Thread: Sneering at the functionally illiterate - acceptable?

This exchange took place on another thread. Following the suggestion of the Biologista I have intiated this thread.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Alex-The Great

It seems that nobody is really interested in your thread...........hmmmmmmmmmm.......

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Getting the mmessage yet?

There's no need for this. If a thread is unpopular, let it die. If a user is bumping a thread too much, that's my problem to deal with. Sneering at another user is not helpful. Please don't do it.

Doesn't "sneering at another user" happen fairly often?
In a situation where forum members are able to show, clearly, that other posts are wrong or even when there is genuine debate, over some scientific issue, threads often contain overt or veiled personal comments/ insults.

Where I see clear personal attacks, I try to remind users that this is not okay. This happens more often when those are made in the absence of any other discussion, as they were above. If you feel I am missing some cases, please do feel free to notify me of them. If you would like to discuss this further, please take the issue to the Site Feedback subforum or alternatively PM either me or an Admin. No point in derailing this thread further.

I have emboldened one point from the above exchange. Here are some examples where a member sneers at another member, in the pseudoscience forum, and is not reprimanded.

Directed against tomjin here:

Which is more likely, that tens of thousands of research scientists and the millions of experiments and observations they have made are wrong, or that a lone individual is barking mad?

Directed against jbbishop here

Because there frigging well is!!! If you don't understand eigth grade physics what the hell are you speculating for?

Directed against mdsungate in the same thread:

(Answer carefully. We know where you live. )

Crap. you speak from ignorance.

In your dreams.

The epitome of ignorance of the scientific method is to use the phrase "just a theory". I repeat, though I suspect you are too blinkered to heed the information, it doesn't come any higher than a theory in science.

You are either a rather ineffective troll or one of the dumbest persons to have graced these forums.

You poor sod, that is an ironic pastiche of the same claims made by religious fundamentalists about evolution. It is poking fun at creationists and ID proponents by adopting the same style of their attack to 'cast doubt' on the reality of gravity.

And you took it to be a genuine assault on gravitational theory. I'm sorry mate, but I like to have a bit of fight in my opponents. To continue beyond this would be taking an inordinate, sick pleasure in mocking the terminally foolish.

Since the intention of some posts may not be clear to the reader, or may be misinterpreted by them, I have restricted myself to posts I have made myself. In each instance I am pretty sure the intention was to sneer. I think it helped to make the point. What do you think?

When I first came here, I was reprimanded and the thread locked because I made 3 posts on a topic that no one else had commented on. It was the Japanese quake and tsunami, minutes after it happened, which I though was pretty damn important info to get out there. In retrospect, I was right. And that was real, quality, useful, important science and data.

Someone defended me to the mods and the thread was reopened, but since there was pretty much no conversation, I stopped posting about it here, and discussed it in places where it was more appreciated.

I think when pseudoscience is posted and gets no response, the message is rather clear that no one is interested in the discussion.

In many pseudoscience topics, if the barely supressed laughter wasn't said, there would be no conversation at all.

I have tried to read enough here before posting to understand the community and fit in with the tone and spirit.

Apparently I have misjudged it.

Here's my 2 cents, and I'll shut up and lurk for a while.

Edited for typos

Wayne

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Someone defended me to the mods and the thread was reopened,

I think that was me. Not especially relevant, but it caught my interest since you have been the first to respond here, creating a rather nice symmetry. :wink:

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

This exchange took place on another thread. Following the suggestion of the Biologista I have intiated this thread.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Alex-The Great

It seems that nobody is really interested in your thread...........hmmmmmmmmmm.......

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Getting the mmessage yet?

There's no need for this. If a thread is unpopular, let it die. If a user is bumping a thread too much, that's my problem to deal with. Sneering at another user is not helpful. Please don't do it.

Doesn't "sneering at another user" happen fairly often?
In a situation where forum members are able to show, clearly, that other posts are wrong or even when there is genuine debate, over some scientific issue, threads often contain overt or veiled personal comments/ insults.

Where I see clear personal attacks, I try to remind users that this is not okay. This happens more often when those are made in the absence of any other discussion, as they were above. If you feel I am missing some cases, please do feel free to notify me of them. If you would like to discuss this further, please take the issue to the Site Feedback subforum or alternatively PM either me or an Admin. No point in derailing this thread further.

I have emboldened one point from the above exchange. Here are some examples where a member sneers at another member, in the pseudoscience forum, and is not reprimanded.

Directed against tomjin here:

Which is more likely, that tens of thousands of research scientists and the millions of experiments and observations they have made are wrong, or that a lone individual is barking mad?

Directed against jbbishop here

Because there frigging well is!!! If you don't understand eigth grade physics what the hell are you speculating for?

Directed against mdsungate in the same thread:

(Answer carefully. We know where you live. )

Crap. you speak from ignorance.

In your dreams.

The epitome of ignorance of the scientific method is to use the phrase "just a theory". I repeat, though I suspect you are too blinkered to heed the information, it doesn't come any higher than a theory in science.

You are either a rather ineffective troll or one of the dumbest persons to have graced these forums.

You poor sod, that is an ironic pastiche of the same claims made by religious fundamentalists about evolution. It is poking fun at creationists and ID proponents by adopting the same style of their attack to 'cast doubt' on the reality of gravity.

And you took it to be a genuine assault on gravitational theory. I'm sorry mate, but I like to have a bit of fight in my opponents. To continue beyond this would be taking an inordinate, sick pleasure in mocking the terminally foolish.

Since the intention of some posts may not be clear to the reader, or may be misinterpreted by them, I have restricted myself to posts I have made myself. In each instance I am pretty sure the intention was to sneer. I think it helped to make the point. What do you think?

I have to say, a lot of those examples you've posted are not akin to Meteorwayne's and Alex's in the quoted exchange. For instance your comment on theory- which was caustic in delivery but actually quite an important point. Similarly you comment to tomjin, which is similar to a point I've made to many others before. Sure, you imply he's crazy, but your broader point is quite valid and is worthy of thought.

You've made comments I didn't like in the past, and we've had our own exchanges about those, but for the most part you're making a barbed but positive contribution here. By contrast (in my view) there was little value to pointing out to a guy who bumped his thread just once that his thread was unpopular.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I have restricted myself to posts I have made myself. In each instance I am pretty sure the intention was to sneer. I think it helped to make the point. What do you think?

When I posted earlier I was not suggesting that sneering is necessarily wrong. I am certain it can be justified in many instances.
Of course, I am far from happy if anyone sneers at my own posts.

Indeed. I took from your post that you were defending the practice, in moderation and in appropriate circumstances. I agree with you, hence this thread, one of the very, very few I have actually started.

The Biologista implies (or perhaps states) that sneering is wrong. However, as my examples seem to demonstrate, he has allowed me to get away with it multiple times. Since I may simply not be applying a robust enough 'sneering factor', I have recently upped the ante, as this remark, directed at galexander illustrates.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron, with the intellectual capacity of a kangaroo's turd, the debating skills of a dyslexic e.coli and the knowledge base of a gabbroic diapir.

I felt it had a nice rhythym to it, which transforms it from a mere insult into a proper sneer. :wink:

The line appears to be between... trying first to have a productive discussion, but then becoming exasperated and only then putting forth a barb... as opposed to just coming into a discussion without having commented previously or asking specific on-topic questions or providing references for more research to make a short barbed comment. Context matters. If you genuinely try to help, or post something which directs the conversation forward, and THEN throw up your arms and write off the poster that's different than just posting a meta-comment that they're silly or foolish with no other participation.

That's the distinction I see being made. Wayne and Alex hadn't posted on-topic at all... they only came in and made barbed comments which DIDN'T attempt to move the conversation forward. They were accurate, sure, but not really all too helpful (at least in context of non-participating readers of the thread). Whereas with you most of time your barbed comments are made only AFTER previous attempts and exchanges have failed, so there is more leverage given.

Regardless, I'm no saint, myself. Sometimes a point is best made with a short witty reply. Being pith and being pissy are sometimes enhanced when united. Frankly, I'm human, and sometimes I'm just in a bad mood and I want to punch someone who has annoyed me in the past... just because I can. I concede that, and I try to balance that with useful contributions that seek to educate and specify where comments seem illogical or off track.

With that said... We all know that the staff are just seeking to keep this place as comfortable and approachable as possible to maintain interest and participation, and are trying to do so while not beating up those who are cornerstones of the community. They're really just asking all of us to make more specific rebuttals to idiotic points instead of just throwing poo right away. That's reasonable. While it's fun to throw poo, and some people clearly deserve it, it's not always conducive to learning, which is the underlying the reason for this community... so let's not make it our first choice.

Now... If only I could lead by example. Stupid break between my higher executive brain and my reptilian one.

[/Two Cents]

inow,
it's Sunday - I'm stuck in Houston with nothing to do - it's too far to drive to Austin to buy you a beer - I'm just stirring a little shit to pass the time. :wink:

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

inow,
it's Sunday - I'm stuck in Houston with nothing to do - it's too far to drive to Austin to buy you a beer - I'm just stirring a little shit to pass the time. :wink:

Well I'm not short of things to do today, so as you might appreciate, this is not very helpful to me. In that case, quoted above and defended by halliday, do you think I was out of line?

You feel my approach is inconsistent. I'll try to address that in future. I'll err in favor of shutting down personal attacks.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

inow,
it's Sunday - I'm stuck in Houston with nothing to do - it's too far to drive to Austin to buy you a beer - I'm just stirring a little shit to pass the time. :wink:

Well I'm not short of things to do today, so as you might appreciate, this is not very helpful to me. In that case, quoted above and defended by halliday, do you think I was out of line?

You feel my approach is inconsistent. I'll try to address that in future. I'll err in favor of shutting down personal attacks.

Forgive me if I come across as irritated here, but my invitation for people to discuss this was in earnest. 'Stirring' it is pretty unfair.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Forgive me if I come across as irritated here, but my invitation for people to discuss this was in earnest. 'Stirring' it is pretty unfair.

Then we are going to have a falling out.

1. Practically all the moderators here are more tolerant of attacks by 'members in good standing' than they are those of neophytes, or persistent troublemakers. I happen to think that is appropriate, but it is rarely acknowledged. I posted a selection of examples from my own posts to illustrate this. I think that's an important point to be made and I have taken the time to make it 'earnestly'.

2. The :wink: icon is used, in my experience and understanding, to indicate that the prior remark is not entirely serious.

3. How many frigging threads have I started? Damn few and possibly none in the last year. I'm aware of the posting habits of the regulars. I expect the moderators to be the same, so you should be aware that starting the thread was an 'earnest' response on my part.

4. The post counts and vibrant activity of the pseudoscience section are almost wholly dependent on 'stirring'. If you haven't noticed that your eyes have been closed. Shut down personal attacks more frequently if you wish, but all you'll do is shut down pseudoscience at the same time.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Forgive me if I come across as irritated here, but my invitation for people to discuss this was in earnest. 'Stirring' it is pretty unfair.

Then we are going to have a falling out.

1. Practically all the moderators here are more tolerant of attacks by 'members in good standing' than they are those of neophytes, or persistent troublemakers. I happen to think that is appropriate, but it is rarely acknowledged. I posted a selection of examples from my own posts to illustrate this. I think that's an important point to be made and I have taken the time to make it 'earnestly'.

I've already said that the context of a snarky remark informs how I react to it. You make a lot of worthwhile contributions here, and you rarely take a swipe at someone without making an important point or at least having tried to tease out a discussion first. I think it's pretty clear that we tolerate behaviour from valuable contributors that we don't tolerate from others, but it's about their contributions and not their post count.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

2. The :wink: icon is used, in my experience and understanding, to indicate that the prior remark is not entirely serious.

Well if I have misunderstood you, I ask you to forgive me. Since you weren't involved in the thread that precipitated all of this, I wasn't sure what to make of this.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

3. How many frigging threads have I started? Damn few and possibly none in the last year. I'm aware of the posting habits of the regulars. I expect the moderators to be the same, so you should be aware that starting the thread was an 'earnest' response on my part.

For the reason I stated above, it wasn't clear to me. From this point in the discussion, I'll take it at face value and hope you won't hold it against me.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

4. The post counts and vibrant activity of the pseudoscience section are almost wholly dependent on 'stirring'. If you haven't noticed that your eyes have been closed. Shut down personal attacks more frequently if you wish, but all you'll do is shut down pseudoscience at the same time.

Actually, I agree and I'm sure you've frequently seen me defend the sometimes very flat skepticism of our regulars against claims of closed-mindedness and such. You haven't answered my question though. Do you think I acted inappropriately in that thread? Do you think Meteorwayne's and Alex's comments in that thread fit into the category of stimulating 'stirring' you described? To me it seems like they'd be more likely to shut down the conversation, divert it towards a flame war, or derail the topic into a conversation about moderating and personal attacks. Which is what they did in the end.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

inow,
it's Sunday - I'm stuck in Houston with nothing to do - it's too far to drive to Austin to buy you a beer.

That's too bad. I would have gladly picked up the second and potentially fourth rounds. Enjoy your trip, mate.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

You haven't answered my question though. Do you think I acted inappropriately in that thread? Do you think Meteorwayne's and Alex's comments in that thread fit into the category of stimulating 'stirring' you described? To me it seems like they'd be more likely to shut down the conversation, divert it towards a flame war, or derail the topic into a conversation about moderating and personal attacks. .

Alex is young and scatterbrained, but his heart is in the right place. MW is consistently curt: he mistakes this for being pithy and sees himself as a bit of a Jack-the-Lad.

I'd have let it run. If we remove the controversy the forum would die.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

You haven't answered my question though. Do you think I acted inappropriately in that thread? Do you think Meteorwayne's and Alex's comments in that thread fit into the category of stimulating 'stirring' you described? To me it seems like they'd be more likely to shut down the conversation, divert it towards a flame war, or derail the topic into a conversation about moderating and personal attacks. .

Alex is young and scatterbrained, but his heart is in the right place. MW is consistently curt: he mistakes this for being pithy and sees himself as a bit of a Jack-the-Lad.

I'd have let it run. If we remove the controversy the forum would die.

Let it run where? Two people very tersely say a thread is unpopular. Where does the conversation go from there? Wherever it goes, it doesn't seem to be at home on a science forum. Honestly, if they'd prefaced the comments with 'your claims are bullshit because...', I'd have happily let it run.

I agree that we need controversy, adversarial discussion, but it should be productive.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

When I first came here, I was reprimanded and the thread locked because I made 3 posts on a topic that no one else had commented on. It was the Japanese quake and tsunami, minutes after it happened, which I though was pretty damn important info to get out there. In retrospect, I was right. And that was real, quality, useful, important science and data.

sorry to deviate from the current discussion, but i'd like to make a few comments in respect of MW : at the time he was brand-new to the forum, i had no way of judging the merit of his posts against previous history, thought the thread reminded me too much of spam or a 1-track mind and decided to close the thread

i am in the habit of leaving a comment as to why i close a thread (on the very rare occasion that i do, i'm usually pretty laidback in this respect), but if someone wants to see that as a reprimand that's their choice
since the decision to close the thread was made more on balance of probabilities i did not take much persuasion to re-open it as soon as anyone came up with a valid point of view as to why this should happen

in this case i made a mistake and, being human, i expect to make more mistakes in the future (i just hope not too many) - i'd hate it if someone took this to mean that i'm the demon mod from hell though

I didn't take it that way, MarnixR. I was new, and hadn't spent as much time reading as I would have liked before posting. But it was a big story and I reacted from the gut. It is my policy to spend more time listening (reading) before opening my mouth (keyboard)

Let me put my 2 cents in on this topic. First Ophiolite, you aren't known for opening any topics. Why did you feel this was important enough to actually start a topic of your own?


Next I vote no on sneering at anyone for any reason as it tends to create polarized groups within the forum. Once people see that it is tolerated some people that normally will not sneer will either side with those that do or will stay in the inhibited group that's in fear of being picked on. This will then become an ideal atmosphere for real forum bullies and their cronies to move in and make a home here. (Don't let it happen!)


As far as administrators becoming more visible on the forum, I like it. Their visible presence and willingness to give guidance and warnings in a timely manor will let others know someone cares about what's going on and won't tolerate a disrespectful community.

When people come here spouting totally misconceived views about science, they deserve to be sneered at.

If they have a genuine question, I have no problem with them, but all too often it is obvious what their agenda is - they are just here to argue against mainstream science in a manner akin to trolling.

Trolls need to be stopped, and a blunt instrument is usually the best method.

There is too much tolerance of "alternative" views - too many people willing to appease the tin-foil hat brigade.

I am seriously considering taking the same course of action as DrRocket.

I mean - why is there STILL a thread about the "BBT Fallacy" in cosmology? It should be in pseudoscience (as it is based on a misconception about the current theory)

Originally Posted by arKane

Let me put my 2 cents in on this topic. First Ophiolite, you aren't known for opening any topics. Why did you feel this was important enough to actually start a topic of your own?


Next I vote no on sneering at anyone for any reason as it tends to create polarized groups within the forum. Once people see that it is tolerated some people that normally will not sneer will either side with those that do or will stay in the inhibited group that's in fear of being picked on. This will then become an ideal atmosphere for real forum bullies and their cronies to move in and make a home here. (Don't let it happen!)


As far as administrators becoming more visible on the forum, I like it. Their visible presence and willingness to give guidance and warnings in a timely manor will let others know someone cares about what's going on and won't tolerate a disrespectful community.

may I ask when it became a prerequisite to post x number of threads before forum participation was considered valuable? Ophiolite is a very knowledgeable poster in a number of areas, and just because he calls crap crap does not make him a detriment to the forum.

I also agree with speedfreek above that too much tolerance is not what scientific based forum needs.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

When people come here spouting totally misconceived views about science, they deserve to be sneered at.

Shouldn't that determination be the moderators job? Also, isn't it better to show that you know your stuff if your going to talk shit? And there is more to life than being stuck in the mainstream? I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a good understanding of mainstream accepted science, but lets face it a lot of what's accepted isn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt and much of it is best guess speculation to help fill in the blanks. That does leave the door open a bit for alternative speculation. Why not just explain why it's wrong IYO and let the lurkers draw their own conclusions and if it's so far out, well most everybody else will pick up on that. What's wrong with just ignoring some posters? That's a very effective tool and it doesn't make you look like a forum thug.

If they have a genuine question, I have no problem with them, but all too often it is obvious what their agenda is - they are just here to argue against mainstream science in a manner akin to trolling.

Trolls need to be stopped, and a blunt instrument is usually the best method.

Again nothing hurts a troll more than being ignored, and if others get suckered by a troll how is that your problem? If you just can't pass up the bait a troll routine at least do it with style that doesn't make you look bad.

There is too much tolerance of "alternative" views - too many people willing to appease the tin-foil hat brigade.

I am seriously considering taking the same course of action as DrRocket.

Please don't, that act is boring.

I mean - why is there STILL a thread about the "BBT Fallacy" in cosmology? It should be in pseudoscience (as it is based on a misconception about the current theory)

Again that's the moderators job, if you have a problem with the moderator, then let the administrator handle it. Still not satisfied find a new forum.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by arKane

Let me put my 2 cents in on this topic. First Ophiolite, you aren't known for opening any topics. Why did you feel this was important enough to actually start a topic of your own?


Next I vote no on sneering at anyone for any reason as it tends to create polarized groups within the forum. Once people see that it is tolerated some people that normally will not sneer will either side with those that do or will stay in the inhibited group that's in fear of being picked on. This will then become an ideal atmosphere for real forum bullies and their cronies to move in and make a home here. (Don't let it happen!)


As far as administrators becoming more visible on the forum, I like it. Their visible presence and willingness to give guidance and warnings in a timely manor will let others know someone cares about what's going on and won't tolerate a disrespectful community.

may I ask when it became a prerequisite to post x number of threads before forum participation was considered valuable? Ophiolite is a very knowledgeable poster in a number of areas, and just because he calls crap crap does not make him a detriment to the forum.

I also agree with speedfreek above that too much tolerance is not what scientific based forum needs.

Not sure what you are talking about, I have a lot of respect for Ophiolite and if he sneers it's usually done with style and after provocation. But at one time he made a statement that he never started a thread, so naturally I'm very curious.

Originally Posted by arKane

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

When people come here spouting totally misconceived views about science, they deserve to be sneered at.

Shouldn't that determination be the moderators job? Also, isn't it better to show that you know your stuff if your going to talk shit?

Which determination? That the views are misconceived? Or that they deserve to be sneered at? I'm not sure I like either option. And I have shown my stuff, but to people who actually want to listen.

Originally Posted by arKane

And there is more to life than being stuck in the mainstream? I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a good understanding of mainstream accepted science, but lets face it a lot of what's accepted isn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt and much of it is best guess speculation to help fill in the blanks. That does leave the door open a bit for alternative speculation.

There is nothing wrong with alternative speculation, as long as it conforms to the correspondence principle, i.e. it has to be able to make the same predictions as our current model already does. It has to have alternative explanations for the things we already know about.

Originally Posted by arKane

Why not just explain why it's wrong IYO and let the lurkers draw their own conclusions and if it's so far out, well most everybody else will pick up on that. What's wrong with just ignoring some posters? That's a very effective tool and it doesn't make you look like a forum thug.

If the questioner seems genuine, I do explain. Unfortunately, I cannot always ignore it when people post misleading statements about modern science, as I will explain..

Originally Posted by arKane

If they have a genuine question, I have no problem with them, but all too often it is obvious what their agenda is - they are just here to argue against mainstream science in a manner akin to trolling.

Trolls need to be stopped, and a blunt instrument is usually the best method.

Again nothing hurts a troll more than being ignored, and if others get suckered by a troll how is that your problem? If you just can't pass up the bait a troll routine at least do it with style that doesn't make you look bad.

A fair point I suppose. But there is a deeper problem here.

Originally Posted by arKane

There is too much tolerance of "alternative" views - too many people willing to appease the tin-foil hat brigade.

I am seriously considering taking the same course of action as DrRocket.

Please don't, that act is boring.

I mean - why is there STILL a thread about the "BBT Fallacy" in cosmology? It should be in pseudoscience (as it is based on a misconception about the current theory)

Again that's the moderators job, if you have a problem with the moderator, then let the administrator handle it. Still not satisfied find a new forum.

The internet is a wonderful thing. The amount of information out there is, well, it's a hell of a lot! And there is also a whole load of disinformation out there. Consequently, in conversation nowadays, I come across more people in daily life that believe in crackpot ideas, than I did 20 years ago. Nearly everyone is on the internet, and it seems an increasingly large proportion of people are willing to believe what they see on you-tube.

Years ago, it was only the National Enquirer and its ilk we had to deal with.

So, I like to do my bit to try to halt the propagation of misconceptions.

I do it properly, if I think the poster is going to listen. Otherwise, I just call BS, to let others know not to. It would be wonderful if I could devote as much time to the conspiracy/anti-science/anti-mainstream "agitators" as I do when answering people who seem genuinely interested in furthering their understanding, but I cannot, so I divide my time appropriately!

[/pomposity]

I think we all have the same objective, maybe just a different idea of how to accomplish it. When we see stuff being posted that we strongly disagree with, our first instinct is always to make the other person shut up. This is true in a discussion of science or a political discussion. I know that the right of free speech does not apply in a privately owned forum, but the principle is the same: if all ideas are discussed and exposed to the light of day, the best ideas will win out.

Suppose someone has heard about the Rossi cold fusion reactor. Would it be better for him to find a discussion of the subject on a mainstream science forum, where the facts can be discussed by knowledgeable experts? Or should he get his info from the Overunity message board?

That said I fully support the elimination of excessive noise that disrupts a serious science discussion.

As far as sneering is concerned, I just don't think it accomplishes much.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Suppose someone has heard about the Rossi cold fusion reactor. Would it be better for him to find a discussion of the subject on a mainstream science forum, where the facts can be discussed by knowledgeable experts? Or should he get his info from the Overunity message board?

That said I fully support the elimination of excessive noise that disrupts a serious science discussion.

As far as sneering is concerned, I just don't think it accomplishes much.

Good example and point. On another science forum someone made a good try at convincing everyone our enegry problems were going to be a thing of the past as soon as the first cold fusion reactor goes online at the end of the year. He provided many links as proof that it was good as gold ready to go. He did his best, but he didn't make any believers and nobody else reading that thread is going to be a believer either.

I guess you were satisfied with my reply, eh?

Exactly why I am on my way out the door. TSF is becoming the land of woos, so it serves no useful purpoe.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Exactly why I am on my way out the door. TSF is becoming the land of woos, so it serves no useful purpoe.

How has it become the land of woos? The same moderators are here doing the same things. Mike (Cosmo) has been around for years, posting the same things on the astronomy forum.

I read a lot of stuff on the Physics and Maths threads. I contribute very little to those threads purely because I am here to learn. I do however contribute on the politics threads,and in my opinion robust language and mickey taking adds to the debate. Getting slapped down by the likes of inow, and ophiolite can be instructive.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Exactly why I am on my way out the door. TSF is becoming the land of woos, so it serves no useful purpoe.

How has it become the land of woos? The same moderators are here doing the same things. Mike (Cosmo) has been around for years, posting the same things on the astronomy forum.

Read through the last few posts I have responded to in the cosmology forum. I am wading through a sea of woo here. Someone throw me a lifejacket.

Still drowning in woo.

Is the universe infinite?

And you wonder why people are leaving...

I thank sneerin is fine if the administrators are oK wit it... ie... each forum has the right to set its own rules... an personaly... if i feel i cant abide by the rules of a forurm i jus leave... but if a highly respectful forum is the gole of managment... then the respect needs to begin at the top... an "sneerin" by managment or posters woud never be acceptable.!!!

I started postin about 14 years ago in non moderated webTV groops (computers cant see those groops) an everbody moderated therselfs... it was somtims disruptive but the trade off was total free speech... plus ther was NEVER arguments about moderation... lol.!!!

For 3 years i owned/ran a type of webTV groop that i coud moderate (ban an/or delete posts)... but i never baned anybody or atempted to control speech... it was a lot of fun... but for sure thers a place for moderated groops (such as this one) to help keep people on topic for those who are interested in serious discussion.!!!

Botom line... managment has to deside what type of groop they want.!!!

Does said sneering do anything constructive?

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Does said sneering do anything constructive?

Boosts the sneerers ego.???

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Does said sneering do anything constructive?

Boosts the sneerers ego.???

Aaaaah, just what is needed, then. Supersmart brains must have big ego to function...

Sneering at the functionally illiterate - acceptable?


I do it all the time. I haven't received a warning. Probably means it is acceptable.