Discussion Closures
Why was my discussion, titled "Idealist Logic", closed? And also, this discussion is for general feedback on discussion closures.
Overall, I don't like it, it seems excessive, and it seems to have tipped the balance towards a bad kind of illiberalism. I expect the response I'll get will basically indicate that a member of the site staff, or perhaps multiple members of the site staff, judged that it was going on for too long, or that they disapproved of the tone, or of the sort of comments that were being made, or a combination of the aforementioned, or something along those lines. I in turn disapprove of the heavy-handed control of the situation. And it would be ironic, to say the least, if you were to close this discussion before everyone who wanted an opportunity to give their feedback had a chance of doing so. It's not all about you. Or at least, it used to be that way.
And I'd rather this discussion not be used as means of attacking me personally.
Overall, I don't like it, it seems excessive, and it seems to have tipped the balance towards a bad kind of illiberalism. I expect the response I'll get will basically indicate that a member of the site staff, or perhaps multiple members of the site staff, judged that it was going on for too long, or that they disapproved of the tone, or of the sort of comments that were being made, or a combination of the aforementioned, or something along those lines. I in turn disapprove of the heavy-handed control of the situation. And it would be ironic, to say the least, if you were to close this discussion before everyone who wanted an opportunity to give their feedback had a chance of doing so. It's not all about you. Or at least, it used to be that way.
And I'd rather this discussion not be used as means of attacking me personally.
Comments (61)
I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion.
You should know as well as I do that that's not the case. At the very least, your comment is a disgraceful exaggeration.
More specifically, it had degenerated into a series of repetitive entrenchments of positions, insults, and bad jokes.
Practically all discussions here involve repetitive entrenchments of positions, insulting remarks, and bad jokes. You do this yourself. Especially the bad jokes.
Generally, my impression of the way the staff now operate is that it's more controlling, more biased, more judgemental, than it used to be. This might not be down to all of the staff, it could be down to just a few. The closure of discussions was originally brought in when Feedback discussions used to go on for pages and pages of paranoia, accusations, conspiracies, and mudslinging. With that usage, in that setting, it was okay by me. But now it has become excessive, and a tool which is abused. But of course, you don't see it that way, which is part of the problem.
And are any of them really qualified to judge content anyway?
Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way is part of your problem. That's apparent. Anyway, that was the reason. I doubt there'll be many apart from terrapin who on observing the way the conversation was going would see any philosophical value in it.
I would like to hear from @Janus and @ZhouBoTong on that. They're less likely to be biased against me than others in that discussion. Also, @Marchesk.
Was there any philosophical value in the discussion? Should the discussion have been closed? Closed by Baden, abruptly and without warning.
Or should that be geniarses? But apart from that S is wrong about everything, that goes without saying.
What was being abused was your position as discussion creator. And the abuse involved you using the discussion for the most part, but particularly towards the end, primarily as a means to massage your own ego. You have plenty of other discussions in which to do that, and we're not likely to prioritize your attempts at having fun at others' expense above forum quality. But go ahead, see if you can talk anyone, other than terrapin, into believing you were actually doing philosophy when the discussion was closed.
Not all of it was shit, but it had clearly run its course and was degenerating beyond repair. Unfair to delete and remove the posts of those who made an effort. Fair to prevent further nonsense. That was my view anyway.
don't like this but I don't know how to deal with it.
Quoting Baden
So delete the shit.
Caveat. I haven't looked at the thread, so I'm theorising.
I never said that it was all philosophy. I'm not denying the off topic comments. Nevertheless, there was an ongoing worthwhile philosophical discussion which you've now closed, when there were a number of better ways of handling the problem, such as editing or deleting comments, or using your words to actually communicate the message, instead of jumping the gun and taking a heavy-handed approach. In my judgement, we were better here when the powers that be were fostering more of a liberal, free thinking, tolerant, less judgemental forum. Now it's more of a controlling, knee-jerk judgement, snappy action, shutting don't discussion, sort of forum. Boo. :down:
Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you.
This isn't about my personal character, though. I didn't ask, "Hey guys! What do you think of my personal character?".
This is about abuse of power. I am not a member of the site staff. You are.
Are you suggesting that you'll be less biased against me in future if I cave in to your pressure of getting me to behave how you want me to behave?
I actually agree with this, even including my own shit, and so long as it is not the entire discussion or valuable comments of mine. And if it's just one little comment in an otherwise valuable post, then edit, don't just delete the whole post. And it certainly shouldn't be a task given to Baden. Or jamalrob. Hanover or Michael I would trust.
That would be much better than closure.
Big surprise there.
Quoting jamalrob
So, what now, if I want to continue discussion of the philosophical topic in a way which would meet the approval of the likes of you and Baden? You've closed the discussion I created.
Anyway, it's not about the message it sends. Look, just imagine if it was me instead of Baden, because I suspect you may be biased here. You're telling me that I should delete - [i]and delete what, exactly? Entire discussions?[/I] - even though you yourself said that I'm always wrong?
The whole point was that I think it's being abused. If I didn't think that, then I wouldn't be making these criticisms.
I'm fine with editing or deleting comments and discussions which [i]genuinely[/I] don't meet the standards, including any of my own. Always have been.
It was too good to last.
Quoting S
Sure. If you're a moderator, moderate. Get things wrong, apologise, resign, get banned, whatever. I started looking at the thread, and I think I'd ban the lot of you and delete the whole thing. But I'm a gummy old man, and you got off lightly.
Incidentally, can one still edit one's posts, (I mean moderate oneself) in a closed thread?
The essence of my problem with closed threads - is this really the last word on idealist logic?
There's a scale of severity in getting things wrong, and that matters, as does how reversible it is. I suppose at least with a discussion closure, it's easily reversible and no one has to worry about having their comments deleted, assuming the closure is done in place of going through and deleting all the comments which are judged by the staff member not to meet the standards; or far worse, the entire discussion getting deleted when it evidently [i]is[/I] of philosophical value, even if a "gummy" old man such as yourself is incapable of recognising that.
And thank the Holy Teapot you're not a member of the site staff! (And yes, I know you think the same of me).
I agree. To some extent, anyway.
Well, I think I am unnecessary as @Terrapin Station (one of the people more likely to be biased against you, hehe) already defended your position.
Quoting Baden
This seems unlikely. Couldn't we have a long philosophical discussion on the idea that it is impossible to have a discussion absent philosophy (aren't most expressions tainted by our personal philosophies?)
I think you meant no PRODUCTIVE (or valuable or something?) philosophy? But isn't that just a matter of perspective? Most people I know think ALL philosophical discussions are a waste of time...?
From the page before last:
[quote=Mww]Knowledge is a stronger judgement of truth than mere thought.
———————-
How did that change how we study the stars?
— ZhouBoTong
It may not, although the idea has been forwarded after the advent of QM that reason determines the nature of the experiment which in turn manifests in the experiment determining the nature of that which is being experimented on. This is because observation has been supplanted by the expectation given from mathematical prediction. Overall, however, in the macro world of direct experience, idealism in and of itself doesn’t change how we study, but rather how we understand what we study.
those of alive today have made idealism a part of our lives without even knowing it?
— ZhouBoTong
They haven’t “made” it a part of their lives; it is an intrinsic part, exactly half, actually, of the system that makes us human. If you’d said without realizing it, I would be more inclined to agree.
———————-
How is it such a massive paradigm shift? It seems to me nothing changed.
— ZhouBoTong
If one has no experience of what was, he thinks what is now has always been the norm. History books, the written record and imagination all say differently.
————————
concepts like math were a priori in that they already existed and humans discovered them
— ZhouBoTong
The thesis:
Those certain natural relations already existed; that which became mathematical conceptions and the principles legislating their truths are determined in the mind a priori, sufficient to explain and necessary to understand those natural relations.
The proof:
In the absence of a priori knowledge, no figure is possible to conceive from the thought of two lines. Given a 6 and a 3, no concept of 9 is possible from them alone. Given a triangle, it is impossible to conceive from it, that perpendicular lines drawn from the midpoints of each line will meet at a point central to all of them.
With respect to th OP, humans will retain knowledge of post-human rocks in general via their extant experience, but that a priori knowledge is not the same as the direct a posteriori knowledge of a particular set of extant rocks required by the OP. The former is given from intuition, the latter is given from sense.
Think of it this way: instead of asking after rocks post-human, ask about the temperature. There were humans, humans look at thermometers, humans henceforth have indication of a natural phenomenon. Vacate all humans, then ask about the thermometer. Just because there’s no reason to think there’s no natural phenomenon to register on the thermometer doesn’t lend itself to any possible knowledge of what the indication is. Hell, I can’t even tell you the temperature in the next town over and I haven’t been deleted from anything.[/quote]
[quote=S]There's a way of talking about idealism that most of us on the forums are familiar with. It's a no-nonsense wryness. It's meant as a corrective to out-there thought that's lost its grounding. And that can be a good thing.
— csalisbury
At least you understand where I'm coming from, and accept that this can be a good thing.
Here's the problem:
Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as river.
— Qingyuan Weixin
The wryness only really works for the transition from non-mountain back to mountain. It doesn't work if you never understood the 'more intimate knowledge' to begin with, if you've always only seen mountains as mountains. Kurt Vonnegut went to war, Mark Twain was knee-deep in life, before retiring from it to reflect ironically. Their wryness was earned.
What I see in this thread, and many thread like this, is common sense masquerading as a knowing wryness, one it hasn't earned. It's mimicry, a borrowed veneer of knowingness.
— csalisbury
That's how you see it. The following is how I see it.
Here's the problem. There's this assumption that because of my similarities with the average guy on the street, the same criticisms that apply to him, also apply to me. It's basically a guilty by association error. And your reply is also basically an ad hominem where you're calling me unthinking and unworthy. How judgemental of you. It's a shame you didn't go about replying in a better way.
Here's the difference. Believe it or not, I have actually thought about this a lot, and I feel like I've reached a point where I've come out the other side, only to find that my initial assumptions were pretty much right all along (albeit perhaps with a few qualifications here and there), kind of like your quote. And I've gained the insight of why it is that others go wrong, and get stuck at an earlier stage. This is basically the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. You perhaps see my position as one of the first two. I see my position as the synthesis. You think that you're right and I'm wrong, and, funnily enough, I think that I'm right and you're wrong.[/quote]
[quote=Echarmion]Maybe this is part of our problem. I do not think I have once in this thread attempted to argue against idealism. I am more asking, "why idealism?" "what does it explain?" (I get that these questions could be seen as an argument against idealism, but that takes an extra step) Similarly, before I engage in an argument against god, I will want someone to show me something that god does. Until then, I will remain agnostic.
— ZhouBoTong
I just listed the argument for the sake of completeness. I understand your position. As to your question: Idealism tells us what we can know about physics and how we can know it. In this sense, it is relevant for our formulation of the scientific method. Enpirical Knowledge is based on subjective observation, and not some other "direct" access to objective reality. There are also rules for constructing a theory (simplicity and parsimony, for example, often called Ockham's razor) that will change slightly based on what you think you are doing when you construct a theory.
I agree that rocks in the past does not refute idealism (as you mentioned some idealist could easily say we don't "know" there were rocks in the past - I suppose the king idealist would say we don't "know" there are rocks now, even this one I am holding in my hand), but I just view this as one of those extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no?
— ZhouBoTong
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is one of the colloquial sayings that are really hard to apply consistently. Who defines what an extraordinary claim is, and how? Either way metaphysical questions are not decided by evidence in the way physical questions are. How would you even apply evidence to the question of what evidence actually represents?
If S admitted that it is possible we are all in the Matirx (he did so in this thread), then I think that places him more in line with me (sure idealism is possible, but it is meaningless whether it exists or not). I also think the varying degrees of idealism also vary in how coherent they are, and so you may have noticed S vehemently attacking a particular interpretation of idealism.
— ZhouBoTong
I wasn't able to extract much information about S' post at all. But that is somewhat beside the point, I don't want to talk above someone else's head.
"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
This line can be found at the end of the second paragraph (attached to reference #10).
By mentioning that "measurement" exists outside of any observer, it seems the author is worried about what idealists will do with his ideas...right? (I really am wondering if I am right or not here, not just driving my point home)
— ZhouBoTong
I don't know if they thought about idealism as philosophy or the consciousness interpretation of QM. In any event I don't think that the author is worried about a misinterpretation is the same as sqauring the theory with idealism. That'd be actively advocating a theory of QM that references the mind of the observer. But other interpretations, such as many worlds, seem to be essentially realist metaphysics.
And if I am reading that correctly, I think it addresses an important distinction in how idealism can be interpreted. If this is a definition of idealism (I tried to find a simple general one, please correct me if it is wrong or incomplete): Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. This could be interpreted as "we can not know reality except through the mind" which I would say is fine and I think S would agree (how else would we know anything?), but so what? It changes nothing, and explains nothing. However, if the above definition is interpreted as "nothing exists outside the mind" then we have a problem (and I think this is where S starts saying things that imply idealism is incoherent). I am not even saying I know it is false. But if it is true, it implies (directly states?) that we have NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. I am fine with being agnostic toward a claim like that. However, how SHOULD one live if they have no idea what reality is? Do you see the question itself becomes meaningless. Again, I am not arguing against idealism, just saying "why should I care?"
— ZhouBoTong
Well why does anyone care about philosophy? For the love of wisdom, no?
I also don't think either realism or idealism can tell you what you should do. Both are speculative, not normative. That the world really is what it looks like doesn't tell you what to do, either.
That nothing exists outside the mind is the position of solipsism, which is a very specific version of idealism. I haven't seen anyone here argue for metaphysical solipism.
But apart from that, why is it a problem if we don't know what reality "is"? Isn't it sufficient to know how our reality works, what observations to expect, or rather not to expect?[/quote]
[Quote=S]A rock is just a rock. By which I mean that it is just as it is defined. And the way that it's defined says nothing of how it looks or feels or whatever to an observer. What it says is what it is. What it does is describe it terms of objective properties.
Of course, I could have humoured him by answering the question by adopting his funny way of speaking, but I don't approve of his funny way of speaking, so that would be counterproductive. In case it hasn't become apparent to you by now, I'm a proponent of ordinary language philosophy, not Kantian language philosophy.[/quote]
"No philosophy left in the discussion" - Baden.
"The philosophical content had shrunk to almost nothing" - jamalrob.
@ZhouBoTong, @Mww, @Echarmion, @csalisbury.
Of course, this leaves out other comments, but they're not in dispute. Am I going to deny, for example, that banter like "Now fetch me a beer" is not representative of philosophical content? No. If it was that big a deal, comments like that could have been deleted. And who would've complained? Or, again, the staff could have actually communicated with any of us responsible for these comments which were judged not to meet the standards. And again, who would've complained?
No, you're definitely not unnecessary. On the contrary. You're too modest. Just look at Baden's comments. He said something along the lines that no one would agree with me, besides Terrapin. He wants to make out like it's all just me. It's all in my head. Or just me and Terrapin, who are harshly and narrowly judged as just a couple of malcontents. If only we could see the discussion going on in the private staff forum. I can predict the sort of content it will contain.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Surely this situation we find ourselves in is pretty strong evidence that it is a matter of perspective to no insignificant degree.
The site staff should stick more to taking action on the more clearcut stuff, and take better care not to let their personal value judgements interfere with philosophical discussions. Do we want moderators and administrators or philosophy police who forcefully shut down ongoing philosophical discussions which contain content such as the above, abruptly and without any warning, because they do not see any "philosophical value" in it? A number of us already knew that this "philosophical value" thing was Streetlight X's vice, but is it now a vice shared by multiple members of staff? Or is it just that it is now more apparent?
And there is a sad irony in the site staff taking heavy-handed action motivated by the goal of improving the quality of the forum, when that heavy-handed approach itself detracts from the quality of the forum.
Hopefully this case was an exception to the rule. Baden didn't handle it in the best way. His judgement wasn't at its best. He won't admit this or reverse the action, no matter what. And jamalrob and some of the others will unswervingly support him. But it's not the end of the world. I just hope it doesn't set a precedent.
Yes, it leaves out all but one of the final twenty or so comments which were the ones where the philosophical content was largely negligible and on which the decision was primarily based. But I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.
Again: It was the right decision in this case and the idea that leaving things go on the way they were would have improved rather than detracted from the quality of the site isn't at all convincing. So, if you want to play at mocking and insulting people and generally making no little or effort to engage productively, please stick to the lounge or the Shoutbox.
To others, there is a general argument to be made for closing less discussions and deleting more or finding other ways to deal with them. That's something we'll take on board.
You're sure that my acknowledgment that a number of comments on the last few pages, amongst those of pretty clear philosophical value, is actually an oversight on my part? That says it all.
Quoting Baden
I never suggested that things should have just been left to go on the way that they were. This is part of the problem. You're not really listening to what I'm saying.
Quoting Baden
And these were actually my points. This was my feedback. Yet he addresses it to others, and excludes me.
Baden, I love ya, but I think you're biased against me here.
I think one thing that makes closures more attractive here is that it leaves a trace, and the moderation is otherwise almost totally invisible. If only we had proper Pauline software.
If you lend me £50,000, I promise you I'll buy back the old forum. I definitely won't blow it all on drugs, hookers, fast cars, and partying.
I’ll go for one of the four.
You'll [I]intend[/I] to go for one of the four. You've never been on a night out with me. It's all or nothing. We might end up seriously injured, off of our faces on drugs, in a crashed Ferrari with two dead hookers in the back, but you couldn't say you didn't have a good time.
Aw, I love you too. :kiss: Did you say something else ... ? Must have missed that. ;)
I'm not taking any sides here, but I thought that this was a funny exchange, and it remained relevant enough. These kind of exchanges are almost inevitable. They're both big boys, both have a sense of humour, both have thick enough skin, both are capable of sufficiently remaining on point. If my current discussion was closed because of something like that, especially when I'm not even involved in the exchange, then I would be very annoyed at the staff responsible.
Just edit or delete if need be. And let's not overreact to a bit of banter or a cutting remark here and there or a few blunt truths.
I have the money ready for you, which I have inherited from my uncle who was the minister for exciting things in Nigeria, and is unfortunately a bit dead. I just need your bank details, and £500 to complete the probate papers, and I will be happy to transfer all the money and a £10,000 agents fee to you at once.
Surely those arguing against @S can decide there is nothing of value left? I may be missing something. Does it cost money to keep the posts? From a philosophy perspective, wouldn't it be better for the staff to add a post that says, "we (the site administrators) think the position of @S is nonsense. The argument seems to have devolved to an emotional tit-for-tat." Or maybe a "watch out. you are getting off topic".
Then those of us involved can defend ourselves against that (or correct our behavior). Also, that may encourage those who disagree with S(or me or whoever), to think, "Ok, I won. I can stop the discussion now" or they might have more to say. If so, what is the harm in continuing?
I would also note that the thread was SO active there was likely to be a bit of banter mixed in. It had over 600 posts in just a couple weeks (when closed I had four responses waiting for me).
Quoting Mww
Indeed. Thanks for the thoughts. While I may not have been entirely convinced as to the merits of idealism, I certainly learned a good deal about certain distinctions between realism and idealism.
Sorry I didn't bring enough knowledge to keep the thread open :grimace:
Oh god, no. There'd be one of those in every discussion I involved myself in. That's already an invisible signpost which follows me around. They wouldn't recognise my good sense if it ran up to them and slapped them round the face! To them, everything I say is utter nonsense.
Okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration. But not far off.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Did you hear that, @Banno? :grin:
You’re welcome. Gives me a chance to show off. No..wait...I mean....(grin)
Don’t sweat keeping the thread open; wasn’t up to us. There’ll be others.
Haha. Fair enough. But we don't have to agree when they say you are speaking nonsense. It allows them to say the forum is regulated, but we can keep our discussion going.
Quoting Mww
haha, as long as I can learn something, call it whatever you want :smile:
Not going to happen. :rofl:
Meh - I have two that are easily twice that, on this forum.
Yeah? I bet they didn't get closed prematurely. If I didn't act like such a smartarse, it probably would've just kept going to infinity.
I'll just leave this here...
Quoting Christoffer
:zip:
(At least I'm aware of my lack of humbleness, and openly acknowledge it with self-depreciating humour).
But you are not smart enough to come up with something to say yourself, you have to quote another of your ilk.
You say that I am not smart enough, but what would a chimpanzee know of the works of Shakespeare? It would be wasted on you.
I want "bantery" posts anyway, even if we're "strictly" doing philosophy. I prefer chatting to message board posting partially for this reason. It's the pits when people babble on and on for hundreds of words in a very unfocused. rambling manner, broaching what's essentially a couple handfuls or even tens of different issues in the process . . . and almost every single long post does that.
I didn't read your thread so can't weigh in, but if your thread contained similar insights as this^, I side against your oppressors.
Thanks
Bill
This is kind of funny, because I already said that it's not the end of the world, in those exact words. And I know how it works here from a staff perspective better than most, because I am a former staff member. But the Feedback forum is here for a good reason. I'm not just complaining for the sake of complaining, I'm being constructive about it. I don't think that the attitude of shrugging your shoulders and saying that that's just the way that it is is a great attitude to have if you actually care about the forum and what can be done to improve it. It's especially not a good attitude for a member of staff to have. That there are plenty of other things to discuss is beside the point.
I'll shrug my shoulders and move on after I've given my feedback and made my case, which I have done. And others have had a decent opportunity to give their input.
I would be okay with this discussion being closed now for that reason, although I doubt whether that's really necessary. And if it's not necessary, then why do it? What's the loss? Feedback should be more open and ongoing, unless and until it gets too disruptive or chaotic.
Don't worry If I do not agree my 'feedback' is given in spades. The point is beyond that you are better off just moving on. And it is a hard often thankless job. I cant recall the number of private emails I have had about shut down threads. I may or may not agree with it, but explaining a group decision to a sometimes angry 'member' tests my virtually non existent diplomacy skills to its limit. Just another highlight of that 'wonderful' job of Mentor. Seriously like all tasks it has good and bad aspects - obviously for me the good outweighs the bad.
Thanks
Bill
Apparently telling people how it is pisses them off, and that they get pissed off is my fault for not sugarcoating the truth, instead of their fault for not being a man about it. Apparently this looks bad. Apparently it's supposed to be style over substance in their world, thus sayeth the lord, or something tantamount to that anyway. He probably wouldn't put it quite like that. Apparently I'm supposed to care a great deal more about etiquette than I do.
These were given as examples of my "sophistry" in the message notifying me that I had been removed:
"Yep. That's the cold hard truth."
"Exactly. If you have faith, then you fall for it, and if you don't, then you don't fall for it."
"It would be a fact if God existed, and if God did so, but God doesn't, so God can't."
It's a joke, right? I'm much better off not being pressured into pussyfooting around, being too afraid to say boo to a goose for fear of what the boss might do. (My former boss also happens to be biased against New Atheists, and thought of me as he thinks of them, but I'm sure that that had nothing to do with it).
The whole saga was like expecting Diogenes to be "diplomatic" with Alexander the Great. But, of course, had he been so, instead of just telling him to step aside from blocking the sun, then Alexander wouldn't have respected him half as much, and there wouldn't have been an anecdote worth bringing up. Better to drink the hemlock, like Socrates.
Diogenes and Socrates now? I thought you were Winston from 1984? Who next? Wonderwoman?
I'm all of them and more. In short, I am God. In fact, God pales in comparison to me. I'm like God, but much better. Perfect in fact. No, wait, I'm better than perfect. Like, perfect, but more perfect. No, the most perfect. Greater than which no other being can be conceived.
Now step aside, you're blocking my glorious rays of brilliance.
Even if Baden were in the right, it would still be a dangerous (in the context of the battleground of ideas), authoritarian operating procedere. Its pretty obvious to me that the kind of dismissive, heavy hand is at play here. Imo, Baden IS in the wrong, it is clearly about his personal feelings. He shut downna discussion he didnt care for. The charge of bias standa as far as I can tell.
I do too which begs the question AGAIN as to why the "Lounge" was removed from the front page.