have you shown respect to this community.

Your willful refusal to see reason, logic, or lacking that even a willingness to continue discussion not directly related to your own ideologies has cost you not only the respect of many members here but also the ability to sway any minds to your "cause". We have warned you and given you second, third, fourth, and fifth chances. We have given you more opportunities to clean up and not be a rude resentful disruptive and unpleasant member of our community and yet you never seem to take them.

Your snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion is why I am banning you now. I do not take this action lightly or on a whim. I have considered your position in this forum for some months and have determined that you are commiting the worst possible crime one can commit in this forum. I fear for the growth and health of this forum if you continue as a member here. You have caused many long time members to leave and never return. My only regret is that I did not ban you earlier.

And here I'd just said I didn't want to have to resort to bannings. Sadly, I think this particular one was a long time coming. Maybe now we can have the open minded discussions. As I stated before, I have no desire to stomp down on discussions about God and if or if not he exists. I just wanted things to be a little more organized.

 

[Duxwing]

Re: Do we need our own sanctuaries?

And thus you yourself point out why you are going to be banned from this forum...again. At no point have you shown respect to this community.

Your willful refusal to see reason, logic, or lacking that even a willingness to continue discussion not directly related to your own ideologies has cost you not only the respect of many members here but also the ability to sway any minds to your "cause". We have warned you and given you second, third, fourth, and fifth chances. We have given you more opportunities to clean up and not be a rude resentful disruptive and unpleasant member of our community and yet you never seem to take them.

Your snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion is why I am banning you now. I do not take this action lightly or on a whim. I have considered your position in this forum for some months and have determined that you are commiting the worst possible crime one can commit in this forum. I fear for the growth and health of this forum if you continue as a member here. You have caused many long time members to leave and never return. My only regret is that I did not ban you earlier.

And here I'd just said I didn't want to have to resort to bannings. Sadly, I think is particular one was a long time coming. Maybe now we can have the open minded discussions. As I stated before, I have no desire to stomp down on discussions about God and if or if not he exists. I just wanted things to be a little more organized.

My emotions are mixed on this subject. On the one hand, I feel bad that it has come to this, but on the other hand, I completely agree with everything that you've just said and wanted to deliver the verbal teardown that you just gave Da Blob myself.

Which of these emotions is most appropriate?

-Duxwing

 

[Absurdity]

Re: Do we need our own sanctuaries?

Which of these emotions is most appropriate?

Schadenfreude

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Schadenfreude

+9000

 

[walfin]

What happened again?

 

[The Gopher]

 

[Cognisant]

Well now isn't that interesting.

 

[joal0503]

the rapture?

 

[The Gopher]

YOU KILLED HIM COG YOU MADE HIM DO IT! (or something) *sniff* he really *sniff* was the greatest *sob*

Role-playing aside what happened?

 

[Etheri]

Da Blob
Banned

What
The
fuck?

I'll admit, I often was far too lazy to read his lengthy posts and overintellectual posts, but... Banned, what?

 

[redbaron]

My scroll-wheel will be glad to get some rest for the next week or so.

 

[Agent Intellect]

What happened again?

And thus you yourself [Da Blob] point out why you are going to be banned from this forum...again. At no point have you shown respect to this community.

Your willful refusal to see reason, logic, or lacking that even a willingness to continue discussion not directly related to your own ideologies has cost you not only the respect of many members here but also the ability to sway any minds to your "cause". We have warned you and given you second, third, fourth, and fifth chances. We have given you more opportunities to clean up and not be a rude resentful disruptive and unpleasant member of our community and yet you never seem to take them.

Your snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion is why I am banning you now. I do not take this action lightly or on a whim. I have considered your position in this forum for some months and have determined that you are commiting the worst possible crime one can commit in this forum. I fear for the growth and health of this forum if you continue as a member here. You have caused many long time members to leave and never return. My only regret is that I did not ban you earlier.

And here I'd just said I didn't want to have to resort to bannings. Sadly, I think this particular one was a long time coming. Maybe now we can have the open minded discussions. As I stated before, I have no desire to stomp down on discussions about God and if or if not he exists. I just wanted things to be a little more organized.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=346952&postcount=48

 

[The Gopher]

He was given a few chances I suppose but he was far less rude than most people I know ^^ also can you ban someone for not supporting your logic? How do you know someone doesn't just disagree? Also ironic that his ideologies lead him to post in an attempt to save you all from eternal punishment in hell *muahhaa*

*cough sorry* Where was I? (one day I will write a serious post on this forum) That said I didn't follow the religious debates that much just every now and again.

 

[joal0503]

1000 fake dollars, to anyone who can unwarp his avy and reveal his true self.

 

[Puffy]

The fact there's another thread in Siberia with the exact same title might be a clue: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11736

I was against the ban then, and am not as sure now. I get on with Blob on friendly terms, have shared pms with him, etc, so it's nothing personal against him. But I agree that the more recently expressed, "I acknowledge no philosophy but mine" tone is pushing it on a discussions forum, especially given that it was the cause of the former ban/ warnings.

To be honest, I get that vibe from a few other well-posted members here as well sometimes. I guess the line drawn is in terms of omnipresence.

 

[redbaron]

Oh okay so he's not coming back.

My scroll-wheel is overjoyed that no longer must it bear the burden of the arduous task of scrolling furiously over all of Blob's ramblings.

To be honest I didn't have much of a problem with Blob regarding the reasons he was banned. I feel like there's some other members who are much more snide and disingenuous than he was. I suppose the difference is that Blob was (ridiculously) long-winded and posted more often than most other users.

 

[joal0503]

Oh okay so he's not coming back.

My scroll-wheel is overjoyed that no longer must it bear the burden of the arduous task of scrolling furiously over all of Blob's ramblings.

To be honest I didn't have much of a problem with Blob regarding the reasons he was banned. I feel like there's some other members who are much more snide and disingenuous than he was. I suppose the difference is that Blob was (ridiculously) long-winded and posted more often than most other users.

as an outsider, he just posted a lot of dense nonsense. sort of in a writing style, that was so cryptic, and yet so unfulfilling (a lot like me, but with less fancy words)

that being said, i dont know if ive ever been on a forum, where that was enough to be banned for...usually its the trolls, or aggressive attacks...not long winded, confusing, defense of personal philosophy.

but then again, i never really read his posts enough to realize if he WAS attacking or goin after folks...so then...yea.

anyways...arent forum bans really easy to circumvent anyways? lurky lurky...

 

[Cognisant]

He was given a few chances I suppose but he was far less rude than most people I know ^^

>.>

And here I'd just said I didn't want to have to resort to bannings. Sadly, I think this particular one was a long time coming.

I had already banned him for these very reasons, it wasn't a long time coming, it came and it went, but as Nietzsche would say, like thunder after the flash, great actions require time before the consequences are heard and felt.

@Da Blob
BOOOOM!

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cavallier. Thoughts.
I must say I don't agree with this DaBlob banning at all. He seems to be the only heavy advocate of theism among the many opposites we have. I always look forward to what he has to say. One has to look under the covers for his meaning.

The way I see it, in a world out there saturated with so many peoples of religion, balance is required here. I want to see both sides. In DaBlob's absence, should I take up the theistic view? I won't do it. I am neutral. I always look forward to other views.

Cav you said something about people leaving. Who? When I see the often non-fool-proof discussions he has I don't pay too much attention to entering in, but I do like that they exist. I often see Cognisant and him go at it and enjoy the discussion/fight or whatever. He and Agent Intellect often have discussion challenging to both I admire. You cannot duplicate these things. I couldn't do it.

Da Blob brings in new ideas, begins many new threads that DO bring in many people. He is the one solid poster I find who brings a certain health to this Forum ... with his knowledge of psychology ... not theology. You may disagree with this, and I believe you feel this way, but disagreements are allowed. Da Blob is a good reason why I have enjoyed this Forum.

DaBlob is also one of the few older people on this forum. Don't you want representatives? Older people bring a complexity not seen in a young person who may like to see what lots of experience brings.

I am well aware DaBlob brings a theistic premise to his presentations, but so what?

Originally Posted by Da Blob
As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion...

I remember seeing that. I read "subforum", not the INTP Forum, and interpreting as being about one thread ... am I wrong? I didn't pay that close attention. In the context of his openness in so many other ways I didn't read much into that one single statement. I took it as passing pessimism and open expression to be looked into later. Do not take his statement out of context.

If I felt badly and disturbed and made a statement like that out of thousands, would I want to be condemned for it? I would live in fear I couldn't show my feelings at a moment when I felt open to trust my buddies and happened to have a bad day.

I remember recently him repeating he was a former atheist. Reminds me of former smokers. They are sometimes the most fervent advocates of non-smoking. I wonder if that is not the case here.

Up to now I have not been in contact with DaBlob so I don't know what he has to say about this.

 

[Cognisant]

There will be more theists, there's always more fish in the sea.

And of late I wasn't having discussions with him anymore, because I knew what he would say, and there's a number of threads where I proved him wrong in some way he could not refute, but he ignored them and continued his drivel anyway, so I ignored him, because you can't have a two way discussion with him, there's only one way, his way.

The problem wasn't that he was a theist, the problem is that he would party crash any thread remotely related to theism and make it a discussion as to whether or not god exists, and we've been over it, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and etc.

At last we're free to talk about other things.

 

[Cognisant]

If you want I could role play Da Blob for you, I know how he thinks well enough.

Heck I reckon I could make a new account and get banned by impersonating him

 

[Absurdity]

Ho hum, so sad to see Him go...

 

[Puffy]

Theism opens up in to all kinds of strands of thought, I think it's a little problematic to say that Blob's brand of theism represents theism, given its idiosyncracy. There are other theists here, I'm pretty sure, based on PMs and such (though admittedly, a few I know don't frequent here anymore - cryptonia, fusion knight, etc.) Arguably, it's worse for theism if its representation becomes monopolised, as then it's confined to a single expression and the discussion becomes stilted.

Not trying to rack up points against Blob, just think there are more sides to that statement re: theism.

 

[Architect]

No problem, he was annoying.

 

[Jennywocky]

the rapture?

Praise Jay-sus!

Alas, we have been Left Behind.

My scroll-wheel will be glad to get some rest for the next week or so.

You know, they have an Ignore list for stuff like that.

@Cavallier: Just more of a question about how things work here. Your banning post sounds almost like you made a unilateral decision, in the way you explained it. Do individual mods make decisions like this and the rest of the staff merely back them after the fact, or do you discuss it thoroughly ahead of time and then one of you pulls the trigger? Just curious.

I had already banned him for these very reasons, it wasn't a long time coming, it came and it went, but as Nietzsche would say, like thunder after the flash, great actions require time before the consequences are heard and felt.

He was banned for the same behaviors a year or more ago, then suddenly reappeared after a few months unexpectedly. It's not unexpected; the only unexpected is when he was going, and why he came back in the first place.

 

[walfin]

Well actually it doesn't really matter, does it, nobody ever lost any money from being banned from an Internet forum.

 

[Jennywocky]

I must say I don't agree with this DaBlob banning at all. He seems to be the only heavy advocate of theism among the many opposites we have. I always look forward to what he has to say. One has to look under the covers for his meaning.

How many religious people are you exposed to? Maybe my background contains many more of them, but I didn't find anything here that I hadn't already either thought of or that I hadn't been exposed to IRL... in fact, I got sick of these kinds of people dominating my own subculture so much I had to leave it.

In any case, I'd prefer a more balanced member to explain theology. Noddy might have made a huge shift against his old faith, but he could still probably give a much more balanced assessment of a particular line of theological thought.

The way I see it, in a world out there saturated with so many peoples of religion, balance is required here. I want to see both sides. In DaBlob's absence, should I take up the theistic view? I won't do it. I am neutral. I always look forward to other views.

I don't think it was the view that was the issue, it was (1) the style of engagement, which presented no real basis for discussion on an INTP forum, and (2) his prolificness, which means that there was a little bit of Blob in every pot on the forum. If you plan to make a mess in the house, the main rule is to do it out of the way and not in every room.

Da Blob brings in new ideas, begins many new threads that DO bring in many people. He is the one solid poster I find who brings a certain health to this Forum ... with his knowledge of psychology ... not theology. You may disagree with this, and I believe you feel this way, but disagreements are allowed.

I didn't really find Blob useful for that either. Maybe you need to explore some other forums and see the range of posting behavior that can be found out there. Remember when I set side my differences and tried to engage him last year, for 2-3 sprawling posts? There was very little worthwhile that came out of that, and after only 2-3 exchanges he was making excuses about why he didn't want to engage anymore... one such thing being that he had some kind of hand issues and it took him a long time / hurt him to post. I thought it a whiny and deceitful approach at the time; and note that it did not stop him from posting all over the forum as long as he wasn't responding to me.

I don't think I've talked to him since. The guy did not want to be engaged. He was just using this forum to validate himself, honestly.

Do not take his statement out of context.

I think you're confusing that post as the reason for his banning, when it was merely the "trigger" for the large buildup ever since he's been a member.

I guess my bottom line is that even religious people would get irked by Blob's style of engagement. I'd rather have the forum be available to new blood of any age, who actually want to discuss points (instead of preaching) in the style of INTP after which this forum is named. If you can find a religious person who is actually willing to engage in a discussion, I'd appreciate that far more then bringing back Blob.

Up to now I have not been in contact with DaBlob so I don't know what he has to say about this.

Does it matter? He's already had his say, and come back after the original banning, and it hasn't made a difference.

I mean, whatever. I've had him on Ignore for eons. It gets annoying seeing the "blocked" message everywhere, but whatever. I have trouble feeling sympathy for someone who dug his own grave...twice.

 

[Fukyo]

@Cavallier: Just more of a question about how things work here. Your banning post sounds almost like you made a unilateral decision, in the way you explained it. Do individual mods make decisions like this and the rest of the staff merely back them after the fact, or do you discuss it thoroughly ahead of time and then one of you pulls the trigger? Just curious.

Nah, it wasn't entirely unilateral as it seems. It was coming for a long time, everyone was just tip toeing around it. He wouldn't have been unbanned after the first time, were it not for some specific circumstances.

 

[Jennywocky]

Nah, it wasn't entirely unilateral as it seems. It was coming for a long time, everyone was just tip toeing around it. He wouldn't have been unbanned after the first time, were it not for some specific circumstances.

What -- Topsy-Turvy Day?

Anyway, okay, thanks for the info!

 

[BigApplePi]

@Cognisant

If you want I could role play Da Blob for you, I know how he thinks well enough.

Heck I reckon I could make a new account and get banned by impersonating him

Beyond The Brain?

His inspiration: How the Brain Works: Hierarchy

 

[Cognisant]

Nah, it wasn't entirely unilateral as it seems. It was coming for a long time, everyone was just tip toeing around it. He wouldn't have been unbanned after the first time, were it not for some specific circumstances.

To edify.

The first time I banned him (not being one to tip-toe, as you may know) after consulting respected individuals and mods, to which issue was taken to the suddenness of the ban, so to restore trust in the mod team I abdicated expecting my decision to be upheld, as is the understanding, mods don't interfere with other mods decisions unless there's a majority ruling that a mistake has been made, well no ruling was made but one mod took it upon himself to bring Da Blob back, which I hear wasn't a popular decision among them but I suppose by technicality that I wasn't a mod a the time it was allowed to happen.

I naturally took issue with it and admittedly earned myself a temporary ban.

Now to my pleasant surprise Da Blob has been banned again, for continuing the behaviour that I banned him for and expressly stating that he would not waver in doing so. As far as I can see he may as well have banned himself, he clearly knew his behaviour was unacceptable and persisted, and declared his intent to persist, well if that doesn't get someone banned what will?

 

[Duxwing]

Poor guy. I've been banned for doing something similar (I was a liberal iNtuitive on a conservative Sensor forum, and I derailed threads), and seeing him go reminds me of that. Albeit, I just wanted to debate, while Da Blob was perverting the purpose of this forum entirely.

As for the reasons that I'm glad to see him gone:
--I've gone toe-to-toe with him on at least twenty if not more occasions, and he has proven to be a thoroughly illogical and unpleasant opponent. No amount of argument would work on him; he'd just slip back into solipsism whenever I (or anyone else, for that matter) scored a point.
--He continuously attempted to psychoanalzye me and others (with quite insulting diagnoses) instead of engaging in the debate. For those who have not suffered this, imagine a boxing match in which one's opponent hits almost exclusively below the belt.
--He was a relentless, vulturous proselytizer. He took advantage of any psychological leverage that he could get, and even advised a poster to tell his dying friend to reconsider his ideology. This point I find most distasteful.

But banning him? As much as I disliked him, I'm not a fan of using force against people to achieve even the best of aims. Yet I suppose that he can come back and demonstrate his good behavior in a few months, so I'll grudgingly vote "Yea".

-Duxwing

 

[Jennywocky]

well if that doesn't get someone banned what will?

Puppy murder.

Well, at least it'll get you banned on ISFPForum. But we're a cold lot here, the INTPs, ya know....

 

[Jennywocky]

Poor guy. I've been banned for doing something similar (I was a liberal iNtuitive on a conservative Sensor forum,

LOL! Hot diggity, I wish I could have seen that. You probably twisted their undies into knots.

As for the reasons that I'm glad to see him gone:
--I've gone toe-to-toe with him on at least twenty if not more occasions, and he has proven to be a thoroughly illogical and unpleasant opponent. No amount of argument would work on him; he'd just slip back into solipsism whenever I (or anyone else, for that matter) scored a point.
--He continuously attempted to psychoanalye me and others (with quite insulting diagnoses) instead of engaging in the debate. For those who have not suffered this, imagine a boxing match in which one's opponent hits almost exclusively below the belt.
--He was a relentless, vulturous proselytizer. He took advantage of any psychological leverage that he could get, and even advised a poster to tell his dying friend to reconsider his ideology. This point I find most distasteful.

How long have you been here again? Impressive.

But banning him? As much as I disliked him, I'm not a fan of using force against people to achieve even the best of aims. Yet I suppose that he can come back and demonstrate his good behavior in a few months, so I'll grudgingly vote "Yea".

Well, maybe if you were a mod and seeing all the behind the scenes stuff + the actual forum damage, your opinion would change. As a member, you can afford that luxury, and you can also take off any time you'd like and find a new home... which is what happens when you allow some members take over the forum.

Besides, is he coming back? He was finally banned for doing all of these things. Someone let him back on. he did the same things for another year or more, and now has been banned again, with no sign of repentance or willingness to change.

how many more times does Ike get to smack Tina before she decides she's kicking him out for good?

 

[BigApplePi]

Hey Dux.
That's quite an indictment. I must either have a great insensitivity or just automatically ignore that stuff. Do you or anyone have an example to read for analysis?

 

[Montresor]

Re: Do we need our own sanctuaries?

+10 more

 

[EditorOne]

"No problem, he was annoying."

Yes. This is a forum where you can be banned for being tiresome. (I think that's a good thing.)

Being a moderator in an INTP forum requires actions that go against the grain. We invariably tend to not take action against folks who provoke us, it's the "meh?" part of us that can't be bothered and doesn't get all that emotional anyway. To be banned by an INTP moderator is really an indication you were beyond any boundaries. And even now we've got some folks saying "well, well, gosh, banned, that seems kind of a bit much." The world is a better place with INTPs in it.

 

[NoID10ts]

By Blob's own argument, there was no (logical) argument to be had, yet he engaged ad nauseum. He favored subjective experience and did not like to have his own experiences discounted, while actively (and authoritatively) discounting the experiences of others. Older members knew better, having run the gauntlet with him long ago. It was like trying to reason with a child (while being called childish). New members necessarily took a while to get wise to it, so there was new fuel for the fire all the time. Blob did this for years and never changed, evolved, or became more nuanced. Not once. He was here to bolster his own ego. The only thing that infuriated me more than him was the people who, after being around long enough to know better, still seemed to think he had something meaningful to contribute.

Perhaps the most profound thing I can say about him is that he made me like Christianity less for having interacted with him.

 

[Cognisant]

That's quite an indictment. I must either have a great insensitivity or just automatically ignore that stuff. Do you or anyone have an example to read for analysis?

I think he was spot on.

If you want an example by all means quote any of Da Blob's posts and we'll deconstruct it for you, y'know anything over 500 words and clearly in response to another poster, we would want this to be a fair assessment after all.

 

[Kuu]

It might be easy for individual members to ignore certain annoyances or unpleasant members, so they can say "I just ignore him, but I wouldn't ban him". A moderator cannot ignore such a thing, particularly when the given annoyance permeates the place and alienates a significant number of users. It is the mod's job to keep a forum clear of such things, so that the users can enjoy it as was intended.

Jenny's got a pretty good hang on the why's, both in this thread and in the previous one where all of this has already been discussed.

Yet I suppose that he can come back and demonstrate his good behavior in a few months, so I'll grudgingly vote "Yea".

He was warned, temp-banned, banned, unbanned, given more of a chance than was deserved, and finally banned again. And you want him to come back again? To demonstrate his good behavior... I don't think so.

Hey Dux.
That's quite an indictment. I must either have a great insensitivity or just automatically ignore that stuff. Do you or anyone have an example to read for analysis?

Having said that, I'm out.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

R.I.P.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Jennywocky. Appreciate your long post as it explains. Where I am coming from is a complicated place, but I can still pick up on a lot of your POV. Maybe I am blind to DaBlob's posting everywhere because I do the same. I often wonder if it annoys people too but no one ever says anything with the sole exception of one person: The "L" person. He's the only one who ever complained.

How many religious people are you exposed to?

An enormous number. Only the JW's IRL now though (and they don't bother me). I used to post on a bulletin board called, "RELIGION" where posts were so prolific they came out at one per second often. Thousands of posts per day. I myself joined in to the tune of maybe 20k (that's 20,000) posts on that board. It was the prima board for exploring religion. There were ministers and amateur theologians, seminary students. But the outstanding majority were the atheists. Their name for the religious was, "Fundies." Fundies were pummeled mercilessly. Many of these atheists were brilliant and the minister had a hard time countering them. Discussions were both hot and attempted reason. These were NOT INTP's. I was relatively ignorant on religion but never attacked a "Fundy," I always defended by showing flaws in atheistics. (I recall making fun of Albert Ellis and his 20 odd reasons opposing religion.) I never exactly let on where I stood ... INTP style. To religionists, I asked Q's.

Maybe my background contains many more of them, but I didn't find anything here that I hadn't already either thought of or that I hadn't been exposed to IRL... in fact, I got sick of these kinds of people dominating my own subculture so much I had to leave it.

Yes. You were surrounded by religionists. It's a matter of power, no? Who wants to be in the minority and controlled? I can see how imposing oneself everywhere can be offensive. Today that can't happen to me.

Note: I think the main reason I'm fond of DaBlob, contrary to others was I spoke with him about other things, not religion. But I can't prove that wo checking as I am topic oriented more than people oriented. Oh well.

I'll stop here.

In any case, I'd prefer a more balanced member to explain theology. Noddy might have made a huge shift against his old faith, but he could still probably give a much more balanced assessment of a particular line of theological thought.

I don't think it was the view that was the issue, it was (1) the style of engagement, which presented no real basis for discussion on an INTP forum, and (2) his prolificness, which means that there was a little bit of Blob in every pot on the forum. If you plan to make a mess in the house, the main rule is to do it out of the way and not in every room.

I didn't really find Blob useful for that either. Maybe you need to explore some other forums and see the range of posting behavior that can be found out there. Remember when I set side my differences and tried to engage him last year, for 2-3 sprawling posts? There was very little worthwhile that came out of that, and after only 2-3 exchanges he was making excuses about why he didn't want to engage anymore... one such thing being that he had some kind of hand issues and it took him a long time / hurt him to post. I thought it a whiny and deceitful approach at the time; and note that it did not stop him from posting all over the forum as long as he wasn't responding to me.

I don't think I've talked to him since. The guy did not want to be engaged. He was just using this forum to validate himself, honestly.

I think you're confusing that post as the reason for his banning, when it was merely the "trigger" for the large buildup ever since he's been a member.

I guess my bottom line is that even religious people would get irked by Blob's style of engagement. I'd rather have the forum be available to new blood of any age, who actually want to discuss points (instead of preaching) in the style of INTP after which this forum is named. If you can find a religious person who is actually willing to engage in a discussion, I'd appreciate that far more then bringing back Blob.

Does it matter? He's already had his say, and come back after the original banning, and it hasn't made a difference.

I mean, whatever. I've had him on Ignore for eons. It gets annoying seeing the "blocked" message everywhere, but whatever. I have trouble feeling sympathy for someone who dug his own grave...twice.

 

[Coolydudey]

R.I.P. Blob... He certainly annoyed me, but he had some positive contributions to the forum.


Sad in some ways, but most probably necessary.

 

[fullerene]

whoa... there are so many familiar faces still here. Basically just came to say:

I guess my bottom line is that even religious people would get irked by Blob's style of engagement.

^^not sure how much it matters anymore, given my inactivity, but... can confirm. At a time when I was more interested in religious arguments, it felt much harder to have a decent conversation than it would have been otherwise.

 

[Montresor]

Originally Posted by Da Blob
As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion...

I remember seeing that. I read "subforum", not the INTP Forum, and interpreting as being about one thread ... am I wrong? I didn't pay that close attention. In the context of his openness in so many other ways I didn't read much into that one single statement. I took it as passing pessimism and open expression to be looked into later. Do not take his statement out of context.

I thought he was trying to say his remarks are not just snide and insidious, (using pure sarcasm as his tool), but definitely not implying he seriously intends on discouraging open-minded discussion (i.e. mens rea).

He definitely did it to ruffle feathers. Sort of like sticking his foot in the door wearing muddy boots and trying to assert his dominance.

After reading this entire thread and the old one, gathering some back story, contemplating the gravity of the ban-post, I have decided my support is against the ban, because it violates my personal principles.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Huh

As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion..

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the splitting of Philosophy & Faith, not his own behavior.

 

[Philovitist]

He was terrible. It's surprising to see him banned, but also better.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I feel like I must comment buuuuut I got nothing...