Underground Reptiles: Sick animal inquiry?

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Since you appear beset by difficulties of comprehension, feel free to spend the time looking up circular reasoning if you feel so inclined.

That seems to be a bit of a harsh retort. Specifically, "beset by difficulties of comprehension". Personally, I am not beset by such difficulties and it sounds to me like your implying something less than complimentary about Mr. Monahan.

Originally Posted by tim brophy

That seems to be a bit of a harsh retort. Specifically, "beset by difficulties of comprehension". Personally, I am not beset by such difficulties and it sounds to me like your implying something less than complimentary about Mr. Monahan.

Based on my attempts at level conversation with him, he has been either deliberately obtuse or he truly does have difficulties comprehending matters discussed. The latter is really the most kind situation, as it would mean it is not his fault (or at least not his intent).

However, when repeatedly wanting to know how he can skirt rules to lob insults at other members rather than focus on his own behavior, the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability.

"the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability"?
Frankly, I am also beset by difficulties of comprehension. I have difficulties comprehending pretentious writing.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

However, when repeatedly wanting to know how he can skirt rules to lob insults at other members rather than focus on his own behavior, the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability.

You see, Nick already knows how to lob insults while not running afoul of the rules. Its seems he's pretty lenient with both himself and his buddies.

I suppose he doesn't dare share details, lest he be tripped up by them ;-)

Originally Posted by thamnophis123

Able to make the assertion, but not able to defend it?

No. However, I know from communicating with you that you waste time like a child asking why after being given the reason...repeatedly. I also know that you falsely characterize events (exaggerate and/or lie). As such, humoring your immaturity (and at times maliciousness) is not at the top of my to-do list.

Your assertion:

There have been no confirmed cases of bSAL in the US, primarily because of the blanket ban. Seems like a recipe for effective intervention to me.

My assertion:

Circular.

There was not the feared effect. A practice was put into place. As before, there was still not the feared effect. To attribute that which was not taking place before to that which came after has no evidence. You asserted that the primary cause was the ban. The "evidence" for which is? The lack of confirmed cases. Which was already the case prior to the ban. As such, it is circular.

Originally Posted by tim brophy

"the deliberate possibility strengthens in apparent probability"?
Frankly, I am also beset by difficulties of comprehension. I have difficulties comprehending pretentious writing.

I will rephrase to compensate for that.

His communications indicate that he is intentionally trying to be obtuse when "not understanding" the rules that are explained to him. That shifts the benefit of the doubt that would support an unwilled lacked of understanding to a willful pretending not to understand. That means it has become increasingly obvious that he is by no means trying to understand in the first place. His only focus has been on how to avoid punishment rather than avoid what leads to punishment.

Originally Posted by thamnophis123

You see, Nick already knows how to lob insults while not running afoul of the rules. Its seems he's pretty lenient with both himself and his buddies.

I suppose he doesn't dare share details, lest he be tripped up by them ;-)

You have outright asked how to make false accusations about another member and get away with it on here and I told you it is not my role to enable that.

I am not sorry that I would not assist your stated desire to lie about and attack another member in such a way.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

His communications indicate that he is intentionally trying to be obtuse when "not understanding" the rules that are explained to him.

Not really Nick. I asked how you (as a moderator) could look the other way when someone posting here clearly denigrated my character without a shred of evidence supporting her accusations, even while she was demanding I provide rock solid evidence for every last thing I say - and going so far as to imply I just *might* have forged the receipt - the very evidence she was demanding I show - that I got from my vet.

In response you suggested it was only my assumption that she was denigrating my character - a sad excuse for unfair treatment and shoddy moderating.

If your presence here is to moderate discussions, why don't you do that? Instead of taking sides, leveling inaccurate critiques of arguments, and playing favorites?

And while your at it, why don't you re-read wikipedia's entry on circular reasoning. Maybe your reading comprehension difficulties will be cleared up with a second look.

Then read about the spread of Bsal in Norway, or the extinction of Australian frogs due to introduced Cytrid, or read some of the research supporting claims that the pet trade is largely responsible of the spread of chytrid around the world.

If your reading comprehension isn't too terribly compromised maybe you'll come to the rational conclusion that without steps to stop it, Bsal constituted a very real threat to North American salamanders, and that my assertion, in its given context, is not circular at all.

Originally Posted by thamnophis123

Not really Nick. I asked how you (as a moderator) could look the other way when someone posting here clearly denigrated my character without a shred of evidence supporting her accusations, even while she was demanding I provide rock solid evidence for every last thing I say - and going so far as to imply I just *might* have forged the receipt - the very evidence she was demanding I show - that I got from my vet.

You keep mistaking opinions for assertions of fact. You take what you believe was implied in those opinions as denigrating your character (which is within your right). If you have a problem with someone's words to such an effect, directly address them with your take. If it is someone's opinion that you are of low character, then that is not for me to police as long as it does not break a rule. If it were to become overtly abusive, that could draw moderation because of the breaking of a rule.

You asked me how to make false accusations and get away with it (after lying about what you were banned for).

In response you suggested it was only my assumption that she was denigrating my character - a sad excuse for unfair treatment and shoddy moderating.

It is your interpretation to have regarding the post you referenced. You are breaking a rule with this very post, but I am letting it go to give you a chance just like I have before for other rule violations you have committed in this thread.

If your presence here is to moderate discussions, why don't you do that? Instead of taking sides, leveling inaccurate critiques of arguments, and playing favorites?

I am both a member and a moderator. The two hats are separated by the color of text I employ. I have issued infractions for multiple people in this thread. Two disagreed with you. No favorites have been played or, if they have, I have favored you relative to the number of instances where I did not need to. I am also free to give my opinion as a normal member and address what I want to within the confines of the rules.

And while your at it, why don't you re-read wikipedia's entry on circular reasoning. Maybe your reading comprehension difficulties will be cleared up with a second look.

Try not to limit yourself to Wikipedia (or at least not one page). Begging the question beyond the most simplified form is a type of circular reasoning. Your premise is your proof by implication as it relates to the enactment of regulation in the US as the primary achiever of the goal (that existed before enactment).

Then read about the spread of Bsal in Norway, or the extinction of Australian frogs due to introduced Cytrid, or read some of the research supporting claims that the pet trade is largely responsible of the spread of chytrid around the world.

If your reading comprehension isn't too terribly compromised maybe you'll come to the rational conclusion that without steps to stop it, Bsal constituted a very real threat to North American salamanders, and that my assertion, in its given context, is not circular at all.

I did not, in any way, dispute that as real where it has occurred or that it could be a risk in the US. If you read my words, rather than whatever you may have imagined was typed in invisible font, you would see I did not speak to there being no risk (since I do not believe there is zero risk). You have nothing other than absence (which was preexisting) to say the primary reason for a lack of infection here was the ban. That is circular. One could just as easily claim, by virtue of no cases here, that not having a ban was equally effective here at preventing cases as the ban has been (based on the lack of cases in both time periods). I do not discount the risks, though, so I do not say such things. You are mostly disputing an argument I did not make in the fragment of response above.

Since we are veering off-topic (again), we should return to discussion that relates more to Underground Reptiles and the snakes purchased from them. Yours, Joe, which recently tested positive for the fungus of concern, as well as those of Logan (and others if if there are others to come forward with their accounts). The test results and other details are valuable pieces of information here. The general concerns regarding the disease that are beyond connection to UR are already reserved for the other thread.

If you want to lodge a complaint about moderation, the feedback forum is the appropriate place for that.