ganstaman not the unhinged one after all

If I weren't involved in the discussion in that thread, I would have given you more than just a warning long ago, but I wanted to avoid the appearance that I was using my mod position to personally win an argument. I posted warnings in the thread twice instead of taking any official action against you, and now I gave you only a single warning with no points (which really doesn't mean anything or do anything). When you look back at your posts, do you not think you were being overly confrontational? Was your infracted post not one devoid of content related to the thread but instead just an insult to me?

Anyway, this is likely my last post in this thread as I will let others judge the situation for themselves. I just wanted to add a little context.

Debate is confrontational, that's the entire point. Literally ALL of your posts are devoid of content. All of them. My post, in fact, was a response to something you had said. If my response is void of content related to the thread, then so is yours. Fact is, I was agreeing with something you said about the quality of posts and was making a suggestion as to how you could contribute to that end. Unfortunately, to quote Col. Jessep, you can't handle the truth.

Zero point warning = unhinged. I see.

I've always been curious about sentences like this. When you make an obviously hyperbolic point like this, what inspires you to add the word "literally"? Are you thinking that it will fool everyone into believing that it actually is true? Do you think it adds some panache? Do you not know the meaning of the word?

Just to provide context for others who aren't regulars to the thread, here's just a quick sample of ganstaman's posts in that thread:

I wouldn't want an outside observer to be fooled by OP's hyperbole. Others might call it a lie, but I'm being generous.

Can you post what he was warned for? Usually in threads like this the mods are in the right, but I don't really participate in political threads. As long as the warnings are consistent and not given over political disagreements it seems fine. I looked at a few of meisners posts and while he's a little aggressive it wasn't way way out of bounds

It was more for his body of work (lots of inflammatory and insulting posts, as well as frequent misrepresentations of what others said) in a short time there than any specific post. It was surprisingly not for saying that I was a child molester. It wasn't for insulting my grammar. The final post was this:

I was trying to get the thread to have content, but all he seemed to want to do was insult. This post itself wasn't egregious, so it only got a 0 point warning.

I don't even know what forum gangsta mods let alone what thread OP is talking about

The only issue I have with ganstaman is that he doesn't spell his name the same way everyone else does.

In his favour is the fact that he never complains about this.

I never noticed the spelling difference, I thought his user name was gangstaman myself.

I do find it somewhat problematic that a user / moderator / doctor / child psychiatrist would have a username that seems to glorify criminal behavior.

Until recently, I thought you were chilirob.

Right on cue, the other poster from the trans thread who doesn’t answer simple questions and cannot back up his claims. I’m not 100% certain you and gansta aren’t the same person.

Gangsta said something about improving the quality of posts in the trans thread. I was admonished for saying the best thing he can do to help reach that goal is to get out of the thread as he contributes nothing.

Stop lying man. Just stop. Any objective person who reads that thread can see, I never called you a molester, I’ve never attacked anyone personally. Meanwhile, you allow people to call me all sorts of names and expletives, threaten me with bodily harm, etc. All I’ve ever done is maintain a consistent position which is deeply rooted in scientific truths. To that end I have posted numerous studies that support my position. You, as well as many others, use that thread as an echo chamber to espouse the virtues of trannydom and bash those who have concerns. All the while not posting any evidence to support outlandish claims such as puberty blockers are life-saving medicine, among others. You claim to be a scientist (the doubt grows more and more every day) then you’d know, science is based on claims then evidence is presented to either support or refute those claims. When pressed for proof you hide behind the “do your own research” mantra.

I implore you, however, stop insulting the intelligence of the people who post here and read these threads. Just stop.

Let's see if anyone remotely agrees with this blatant mischaracterization of reality.

And f you too. When pressed for links to studies backing up his BS claims, does he post any? I do.

I've asked for proof of his assertions that puberty blockers save lives, and how they do it as well as claims that they decrease the suicide rate. I'm still waiting.

He cannot name a single scientist that agrees with him. I've named many. And he has been unable to dispute them nor diminish their credibility.

Oh we're talking about the trans visibility thread? My answer will depend upon whether you are one of the people in that thread who hate trans folk, or one of the people who hate the people who hate trans folk

But I will say that that thread is a disgrace to the forum and any mod who hasn't locked it, or preferably deleted it, has been derelict in their duty

No, you claimed puberty blockers would permanently effect ones natural puberty when given to people taking them for gender issues but they would only temporarily halt puberty for people experiencing a precious puberty. When asked for proof, 57 opined that it couldn't be proven because 90% of people taking them for gender issues moved on to take hormones which would permanently alter their puberty. You agreed with his post. When asked for proof, you provided nothing. When your lack of response was commented on, you demanded I provide proof that gender treatment deterred suicide.

You seem to have a big problem with telling the truth. Hence, this second thread for you to lie.

I don't think anyone in that thread hates trans people and I think it's rather presumptuous of you to say that. People can feel that trans is a mental illness or a phase or whatever without having to hate them. Hate is a strong word and I don't think I like your loaded language.

So a subforum for random topics is not a good place for vigorous debate on polarizing issues?

Why do I have to repeat what others posted which defends my position? That's just wasteful. Again, show me a reputable study of using puberty blockers to block non precocious puberty and the long term effects of that? Show me examples where puberty blockers were used to simply "hit the pause button" on puberty and not as the first step to hormones and surgical procedures. The fact is, 90% of kids who claim to be trans and are never given those drugs realize they are not trans after all. Starting them on a path of hormones and surgery means they will never be given the chance to be who they really are.
Moreover, the frontal cortex of a child is far from developed. They simply do not have the capacity to know that they want to forever sterilize themselves.

I used to read the thread before I got too repulsed by it so I know it's got more transphobia in it than a Dave Chappelle special. Your transphobia prevents you from seeing how offensive the thread is

So, let me get this straight, you don't read the thread, but you know for a fact it contains "transphobia?" I've read the thread. I would say there is not a soul in that thread who is afraid of trannys. There are plenty of people, however, who are concerned about the damage we are doing to children.