Pixel/Bannings

[cottonzway]

Help, I'm being attacked by Canadians!

Annette,

I think if someone gets a chain e-mail and takes it at face value then it is on them. Maybe it is the Libertarian in me that says it is up to the person to be responsible for their own actions in educating themselves. Once you start to do down that road then other things become blurry. Obviously that is a bit of a deeper and more detailed topic then a banning on our forum, but I strongly think that it is up to each person to be informed or be ignorant.

---------- Post added at 04:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 AM ----------

In a country where over 25% of the population doesn't believe the president is a U.S. citizen, you can expect anything.

True, but if someone said that here should they be banned?

For the record I happen to not be among that 25% and think it is a waste of time for the WND crowd to keep going on and on about this dreck.

I do think someone should be able to say it though and have the other 75% tell them they are full of shit.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

Help, I'm being attacked by Canadians!

Annette,

I think if someone gets a chain e-mail and takes it at face value then it is on them. Maybe it is the Libertarian in me that says it is up to the person to be responsible for their own actions in educating themselves. Once you start to do down that road then other things become blurry. Obviously that is a bit of a deeper and more detailed topic then a banning on our forum, but I strongly think that it is up to each person to be informed or be ignorant.

I would say not attacked, rather, engaged in discussion. You can accept different opinions and give as good, or better, than you get.

You have a point there, and yes, we should be responsible for what we choose to believe. That still leaves the issue of whether or not to call bs when you know something is bs.

Letting somebody put out disinformation - without calling them on it when you know it to be untrue or worse - pretty much puts you in the same tree as they inhabit.

Course, some things just aren't worth the grief, or the time. I would hazard a guess this issue was worth the time and the grief, else it would not have been such a red flag.

 

[CapnG]

Help, I'm being attacked by Canadians!

Nah, just politely mauled.

True, but if someone said that here should they be banned?

You mean if they said it over and over at excessive length in 90% of their posts, even when in the entirety of the preceeding thread the topic was only lightly brushed against or barely even mentioned as an aside? Hell yeah. It's essentially spamming.

 

[Ron Collins]

As I pointed out in that other thread.....

There is an ignore option for each one of us to use on whoever we see fit for any reason we want.

That is true, but then I feel like I have prejudged that nothing that particular person has to say is worth my time. Thus, I have never used it.

---------- Post added at 05:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 AM ----------

I am surprised to see Paul even bother to explain himself (most mods just kick out the entire dissenting batch along with the initial troll)

Agreed they do. This is precisely why I respect Paul and his decision. He had the power and the right but he also, I assume, felt an obligation to let us know why. That is a moderator showing respect to the thread readers. I appreciate that.

 

[Paul Kimball]

This is Pixel's response to me via e-mail, unedited, and my reply. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to head on over to one of the forums Pixelsmith says he moderates.

Paul

You clearly haven't learned anything, don't see (or won't see) that you were wrong, and fundamentally misrepresented Schneider. Consider yourself permanently banned.

As you say, there are many other forums, and if you moderate two, I'm sure you'll be quite happy there, where people won't call you out on your half-truths and misrepresentations.

We're done.

Paul Kimball

Paul,


First I want to say sometimes I simply do not have time for lengthy posts. I have 2 jobs and just finished up with 11 months of organizing a blues festival that I have been involved with for 9 years. It is a lot of work and I am spread very thin, just as you probably are. This can sometimes hinder proper research, this is a reason not an excuse for my misquote of Schneider.


That being said, I do not appreciate you calling me a lier without being able to defend myself. That is very lame. Yes the quote I posted was edited, altho I was not aware of it. It came from a USA Today article. However, the full quote by Schneider (posted below) is just as bad as what I posted. He states that there are problems sticking to the scientific method when as a human he would like to see the world be a better place. He admits that Scientific Method may be modified/fudged/compromised because of some scientists desire to save the planet. I did not lie in any way shape or form. At best I misquoted. For that I have no problem apologizing. For what I still think is his actual context, I do not apologize. This is the guy who warned us of global cooling up to around 1978. He published a book called "The Genesis Strategy" that warned us of the looming ICE AGE. He also wrote a ice age related paper in 1971 called "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" Science mag July 1971. (I actually agree with some of it!) In the early 80's when there was a slight warming trend he changed his tune, (altho he promoted the scary cooling and warming scenarios simultaneously for a short time) it was now global warming that was the threat to the planet and humanity. He clearly aligns himself with whichever the way the funding/profit blows and not with scientific method.


Below is his full context statement showing what I said to be true along with a disingenuous/self justifying statement at the end.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
[FONT='Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
Bare in mind the American Eugenics Movement and ultimately the people behind the holocaust thought they were making the "world a better place too"... how did that work out?




A good resource for people such as yourself who are misinformed about the "settled science" is Joanne Nova's website. She was once firmly in your camp (so was I)... until she actually did her own research. This story in itself is interesting and quite similar to my own reversal of opinion on AGW.
Her 2 "Skeptic Handbooks" are easy to read and are a great resource.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/#handbooki
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/#handbookii




More resources for you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/


I am a moderator on 2 forums. I know what it is like. Very often I have felt the desire to ban someone who disagreed with me or posted pure bullshit. BUT it was a person like me that gave me the guts to research and ultimately see my errors in regards to my opinion on AGW. It is hard to admit when you are wrong. i have learned to embrace it. Doing so mirrors scientific method as opposed to a religious style belief system. If you can provide some sort of evidence that I am wrong I would gladly reverse my opinion based on new facts. Your Schneider video has been largely debunked long ago. It is really sad that some people still refer to it as well as Al Gore's now discredited SciFi movie An Inconvenient Truth.


If banning me helps you get out of the corner you are in, fine. But do not call me a lier without allowing me to defend myself, that is poor form and hypocritical when you factor in your video of lies by Schneider.


Banning me just fuels my passion. It reminds me of the out of context phrase: "You catch the most flak when you are right over the target"

See you in 3 months.


Peace

[/FONT]

 

[cottonzway]

Absurd to perma-ban him over that.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Absurd to perma-ban him over that.

Then I honestly suggest you start your own forum and make Pixelsmith your first member. As for moderating, I have requested to Gene that I be removed as a moderator immediately.

That's all I have to say about this.

 

[cottonzway]

I don't want to start my own forum. I don't even want you removed as a mod. I just want you to be rational, which I do not think you are doing in this case. I think you are acting like a bully.

 

[justcurious]

I have requested to Gene that I be removed as a moderator immediately.

I think you are over reacting, I truly hope you reconsider...

I know from experience that organisational/authority positions can sometime be draining emotionally, especially during a crisis. If you go I'll organise a post-strike till you come back

 

[Paul Kimball]

I think you are over reacting, I truly hope you reconsider...

I know from experience that organisational/authority positions can sometime be draining emotionally, especially during a crisis. If you go I'll organise a post-strike till you come back

I've already asked Gene to remove me, and the search is on for a replacement. It really has nothing to do with Pixelgoof (er.. sorry - "smith" ).

I only ever took on the "mod" thing to help Gene out after Biedny quit. It was never meant to be a permanent thing. As I've made clear over the years on my own blog, while I will interact with anonymous posters on the Internet because that is the lingua franca these days, I don't like it, and I don't really respect people who hide behind pseudonyms. In order to be involved in a meaningful discussion, you have to know who you're dealing with. Others disagree with me on this, and say that the information is all that matters, but I think that's completely wrong, and I think it's one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Internet that this type of "communication" has become not only accepted, but the norm.

As just a regular poster, I don't have to worry about it, and I can choose to pop by or ignore the forum and other members as I like, and as my real-world responsibilities allow.

Also, I don't really think it's appropriate for the co-host of a show to be moderating that show's forums, particularly as they might be called upon to moderate a thread that concerns them, and they will almost certainly have to moderate a thread that concerns their fellow hosts. It's hard to stay objective about that stuff. That's a personal point of view, however - I know Gene feels differently, and that's certainly fine.

As for Pixelgoof (er, sorry... "smith" ), in my now "non-moderator" opinion, he is a troll, a malcontent, and a liar. But that's not my problem anymore. I sent him a private e-mail telling him that if he wants re-instatement to appeal to Gene or one of the other moderators. It's up to them what to do from hereon in.

 

[cottonzway]

You don't need to quit being a mod over this. Regardless of my dislike of your handling of this situation that was not my intentions. Everyone else you banned you did for the right reasons and do a good job. I am just talking about this one situation. No need to go to that extent.

My name is Tom Cotton, BTW.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I've already asked Gene to remove me, and the search is on for a replacement. It really has nothing to do with Pixelgoof (er.. sorry - "smith" ).

I only ever took on the "mod" thing to help Gene out after Biedny quit. It was never meant to be a permanent thing. As I've made clear over the years on my own blog, while I will interact with anonymous posters on the Internet because that is the lingua franca these days, I don't like it, and I don't really respect people who hide behind pseudonyms. In order to reallty be involved in a meaningful discussion, you have to know who you're dealing with. Others disagree with me on this, and say that the information is all that matters, but I think that's completely wrong, and I think it's one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Internet that this type of "communication" has become not only accepted, but the norm.

As just a regular poster, I don't have to worry about it, and I can choose to pop by or ignore the forum and other members as I like, and as my real-world responsibilities allow.

Also, I don't really think it's appropriate for the co-host of a show to be moderating that show's forums, particularly as they might be called upon to moderate a thread that concerns them, and they will almost certainly have to moderate a thread that concerns their fellow hosts. It's hard to stay objective about that stuff. That's a personal point of view, however - I know Gene feels differently, and that's certainly fine.

As for Pixelgoof (er, sorry... "smith" ), in my now "non-moderator" opinion, he is a troll, a malcontent, and a liar. But that's not my problem anymore. I sent him a private e-mail telling him that if he wants re-instatement to appeal to Gene or one of the other moderators. It's up to them what to do from hereon in.

Actually I'm of two minds about this. I've moderated forums since my days at AOL 20 years ago. It's a habit hard to give up, although I'm often tempted.

But I agree that as the show expands, I may have to restrict some of my participation to background-related tasks. Until I can get a real Webmaster to run this thing that is.

 

[Paul Kimball]

In the grand scheme of things, this is about as unimportant as you can get... so let's not make a big deal of it, and go back to discussing things that matter. Like the Red Sox.

 

[Michael Allen]

Its hard to be a moderator of a forum while simultaneously engaging others in the same. I would probably recuse myself.

I have to suspend belief when I read obnoxious "square-circle" polemics effectively stating the sun is set at high noon. Some of the tricks employed by both sides seem to be sleight-of-hand--and being convinced of an argument isn't always a sign of truth.

I think, as in the UFO phenomenon, most are simply in denial of AGW--partly because they realize there's probably no real way to reverse human greed anytime soon. IT may actually be easier (certainly calms me) to just look at all the bad blood and drama and chalk AGW as merely "climategate" and move on. I personally know a few individuals who are livid when I mention UFOs and the real possibility of alien intelligent life visiting our planet.

There are remarkable similarities between the AGW and the UFO phenomenon deniers--probably caused by some very structural (psychological) underpinnings. To accept AGW or UFOasETH is almost certainly out of bounds of any individual human activity--i.e. they evoke a sense of powerlessness from those who accept the thesis.

It is interesting to note that the same psychological force that causes individuals to accept the savior ET scenario is isomorphic to those who deny AGW.

(1) If AGW, then the subject feels responsible and is therefore compelled to act
(2) If no AGW, then the said subject can simply say, "well, that's just ________ [nature, god, force...fate...whatever]"
(3) So the negation of the ETH savior dialectic draws feedback from those who assert AGW

Obviously none of these observations have any bearing on the ultimate truth of either AGW or ETH.

 

[cottonzway]

..............................

 

[dyingsun]

In the grand scheme of things, this is about as unimportant as you can get... so let's not make a big deal of it, and go back to discussing things that matter. Like the Red Sox.

Or the current World Cup

 

[Ron Collins]

There are remarkable similarities between the AGW and the UFO phenomenon deniers--probably caused by some very structural (psychological) underpinnings.

I have often lamented that a there is no other subject matter that more transparently exposes the anatomy of the denial blueprint than Ufology and its adversaries. It's like the best psych thesis fertilizer in existence. They should be sprouting up everywhere. Yet the subject matter itself repels study of any kind. Hell, thats a thesis in itself!

 

[Xylo]

Well, I hope that comforts you. Be sure to not let the crappy state of of the UFO evidence give you any pause.
Rest easy knowing that your UFO case is proven and righteous and that all those evil skeptics are just deniers (hey, you forgot to compare us to Holocaust deniers, too!). Sleep well knowing that your evidence is rock solid and the only step left is get those damn skeptics to shut up about the scientific method and all that claptrap.

And to stop the damn laughing.

It's so much easier to prove something in your mind, isn't it? Inside there you are Galileo!

Jesus, the self deception is awe-inspiring.

Lance

Wow, somebody woke up on the wrong de-bunk-bed.

I guess it's easier to make fun of something that can't be proven nor can it be disproven.

 

[Ron Collins]

Well, I hope that comforts you. Be sure to not let the crappy state of of the UFO evidence give you any pause.
Rest easy knowing that your UFO case is proven and righteous and that all those evil skeptics are just deniers (hey, you forgot to compare us to Holocaust deniers, too!). Sleep well knowing that your evidence is rock solid and the only step left is get those damn skeptics to shut up about the scientific method and all that claptrap.

And to stop the damn laughing.

It's so much easier to prove something in your mind, isn't it? Inside there you are Galileo!

Jesus, the self deception is awe-inspiring.

Lance

Is this in response to my post? If so I don't get what set you off.

 

[Ron Collins]

In response to this idiocy:



And to anyone who thinks that this is accurate or fair.

Lance

Hmmm, Maybe I took it wrong. I assumed the "very structural (psychological) underpinnings." was talking about the structure of any denial from a psychological standpoint.