@VehmicJuryman said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth You are at the limit of your IQ here. Don't worry about it, try some picture books instead.

You're just dumb or dishonest. Answer this question for yourself, why is having sex slaves and sex with a 9 year old not included in what makes you think he has a metabolic disorder, yet his inability to have boys and his anger issues are included? And why did you use the word "although" when introducing your sentence about Muhammad's stress-reducing sexual slavery, just after writing that you weren't sure how he was unique, and just before saying "still" he seems to have a metabolic disorder for X reasons.

@Truth said in A Small Announcement:

@VehmicJuryman said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth It seems my post requires a level of reading comprehension and critical thinking that you simply don't possess.

I understand your comment better than you do, or you understand it as much as I do yet you're just a pussy who's in denial. There is no critical thought in your comment.

@VehmicJuryman said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth It seems my post requires a level of reading comprehension and critical thinking that you simply don't possess.

I understand your comment better than you do, or you understand it as much as I do yet you're just a pussy who's in denial. There is no critical thought in your comment.

@VehmicJuryman said in Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?:

This is just the natural diet of a pastoral culture like the Arabs, plus fruit due to living in the tropics. Not sure what makes Muhammad unique in this regard. Although I'm sure having a harem of slave women and captives, plus living off the profits of predation and banditry against his neighbors helped reduce stress. Still his inability to father sons and his personality disorders including psychosis and anger issues may indicate some metabolic issues.

@VehmicJuryman said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth It seems my post requires a level of reading comprehension and critical thinking that you simply don't possess.

I understand your comment better than you do. You don't understand your own comment or you're just a pussy in denial. There is no critical thought in your comment.

@VehmicJuryman said in Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?:

This is just the natural diet of a pastoral culture like the Arabs, plus fruit due to living in the tropics. Not sure what makes Muhammad unique in this regard. Although I'm sure having a harem of slave women and captives, plus living off the profits of predation and banditry against his neighbors helped reduce stress. Still his inability to father sons and his personality disorders including psychosis and anger issues may indicate some metabolic issues.

@VehmicJuryman said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth That post does not talk about sexual slavery as a positive thing in any way. The entire post is obviously a criticism of Muhammad, and a sarcastic way of arguing that minimizing stress through violence against others is not Peaty. Make sure to apologize to me for your calumny.

It does, stress reduction is positive, you don't mention any negative impact on sex slaves or Muhammad, and don't even include the fact that Muhammad has sex slaves (according to you) and that he had relations with a 9 year old girl (according to the accounts of Muhammad's life) as elements that make you think he potentially has a "metabolic derangement".

your comment seems more like an attempt at humor not funny at all, attempt at humor about sex slavery, and the "criticism" part seems to be at least partly a cover to place your bad joke, you or another user on reddit(raypeat subreddit)had argued the exact same point about the "peaty" benefits of sex slavery and raiding one's enemies for muhammad, thinking it's funny.

@NotShanalotte said in NotShannalotte's Zoo:

@Truth Any user could do nearly the same just by copy-paste instead of moving posts. It's not against the rules. that's your whole issue right? Likewise you have no right to complain about what I post.

Your reasoning states that I could call you every name in the book right now if I desire simply because it isn't in the rules. I will never do that, but I want you to think about it.

It isn't in the rules that I have to answer your questions either. But I try to do so to foster understanding by my own choice. Would you like me to ignore you instead?

Do you have any idea what would happen if every user treated each other that way, using racial slurs and God knows what else because there isn't a specific rules? It wouldn't take being a moderator to get users to leave the forum. I've watched forums die overnight that way.

The only user that I moderated outside of those rules, DoomerZoomer, was a user who was only asked to stop using slurs (not a moderator action). Then he went on a tirade of personal attacks about Peat being a charlatan. Upon his return he didn't even make a thread or compose a post.

I'll tell you what, DoomerZoomer would be done with a short cool-off timeout soon. I'll make a poll and see what the forum at large thinks.

We'll see what the will of the people is. My concern is that a casual observer sees bioenergetic/high metabolism == racism. Reputation is important.

As for the Muhammed thread my only post was to the two users arguing to stay on topic before that devolved. Your claim is a blatant lie you just told. I see by your numerous edits that you're still wrong.

IME letting threads devolve whether about Islam, Christianity or otherwise just makes it impossible for any related topic to ever be posted.

Still, I intended to move merge lisan-al-gaib's posts into one, and put that back in the thread. That is not why the user was banned.

lisan-al-gaib was put into what was supposed to be temporary containtment. They broke a rule but didn't know it. I spent all day dealing with that user when I could have banned immediately, who also seemed to hate me.

According to you, it's not in the rules I needed to do that and you have no leg to stand on.

Yes, all that matters right now is you banning people who haven't broken any rules, so you're wrong on that score, I don't give a damn about your personal preferences in terms of what's good or bad.

According to the rules of this forum yes, you can call anyone any name you want as long as it's not a violent threat, if you have a problem with that, you send a message to Brad and say you'd like new rules.

You don't have to answer, I don't care about your answers, they're mostly incoherent and/or wrong, it's just to expose your non sense.

You're starting to contribute to a list of forums that are dying over night with your bad moderation.

Calling someone a quack isn't against the rules, whether it's Ray peat or someone else.

I didn't lie, you told lisan Al gaib that he.could take the other user's post as an example because he makes his point without enthic, the post this other user talks about sexual slavery in a positive way because it reduced Muhammad's stress, i linked the posts. You're wrong about absolutely everything, because the standard is Brad's rules, and no rules were broken in the posts in your zoo.

The thread about Muhammad is already "islam", it didn't "devolve into islam", the name of the post is"Muhammad Pbuh(wich mean peace and benediction upon him, formula that Muslims believers use) the original Peater", it talk about his attributes in Islam, so this post implies the OP's belief in Muhammad(pbuh), and in Islam and the stories of Muhammad's life, because he believes elements of those stories, and uses them as arguments.

Simple question, is it forbidden to recommend things against the law, if so from which country/state?

@NotShanalotte said in New Poll: You, the People Decide the Fate of a User:

There's been some unrest recently about me banning a user who technically did not violate the rules. Said user was asked not to use a racial slur, but no moderation action was taken. Later he made personal attacks against me and besmirched Ray Peat and the ideas underpinning
this forum.

At that point, based on over a decade of forum moderation and classroom management from middle school on up, I banned that user. Reasoning: reputation of the forum; inability to respond in a mature manner; lack of forum etiquette (proper posting, composition, etc).

IOW a "shit-poster"

He then made an alt account and posted several links rather than make a topic for discussion.

Should said user be reinstated? Do you, the users at large want such a user here? Have your say by leaving a yes or no. Please refrain from other responses until the "poll" is complete. to keep the thread orderly and make counting easier.

It is 0100 EST in the USA right now and I will lock this topic and count the votes at midnight, morning of the 26th, about 2 days.

I wanted to do a real poll but it isn't posting properly, sorry about that.

Super bad post, it's not the users who decide who should be banned according to their personal preference, actually Brad has said his rules, people use/don't use the forum as they please, and make suggestions to Brad.

@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:

@Truth I just got done composing my reply to you in the other thread. There is no need for you to post the same message in multiple places, I saw it the first time.

Better here

@NotShanalotte said in NotShannalotte's Zoo:

@Truth Any user could do nearly the same just by copy-paste instead of moving posts. It's not against the rules. that's your whole issue right? Likewise you have no right to complain about what I post.

Your reasoning states that I could call you every name in the book right now if I desire simply because it isn't in the rules. I will never do that, but I want you to think about it.

It isn't in the rules that I have to answer your questions either. But I try to do so to foster understanding by my own choice. Would you like me to ignore you instead?

Do you have any idea what would happen if every user treated each other that way, using racial slurs and God knows what else because there isn't a specific rules? It wouldn't take being a moderator to get users to leave the forum. I've watched forums die overnight that way.

The only user that I moderated outside of those rules, DoomerZoomer, was a user who was only asked to stop using slurs (not a moderator action). Then he went on a tirade of personal attacks about Peat being a charlatan. Upon his return he didn't even make a thread or compose a post.

I'll tell you what, DoomerZoomer would be done with a short cool-off timeout soon. I'll make a poll and see what the forum at large thinks.

We'll see what the will of the people is. My concern is that a casual observer sees bioenergetic/high metabolism == racism. Reputation is important.

As for the Muhammed thread my only post was to the two users arguing to stay on topic before that devolved. Your claim is a blatant lie you just told. I see by your numerous edits that you're still wrong.

IME letting threads devolve whether about Islam, Christianity or otherwise just makes it impossible for any related topic to ever be posted.

Still, I intended to move merge lisan-al-gaib's posts into one, and put that back in the thread. That is not why the user was banned.

lisan-al-gaib was put into what was supposed to be temporary containtment. They broke a rule but didn't know it. I spent all day dealing with that user when I could have banned immediately, who also seemed to hate me.

According to you, it's not in the rules I needed to do that and you have no leg to stand on.

Yes, all that matters right now is you banning people who haven't broken any rules, so you're wrong on that score, I don't give a damn about your personal preferences in terms of what's good or bad.

According to the rules of this forum yes, you can call anyone any name you want as long as it's not a violent threat, if you have a problem with that, you send a message to Brad and say you'd like new rules.

You don't have to answer, I don't care about your answers, they're mostly incoherent and/or wrong, it's just to expose your non sense.

You're starting to contribute to a list of forums that are dying over night with your bad moderation.

Calling someone a quack isn't against the rules, whether it's Ray peat or someone else.

I didn't lie, you told lisan Al gaib that he.could take the other user's post as an example because he makes his point without enthic, the post this other user talks about sexual slavery in a positive way because it reduced Muhammad's stress, i linked the posts. You're wrong about absolutely everything, because the standard is Brad's rules, and no rules were broken in the posts in your zoo.

The thread about Muhammad is already "islam", it didn't "devolve into islam", the name of the post is"Muhammad Pbuh(wich mean peace and benediction upon him, formula that Muslims believers use) the original Peater", it talk about his attributes in Islam, so this post implies the OP's belief in Muhammad(pbuh), and in Islam and the stories of Muhammad's life, because he believes elements of those stories, and uses them as arguments.

Simple question, is it forbidden to recommend things against the law, if so from which country/state?

@NotShanalotte said in A Small Announcement:

Please see here from our admin himself that calls for violence include telling others to end themselves. This is my oversight for not including it, and I apologize.

Please be advised that I will take swift action on this point as we are all mature enough to know that we should step away from the keyboard for such things.

Likewise, because certain types of users seem to be missing the point overall, I have started my own thread in the Junkyard:

NotShannalotte's Zoo

I have two reasons: one, these examples are things that are not explicitly against the rules but are disruptive and mean-spirited; and two, therefore, if Brad wishes to create new rules he will have a "Hall of Shame" to reference.

I will continue to make Junkyard threads of slapfights to quarantine users. It is at my discretion to take further action should the issue continue, as I will not spend all of my free time moving posts.

My current idea is a 48 hour ban for such users to cool off, and I am also considering making this my default response. I do not have thread-banning tools which is where the quarantine idea of moving posts came from.

On a less serious note, posting links to products in general is fine. The other mods and I are looking for spam/advertiser behavior and will move such posts or ban users (typically bots) should the need arise. Please continue to report spam and bot-like behavior that you see. It's fine to Report if you're not sure.

If you have further question, send me a chat or post here and we'll get it sorted. Please know that I make these posts as general announcements to not single-out users. Thanks for your time.

@NotShanalotte said in NotShannalotte's Zoo:

Here I will be collecting posts of users who technically haven't broken the rules, but serve as an example of bad behavior. If you have to ask, the answer is "Don't post in such a manner." Brad wants us to govern ourselves and not to have to invoke his status as a reason for doing things, so let's all build a welcoming forum culture that avoids the posts I'll be moving here.

Posts are preserved as-is and may be offensive.

Remember, if I moved a post here, I only didn't delete it so others can observe what not to do, and that I have notified the user(s) of the expectations upon them.

You called it a zoo, implying that the people whose comments you have, or had posted in this thread are animals in captivity that are under your control, that's bad.

I read the comments of the people you put in your "zoo",

Excluding your posts, there is no threat in the posts you have included in your "zoo", so no broken rule, saying "niggers", being "off topic" according to your criteria, having an alt account, evoked or recommended ideas that according to you are not Ray peat nor bioenergetic ideas, this is against no rule, so claiming that this is bad behavior legitimate for banishment according to the rules that Brad has defined, is false.

Is it forbidden to recommend things against the law, if so, the laws of which countries/states?

you praised a post, which evoked sexual slavery as positive because "it reduced Muhammad's stress", and you said it was an example of a good post, that's about your ability to moderate anything at the moment.

His post:

@VehmicJuryman said in Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?:

This is just the natural diet of a pastoral culture like the Arabs, plus fruit due to living in the tropics. Not sure what makes Muhammad unique in this regard. Although I'm sure having a harem of slave women and captives, plus living off the profits of predation and banditry against his neighbors helped reduce stress. Still his inability to father sons and his personality disorders including psychosis and anger issues may indicate some metabolic issues.

What you Said about his post:

@NotShanalotte said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:

You didn't participate in the thread. Period. The topic was diet. User VehmicJuryman has made since made the same point as you but without the antics. If you had edited your post, you could have learned from his example.

You said that the comments of the user reading Al gaib and VehmicJuryman had the same point. the first is condemning pedophilia, the second is talking about sex slavery in a positive way because it reduced Muhammad stress, totally different.

@Peatful @ThinPicking

@NotShanalotte said in NotShannalotte's Zoo:

Here I will be collecting posts of users who technically haven't broken the rules, but serve as an example of bad behavior. If you have to ask, the answer is "Don't post in such a manner." Brad wants us to govern ourselves and not to have to invoke his status as a reason for doing things, so let's all build a welcoming forum culture that avoids the posts I'll be moving here.

Posts are preserved as-is and may be offensive.

Remember, if I moved a post here, I only didn't delete it so others can observe what not to do, and that I have notified the user(s) of the expectations upon them.

You called it a zoo, implying that the people whose comments you have, or had posted in this thread are animals in captivity that are under your control, that's bad.

I read the comments of the people you put in your "zoo",

Excluding your posts, there is no threat in the posts you have included in your "zoo", so no broken rule, saying "niggers", being "off topic" according to your criteria, having an alt account, evoked or recommended ideas that according to you are not Ray peat nor bioenergetic ideas, this is against no rule, so claiming that this is bad behavior legitimate for banishment according to the rules that Brad has defined, is false.

Is it forbidden to recommend things against the law, if so, the laws of which countries/states?

you praised a post, which evoked sexual slavery as positive because "it reduced Muhammad's stress", and you said it was an example of a good post, that's about your ability to moderate anything at the moment.

His post:

@VehmicJuryman said in Muhammad Pbuh, The original peater?:

This is just the natural diet of a pastoral culture like the Arabs, plus fruit due to living in the tropics. Not sure what makes Muhammad unique in this regard. Although I'm sure having a harem of slave women and captives, plus living off the profits of predation and banditry against his neighbors helped reduce stress. Still his inability to father sons and his personality disorders including psychosis and anger issues may indicate some metabolic issues.

What you Said about his post:

@NotShanalotte said in Lisan-al-gaiband noodlecat59's offtopic slapfight:

You didn't participate in the thread. Period. The topic was diet. User VehmicJuryman has made since made the same point as you but without the antics. If you had edited your post, you could have learned from his example.

You said that the comments of the user reading Al gaib and VehmicJuryman had the same point. the first is condemning pedophilia, the second is talking about sex slavery in a positive way because it reduced Muhammad stress, totally different.

@Peatful @ThinPicking