When he asked what he had done, I said, among other things:
Mainly you were banned for being an often-profane, disingenuous waste of everyone's time. Your arguments are generally terrible and you have shown no inclination to learn from prior correction.
Here's a great example:
i can answer this easily. Gods decision, the women get no say.
That's not even close, and you should know that. This kind of behavior is not acceptable, and when it becomes clear it's not merely an aberration but is rather a pattern, we know everyone on the page is better off if you're not there repeating your lies and bias.
I'm afraid you'll just have to find somewhere else to lie about us.
The most recent time, he appeared to be willing to be much more conciliatory than before, even going so far as to say:
Furthermore, although on a personal level i in no way agree with the abolishon of abortion, i think that the work you guys do with adopted kids is incredible. if you would feel okay with it, i'd like to discuss the matter further on a less confrontational basis?He also asked by what rules he would have to abide so as not to be blocked again.
I told him:
No insults of any kind.
No profanity of any kind. Nothing borderline. If you wouldn't say it to someone who is more sensitive than your grandmother, don't say it.
No more bringing up like a broken record things that admins have mistakenly said in the past for which they apologised and offered an explanation why it was a mistake.
No more drive-by derogatory comments. You can object to stuff if you want. If you do, ask questions, be reasonable, listen to what others say, and actually interact with what they say.
I can't possibly list out everything by which responsible, rational adults abide, so if you have questions about something, consider any of us admins available for PM to inquire about whether a given proposed comment is allowable.
Later, he posted the status update which precipitated the thread of conversation that follows it, which I have reproduced below the fold. At first, he did fine as far as following these rules, but as the reader will note, he made a fallacious argument. Not a huge deal, really - people make mistakes. I asked him to withdraw that argument since it was fallacious.
I even emailed him evidence that it was fallacious.
He refused to withdraw the argument or to concede that it was fallacious. Thus, he convinced me that he was not serious about rational argumentation. I decided to block him for many of the reasons I have laid out elsewhere, and promised to host as much as I could of this thread on my blog. So here we are.
For those who may object to his blocking on those grounds, let me say this. The AHA page on Facebook is not for trolling and constant argumentation. It is for rational discussion and debate between rational people who do not show utter obstinacy and complete refusal to abide by even so much as rules of logic. We can't police everyone all the time, of course, but when someone like Oliver becomes so visible and disingenuously misrepresents his intentions to us and demonstrates a continual stubborn refusal to accede to simple logic, blocking him is not only justified, it's probably obligatory on our part.
Unfortunately, Facebook's user interface leaves an awful lot to be desired. For one thing, it automatically renders as spam any blocked user's content and it moves it out of chronological order. From occasional page saves I have attempted to reproduce most of it in mostly the correct chronological order, but I ask for forgiveness from the reader that a few things will be missing.
Also, ignore the timestamps. The order in which the posts appear is approximately correct and was culled together from various page saves over the course of the day.
Oliver R aah fair enough.