What kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated?

[LinguistSkeptic]

So, I've already been threatened a few times by the moderators that I would be banned from this forum. However, there are people here who behave at least as badly as I do on this forum, yet they are praised. For example, FlatAssembler. Once he made a personal insult to me, yet nobody reacted.
http://linguistforum.com/historical-linguistics/was-latin-ever-a-spoken-language/msg25098/#msg25098

WTF are you smoking?

The other time, he made a long and unclear post as an opening to a thread.
http://linguistforum.com/outside-of-the-box/croatian-toponyms/
When I asked him to explain what he meant, he called me an "uneducated conspiracy theorist", and linked me to a thread making fun of me:
http://linguistforum.com/outside-of-the-box/croatian-toponyms/msg25107/#msg25107

Just because you have no idea how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. Get educated, and then return to this forum. Otherwise, THIS is how you sound now:
http://linguistforum.com/linguist's-lounge/airplanes-don't-exist-(a-parody-of-the-conspiracy-theorists)/

Then, after other people agreed that he was unclear, he has simply been refusing to respond.
So, why is he praised by the moderators, while I am being threatened to be banned?

[Daniel]

To clarify, my intent isn't to ban you. But you seem to be interested in figuring out what it will take.

There are a couple ways of answering your question:

1. Conduct yourself as you would in normal human interaction, at a school, a restaurant, a job, whatever. If you're annoying people or making things too personal, you'll be asked to leave. Maybe the waiters at a restaurant are terrible: if you stand on your table and start yelling about it, what do you think will happen? Remember, you can always leave the restaurant if you don't like the food (or service).

2. Many of your posts seem to be on (or over) the line of trolling, when someone interacts online only to cause problems. Please prove me wrong about that.

3. FlatAssembler might be entirely wrong. But it's not your job to harass someone if they're wrong. FlatAssembler has contributed genuine questions and ideas to the forum. You have not contributed anything yet aside from, well, skepticism, which by itself isn't a contribution at all. Everything in linguistics might be wrong. There, I said it, now you don't have to. And if that's how you feel, then you shouldn't be here. If you think there is something to be gained by still discussing these ideas, great.

Overall, whether someone is banned is, I suppose, a simple equation: are they contributing more than they are causing problems?

(You are correct that FlatAssembler's 'theories' post was also crossing a line, but one you've crossed repeatedly. My intention is not to ban or censor people here, and if you notice I asked FlatAssembler to not do that again. So at best your argument here could show that both of you should be banned, except that (1) FlatAssembler has been contributing other things that outweigh that small action, and (2) that was exaggerated, but what do you expect when you claim Latin was never a spoken language and otherwise only attack other theories? Did you really expect agreement?)

---

In short, no one will be banned for expressing ideas. Someone might be banned for interacting in an unpleasant way.

Just common sense.

If you want to continue to interact here, then I suggest contributing. Ask or answer questions, and leave it at that.

--

In short, for any reasonable sort of interaction here, you shouldn't even have to ask this question.

[LinguistSkeptic]

If you notice I asked FlatAssembler to not do that again.

Where, exactly? As far as I can see, you are mostly affirming everything he says. Except at his "Airplanes don't exist" thread, where you remain silent.

[Daniel]

Where, exactly? As far as I can see, you are mostly affirming everything he says.

In response to FlatAssembler posting that link, I replied:
http://linguistforum.com/historical-linguistics/was-latin-ever-a-spoken-language/msg25109/#msg25109
I didn't make a big deal of it because I assumed FlatAssembler would listen to my reasonable question, and so far that is the case. Simple.

I have no interest in playing babysitter here, and that's what it seems you want. You're wasting my time, FlatAssembler's time, and your time.

As far as I can see, you are mostly affirming everything he says.

If you actually read what I wrote (on the first couple pages, before you interrupted) you'll see I'm actually very skeptical because I don't know how to verify that FlatAssembler is correct. But I also don't have any data to falsify the ideas, so I'm conservatively stating that, which is reasonable science.

---

This discussion (mixed across 3 or more threads now) has taken up enough of my time. If you have sincere questions, ask them. If you have feedback, post it (politely), and then let others do what they want with it. Straightforward, and should not need to be explained.

[FlatAssembler]

Why exactly do you think I shouldn't have posted the "Airplanes don't exist" thread? LinguistSkeptic could very well be serious. I once used to believe that the Earth was flat and that the Moon doesn't exist. I wish someone had shown me earlier why the arguments made by the conspiracy theorists are invalid.

[Daniel]

Because it's off topic, and rather than discussing linguistics everything seems to be going off topic. Either an on topic conversation about linguistics (for example, Croatian toponyms) works, or it doesn't.

And more generally because that approach to an argument isn't going to convince someone. ("Here's an example of how bad your ideas are." -- no one's going to listen and be convinced by that approach.)

[LinguistSkeptic]

Why exactly do you think I shouldn't have posted the "Airplanes don't exist" thread? LinguistSkeptic could very well be serious. I once used to believe that the Earth was flat and that the Moon doesn't exist. I wish someone had shown me earlier why the arguments made by the conspiracy theorists are invalid.

If you are so bad at logic that they were able to convince you that the Earth was flat, why do you then keep writing about topics you only know little about? Isn't it likely that you are just as wrong about the Croatian toponyms (and other things you think you've come up with ideas about) as you were about the shape of the Earth?

[Daniel]

I'm going to lock this topic now. It has run its course.

The question has been answered.