Should we ban Revprez?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-31 04:44pm

I am fed up with his merry go round logic bullshit. I've avoided his trash until he started spouting his shit in Setzer's thread on a evry serious personal issue and then conitnued by stating that Biology teaches nothing and is unneccessary. Fuck him. And like Mike I know people are avoiding his threads for the same reasons we avoided Dorkstar's.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-31 04:45pm

In his case, no one can say he wasn't given enough chances. But in the end, he went right back to his idiotic "it's not important to have objective evidence" mantra, while maintaining his practice of demanding that very same thing from others when it's convenient for him.

Oh, and by the way, for Revprez:

Goodbye. You won't be missed. Who would like to volunteer to compose his entry in the Shit List? Post it here and we'll add it to the Announcements forum.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-31 05:14pm

Revprez - Self-righteous poster who thought that just because he got into MIT he was smarter than all others. His method of arguing involved spouting sophistic/solipsistic bullshit until people started avoiding threads he participated in. Was given a pardon by Wong himself, but burned his bridges multiple times due to enormous hubris.

Oh, and I agree. Ban him. I've read most of his damn posts, and the mental dissonance caused by his extremely fucking stupid arguments, combined with his flaunting that damn MIT sig like he owned the place, pissed me the hell off.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-31 05:15pm

Don't forget his love of arguing until everyone was blue in the face, then offering a token concession so everybody's research and arguments were for nothing.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-31 05:15pm

I'd say to ban him, but he already has been.

Thanks Mike, I couldn't fucking stand that son of a bitch, especially his half-way innocent baiting.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-01-31 05:20pm

Excellent.
Its actually refreshing to see a board that can take a democratic action, instead of sitting around with there thumbs up their asses like other boards I know.
The amusement he gave was very short lived. I warned him a week ago that he was headed towards a ban. But no one listens to DH, no. I have all those stars for a reason.
But, such is life. He is gone. Thank you Mr. Wong.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-31 05:20pm

I might as well do this now.

"Don't send my boy to MIT, the dying mother said..."

That's the first line of the band 'anthem.' Good riddance.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2004-01-31 05:27pm

I guess my thread was just the straw that borke the camel's back.
I haven't read very many of his posts, but he doesn't really seem to contribute anything.
I say we give him the boot.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-31 05:28pm

impressive how his avatar got doctored up so quickly. . . .

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-31 05:30pm

Setzer wrote:I guess my thread was just the straw that borke the camel's back.

I saw the way he kept posting in it, kept trying to elicit a response, kept trying to drag it off the original subject and into one of his "atheism vs Christianity" threads, and that's when I decided it was time to push him to the wall and see whether he'd revert right back to pure trolling. He did.

I haven't read very many of his posts, but he doesn't really seem to contribute anything.

I say we give him the boot.

Already done

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-31 05:31pm

Darth_Zod wrote:impressive how his avatar got doctored up so quickly. . . .

GIMP is my friend.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-31 05:39pm

I'm of two minds about it.

Being an annoying debator in and of itself isn't grounds for banning. Lots of people are annoying debators. I'm certain that many people here would say that I'm an annoying debator, especially when I'm right. Likewise, I don't think we should ban him for being at odds with the popular paradigms of the boards. Variety is the spice of life, and it makes a good fight when two people who are radically different. In fact, that's the only way I'd say new ideas come up.

On the gripping hand, he didn't really seem to contribute very much and where he did contribute, it seemed to be in the same way that one of the kids in high school contributed rather infamously to the Schenley swimming pool. He enters the thread, suddenly everything gets warmer and most people run from the thread and everyone is yelling at him, disrupting the course of the thread entirely until he leaves. Good threads rapidly become pee-filled when he enters them, like the biology thread. This is not a good thing. Disrupting the ebb and flow of the threads you enter, practically everytime and with great gusto, makes you a troll. And that's bannable.

Plus, I'm a bit irritated with his long arguing about how MIT doesn't care if you took biology in high school, then when I pointed to their course syllabus for their intro to biology course and it said that they presuppose the student has taken high school biology and chemistry, he goes "And what's you're point?" Argh.

So anyway, I personally may not have banned him, but I'm not going to argue really in his defense or shed a tear that he's gone.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-31 05:51pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I'm of two minds about it.

Being an annoying debator in and of itself isn't grounds for banning. Lots of people are annoying debators. I'm certain that many people here would say that I'm an annoying debator, especially when I'm right. Likewise, I don't think we should ban him for being at odds with the popular paradigms of the boards. Variety is the spice of life, and it makes a good fight when two people who are radically different. In fact, that's the only way I'd say new ideas come up.

It's not a matter of opposing views; it's a matter of A) simultaneously saying that objective evidence is unnecessary in one thread and flaming somebody for not having enough of it in another thread and B) shamelessly hijacking Setzer's thread, which was a pure example of trolling.

A) was characteristic of his entire debate style. Most people either consistently support the use of subjective methods or they consistently support the use of objective methods. He unapologetically switched back and forth depending on what was convenient for him, which is the mark of either a troll or a liar.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-31 06:05pm

He's banned

Bloody good show

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-01-31 06:09pm

I'd would have said no, but the boards probably better off this way.

Good Riddence.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-31 06:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's not a matter of opposing views; it's a matter of A) simultaneously saying that objective evidence is unnecessary in one thread and flaming somebody for not having enough of it in another thread and B) shamelessly hijacking Setzer's thread, which was a pure example of trolling.

A) was characteristic of his entire debate style. Most people either consistently support the use of subjective methods or they consistently support the use of objective methods. He unapologetically switched back and forth depending on what was convenient for him, which is the mark of either a troll or a liar.

I agree entirely with (B). He peed in Setzer's pool there.

But (A). Yeah, I suppose it's a good reason, but there are alot or people who use message boards who are guity of that sort of hypocrisy at sometimes. I would be lying if I said that I was entirely consistant in some of my arguments, or unaware that was wasn't entirely being consistant. Lots of people do it, and I'm sure pick through the N&P forum and find plenty of examples of this. But I'm glad that many of the people who let them do this aren't banned, because some of them are really likable otherwise. Plus, lots of people, when they first start are usually guilty of this message board sin. After a while, some grow up and become functional members of the community. That's why I'm hesitant with the ban trigger, since I'm glad that I was given a chance to grow into my humble niche despite my less than honorable beginnings.

Let me say again that I'm not trying to defend revprez or say that he shouldn't be banned. Maybe a bit of Devil's Advocate. I don't think that revprez would have grown up or formed into a niche, since he was an utter ferrous cranium or would have gotten better. It's good that he's been banned. I guess I'm just rambling, so I'll shut up now.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-01-31 06:38pm

I think the difference is that most people are inconsistant naturally. Most people simply are not 100% consistant in anything, dependent very much on their mood, and some is simple miswording. Misunderstandings are very easy on a webboard such as this, were dialects clash and long winded, complex posts are a norm.
RevPrez used this inconsistancy to his advantage. He abused semantics and , like Mr Wong said, was inconsistant on his acceptance of proof entirely for his own benefit. Unfortunately for him, most saw through it quickly. He could not sweet talk, or double talk his way out of it, and when backed into corners, only became more trollish.
How he graduated from MIT is beyond me. He seems so bullheaded and so willing to disregard science that his ability to complete higher science courses is somewhat amazing.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-01-31 07:14pm

Good riddence, his tripe was amusing at first, but he quickly wore out his welcome when he became darkstar lite continuously posting nonsense with a stonedeaf wall of solid ignorantium.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-01-31 07:22pm

Darth Wong wrote: Goodbye. You won't be missed. Who would like to volunteer to compose his entry in the Shit List? Post it here and we'll add it to the Announcements forum.

Whatever it is, it must be translated into hoodz-speak.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-31 07:25pm

Damn, I missed the poll. Oh well, I guess I can try writing a Shit List entry for him.

Revprez - Self-righteous fundie blowhard. Revprez stormed onto SD.Net with a series of thread hijacks and flamebait defending his fellow fundies, but was completely unable to argue his point rationally. Eventually he got even worse and was flushed by a staggering majority ban poll.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-31 07:32pm

Icehawk wrote:Good riddence, his tripe was amusing at first, but he quickly wore out his welcome when he became darkstar lite continuously posting nonsense with a stonedeaf wall of solid ignorantium.

Not to mention that he accumulated over a thousand posts in just a month.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-31 07:35pm

BAND!

B&!

Thank you, Mike, for a long-overdue trash removal.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-31 07:44pm

It's a moot point now, but @ wouldn't have voted to ban him. Found his conversations particularly amusing ... rarely (perhaps since Darkstar) have I had the priviledge of witessing the power of just one individual to infuriate so many with little effort. It is with a somewhat wry sadness that I realize I'll not see so many spirited replies due to his posts...

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2004-01-31 07:45pm

Since I spoke in his defense the last time this question was posed, I suppose I'll pipe up again now. I'm lenient towards ignorance, to a degree. If someone is honestly ignorant of something, I try to be gentle, I really do. However, when ignorance and arrogance are mixed, it can be quite grating, which is what has happened with revprez. He thinks he's got his shit together when he clearly doesn't. I was hoping he'd wise up some, but apparently his machismo has gotten the better of him and he just self-destructed, which is unfortunate. Had he steered clear of debates for the most part, he might have been a worthwhile member of the community. As it is, it's true, he poisoned most of the threads he posted in. Since he's already banned, I guess it's redundant for me to say one way or the other, but I wanted to make sure it was clear where I stood. I don't think it was worthwhile keeping him here any longer. It may not have been malice that caused the friction, in my opinion, but even without malice as the motivating factor, you have to find a line after which you pull the plug. He crossed that line, so I'm not sorry that he's gone.

Personally, I think the most memorable monument to his ignorance came from the gun safety thread in the HoS, in which the exchange went as such:

"Hundreds of people die every year in the US alone from accidental gun discharges." -Hotfoot
"...[That's an] appeal to popularity." -revprez

So long, revprez. May you find knowledge and wisdom in your travels, so that you might one day understand what a twat you've been here. Toodles!

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-31 07:52pm

It's a moot point now, but @ wouldn't have voted to ban him. Found his conversations particularly amusing ... rarely (perhaps since Darkstar) have I had the priviledge of witessing the power of just one individual to infuriate so many with little effort. It is with a somewhat wry sadness that I realize I'll not see so many spirited replies due to his posts...