Thread: Banning cypress?????

(In)Sanity/SkinWalker; Having pretty well dropped this forum off my daily routine, rather than posting mostly complaints, the following is worth the time to TO Complain about;


http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...d66bb74#248801

Disgusting; Somewhere over 20 Threads have been locked on ONE Sub-Forums, in recent months, most having had the greatest interest to both us readers and those that participate. Each ending with the basic same comment...."I'm right, your wrong and I'm the MODERATOR!!!" This person is a Major in the US Military, with certain powers, I sincerely hope are not being used in the same manner, having to at least answer to even higher powers. Arrogance on display is fine, many of the best posters anywhere show the same trait, but rarely does it become blatant and used simultaneously with authority. The above thread and the one I was personally involved in (below) are my stated examples, but there are many...

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Civil...ads-22012t.php


Well beyond disgusting; cypress, has been with you a little less than ONE year, an engineer (as I recall) yet offered you 1219 post, for the most part well laid out discussion on the topic at hand. Without breaking down each post or the hundreds of opinions, he and the moderator have different opinions on what otherwise are issues having no definitive CORRECT answers. Since I was involved early on, in more than one thread, I can assure you, yet remaining my opinion, there are many notable scientist that do and would disagree with the L_F. BANNING cypress, then FOR TROLLING goes well beyond the set decorum of this forum for all the years I've been here and frankly any other I'm aware of over many more years.

None of this is any of my business, but I feel obligated to a fellow poster to lodge my complaints, as he was not and now cannot lodge his own comments. I will suggest if nothing else that banning be commuted to time served (a one day suspension), an apology which IMO should come from who ever banned him (hopefully mod's don't have that authority) and setting up some limits on this "Locking of threads".

jackson: you are correct in assuming that moderators can't ban people. I don't have much time to post a full description of how this decision was made, but let me assure you that him and his conduct has been discussed AT LENGTH behind the scenes from the first time he came here and finally patience just ran out with his subtle attacks on legitimate science. He has been pursuing this agenda from the get-go and have been oblivious to correction.

The locking of threads (if I may speak for Lynx) is because they start off well and then almost inevitably get derailed by cypress pushing his agenda, which always has it ending up going in circles.

I say good riddance, finally.

It was a consensus among the staff. I previously defended cypress when calls for the termination of his account were presented. Recently, the suggestion was posed again and, remembering that at least one moderator decided to move on for reasons that seemed to include his continued anti-science, creationist trolling (albeit subtle), I decided that this time we could do without him.

But I'm certainly open to listening to the consensus of the membership.

Be civil and post your opinion here. Posts that are unreasoned, flaming, or trivial will be removed.

Cypress never listened to sound science, and while he may have been a competent poster in environmental sciences(never been to that subforum), he is nothing but a dogmatic poster in both scientific study of religion and biology. His posts range from personal attacks based on belief to creationist propaganda and denial. He wouldn't ever discuss a topic, in my experience.

I thoroughly support the decision, and give the staff kudos for being patient as long as they have been. Had this been my site, I'd have locked his account months ago for his antics (which, honestly, you have to be incredibly biased or blind to disregard or dismiss).

The question here, Jackson, is what contributions did he make to this community? If you understood the subject matter better, you'd realize that his contributions were only to confuse laypersons, to obfuscate facts, and to frustrate people who know more about a topic than he does. He had an agenda, and the only downside of his departure will be the fact that the site will need a new lighting rod.

KALSTER; I look at 'cypress' as a somewhat educated poster in the sciences, with a passion in what's wrong with this AGW nonsense, actually to a lesser degree than myself. After the forth or fifth locked thread, I just quit posting there and moved on to other forums on that topic and an occasional visit here, in sub-forums where nothing has ever locked. I have NO doubt, L_F (and others) would like to have me banned, calling it trolling and with my record probably has come close. cypress in a quick review has made many contributions in Biology, Chemistry, Physics and many others sub-forums, which just glancing at have not been rejected, out of hand.

On locking threads that have deteriorated; Fine, but don't argue your points, then lock to prevent a rebuttal. Think (In)Sanity, recently locked some thread, simply saying he "has had enough of this", whatever that "this" was. Look at the two examples I listed, if you doubt my conclusion...

SkinWalker; Good Posters, IMO have something to say, or they wouldn't come around, calling it an agenda may be a stretch. Good Moderators, IMO guide the discussion to bring out the best in a poster, not incite/provoke a poster him/her into an irrational argument.

As for a consensus of the membership, it's not going to happen. Most have more sense than myself and those that might agree with my observation are not going to speak up against the owners, administrators or moderators of this or any public forum. I've been on this ship too many times and in too many places (will address one in a second) to think otherwise.

A_M; I suppose you can be a Chemical Engineer and "never listen to sound science", but that doesn't add up to me. but then that's out of my area.

"creationist propaganda"; I've used this analogy more than once, but probably the single most interesting and read thread on any science forum, I'm aware of was by a "FIRM" believer in creationism and here on this forum. "jolleybear" in Earth Sciences, no longer active but there to review. 60,000 views and 800 replies over a very long period and he answered every response with his viewpoints (starting with radio isotope dating) under a personal belief in creationism. However he never was disrespectful, if that's what you indicating.

inow; Yes, I recall some of your arguments with 'cypress' and won't excuse the possibility your antagonizing methods didn't play roll in some of those 'Locked Thread'. Yes, I know exactly what you would have done, IF YOU COULD and more importantly to exactly which posters.

Back to "this boat" SW; inow, I have on more than a few occasions backed up your style, methods, either on a forum or an occasional PM, no less than I am here, with cypress'. While 'cypress doesn't have a 20K post track record, he has near 6 per day over 10 months, which in my world is a contribution. I have read a good many of his post under AGW topics and have seen nothing different in his style/methods from day one to his last post, which in my mind constitutes consistency in style. I am assuming the primary complaint falls under 'Environmental Issues', noting you personally have never liked one post (that sub forum) by him, how can you justify the banning now. If your opinion is correct (I don't) then he would have and should have been either temporarily suspended or if called for banned well before this time. The man took days of time, not hours in forming those post, a good deal of research, links and references to be arbitrary banned, IMO.

For the record, I was not among those moderators participating in that discussion, nor do I even know what the controversy is about. I didn't follow those threads, I guess.

Harold brings a good point. Not all moderators weighed in on the decision. All had an opportunity to make comments one way or the other in the moderator forum. I've had several PMs from members asking for action, at least one of these indicated a reluctance to post due to his obfuscation in a biology/evolution thread.

Originally Posted by Jackson

As for a consensus of the membership, it's not going to happen. Most have more sense than myself and those that might agree with my observation are not going to speak up against the owners, administrators or moderators of this or any public forum.

I don't remember the specific member, but you convinced me to overturn a suspension / termination of a member in the past. Why not now? If there are sufficient arguments, I'm more than willing to lift the ban for cypress. They would have to be good arguments, however.

Well that member was Dr. syntax or something like that and was very quickly banned a second time, went to Sci.forums under a different user name and lasted much longer, had several friends (not me, as I'm not allowed to post there) but was banned after think 3-400 post. He did address you there directly on your profile message board, so am wondering why/how you can't remember, I would. Since my problem with him was inows slam dunk condemnation from his first post (same as cypress), often in disagreement myself with his (Syntax) devotion to Prime Evil Therapy, the premise and principles are very different.

cypress, has shown no signs of being delusional or promoting anything not already controversial (that I'm aware of), as I've mentioned has devoted days in time over a ten month period with viewpoints on AGW that are consistent with many skeptics of AGW (including scientist) and now your mentioning PM's as a source for your banning (opposed to temporary suspension) frankly telling me EXACYLY who sent them.

What you decide should not be placed on my shoulders, nor should your decision to ban him in the first place be those PM's or their authors. I've laid out my case (several post) and if those opposed to reinstatement wish to address me directly as you now have, that will be a different story. I've crossed their paths before (I'm sure) and we all manage to get along today. Personally if you, I would simply drop the ban, no comment required and see what happens.

This however was and is a two point complaint. This arguing with posters to enhance an argument is not advisable on it's own merits, but to then make an argument and lock the thread is a serious abuse of power, as seen by both sides of any issue. It causes those in agreement to extend their argument and deflects posting from those that don't, to even post. Posters are not going to contribute or sign on in the first place under those terms, IMO. Well over half of us are not going to comment, unless we have some kind of disagreement to a post or thread, in the first place. We all know how to google and can find agreement with our viewpoints on thousands of Blogs or articles with a simple search. Note; In no way am I suggesting anything other than a little policy for locking of threads, between the power or that even be seen as a forum rule. I don't dislike ANY of my adversaries, never have and even if I did it's not be difficult to just ignore them.

I'll thank you for you time and consideration on this issue, in advance and hope if reinstated 'cypress' chooses to return, it will be with the same conviction and attitudes that made his post worth reading....

What you decide should not be placed on my shoulders,

It most certainly isn't. I only meant to point out that your voice isn't as unheard as you made it out to be.

nor should your decision to ban him in the first place be those PM's or their authors.

It was not. The first time it was brought up among the moderators, I was one of the only staff members to dissent. This happened twice. I've decided to dissent no longer.

Originally Posted by jackson33

cypress, has shown no signs of being delusional or promoting anything not already controversial (that I'm aware of),

Jackson - Do you accept evolution as a valid description of reality? Cypress didn't. That's a pretty major red flag right there, my friend. Note also that this went far beyond his global warming denial, and included his spin, misrepresentation, and obfuscation on the historical facts surrounding biblical myth and practically every other non-engineering topic about which he posted.

Listen, Jackson. Here's the part you're missing.
He lacked academic integrity, and he failed regularly to demonstrate even a modicum of basic honesty and good faith in debates.

That's really all there is to it.

I'm done posting to this thread now. I just find it somewhat humorous how you hold such a rosy perception of this guy.

Oh boy, I think there might be more than a few people over in the bio section popping champagne because of this news.

I remember one particular post where he claimed the genetic evidence for the relationship between chimps and humans was "relatively" weak, it's the kind of post that induces headaches.

I think the forum shows a lot of tolerance towards people with less than mainstream ideas. The problem I perceive with cypress was that he seemed disingenuous and deliberately misleading. I have more patience for someone who is genuinely ignorant than I do for those I think have shown themselves repeatedly to be liars.

Edit: I'll admit his contributions to the chemistry section seem good though.

1. In one thread - I don't recall which one - cypress raised some valid points and was shot down, in my opinion, not because he was wrong, not because of the way he raised them on this occassion, but because of his underlying agenda. As a consequence some genuine areas of uncertainty in evolutionary theory were brushed aside by biologists with all the dogmatic blindness of a creationist. That sufficiently infuriated me that I walked away from that thread.

I was offended and saddened by the position adopted by knowledgeable posters amd mods on that occasion.

On this basis Cypress should be reinstated.

2. Cypress sought to insinuate his position into every thread that bore any relationship to biology or evolution. This was wholly unaceptable. Lurkers, or the inexperienced could readily have taken his positions as being valid - since some of his positions were valid the risk was heightened.

On this basis the ban on Cypress should remain.

How to reconcile the two positions? Lift the ban, but make it clear that cypress can only offer controversial, non mainstream views on evolution in threads which have that as their principle purpose, as indicated by the OP. Any implicit or explicit expression of such non-mainstream views outside of such threads should lead to a permanent ban.

The only issue with that is, afaik, Cypress was warned not to assert his controversial ideas in non-controversial threads, and completely ignored the warning. He never ceased to push his agenda in both the theology and biology sections, where his viewpoint wasn't welcomed. His faulty and dogmatic viewpoints that he constantly pushes far outweigh the valid points he raises, and give more reason to the ban than to a resumed membership. I'm sorry, but he was unreasonable and never relented in playing the victim while being a dogmatic poster with no concession that his point was ever wrong, and never admitted to any potential wrongness.

I joined him in this crusade against the evil reductionists. and I will carry on in his spirit on this subject.

praise Darwin.

SkinWalker Quote...It most certainly isn't. I only meant to point out that your voice isn't as unheard as you made it out to be.

In reference to my comment "What you decide should not be placed on my shoulders", which was based on this quote from you, followed by a laid out explanation of the difference, which is no longer relevant.

I don't remember the specific member, but you convinced me to overturn a suspension / termination of a member in the past. Why not now? If there are sufficient arguments, I'm more than willing to lift the ban for cypress. They would have to be good arguments, however.

Obviously, I've reached, maybe gone beyond the point any casual poster has the right to question an Administrative decision, now having to defend decisions based on other grievances and will make no further comments on this thread, after this post. This particular forum of all those I've posted on, happens to be my favorite, having gotten to know many of the member over the years a few of which may no longer even be alive today. It's also been the one place, until now, I've never worried about simply saying something that would cause some kind of disciplinary action and has allowed open/unvented discussion on a good many controversial subjects, by dozens of posters.

To repeat; With reference to cypress, no doubt another target of a few and probably myself, this has been going on 6-8 months. In the OP, I mentioned two threads, if you do nothing else please read the closing post on both, judge for yourself if these were appropriate or if my comments here, have been out of line.


inow; 'cypress', is more than likely a 'Chemical Engineer' (declared in profile), no doubt educated to the level of most any poster on these little science forums. As many posters have in posting on issues you disagree with, he had become a target, with an objective goal to discredit the person, opposed to the issue. When and where you have failed in similar cases is when the poster stays on target (the issue), not responding with like aggressive tactics which cypress, Wild Cobra and others have yet to learn. To soften my appraisal/opinion, your not IMO a villain to these forums as this attitude stimulates interest, accuracy in posting and debate in general which IMO is what a forum is all about. Additionally, you do have a soft side in that you will research (take the time) to answer to questions of poster on various subjects. I'm simply trying to illustrate, where most of the seemingly problems credited to cypress have developed, since he first joined. This this is called accepting the bad, for the good and missing with regards to cypress...

I'll ask you one rhetorical question, indirectly addressing SW decision to ban a poster....

Do you believe any poster taking the time to compose 1200 post in 6-8 months, that has himself stimulated a great deal of interest (ALL well read threads), first public disciplinary action, should be a total banning?

To those that are trying to use "Creationism" as the primary cause for this banning (I firmly believe it was primarily based on 'Environmental issues') and a devoted learner and proponent of Natural Evolution of both this solar system and mankind, that's NOT what most Americans general believe, including scientist. Take this as you please, but I'll accept half those with a science background or over 4 in 5 (4+ in 10 full fledged creationist) to some degree, do not totally accept taught evolution.

Take a look at the general population and Scientist (by poll) that you could not accept on this forum....45% of scientist polled and 83% of those polled believe, either believe in creation or that Creationism (10,000 year) or Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Originally Posted by jackson33

I'll ask you one rhetorical question, indirectly addressing SW decision to ban a poster....

Do you believe any poster taking the time to compose 1200 post in 6-8 months, that has himself stimulated a great deal of interest (ALL well read threads), first public disciplinary action, should be a total banning?

It obviously depends upon the circumstances, but you should note that the recent decision to ban cypress was not his first received disciplinary action here, and I'm not even including in that all of the gentle nudges and suggestive guidance he's received through those many threads from staff and membership alike.

Again, you paint a very rosy picture, but the reality is not being accurately represented by your doing so.

Thank you for this thread. Is there some way to ban someone from posting in particular subforums? Would that solve the problem?

Originally Posted by jackson33

Take a look at the general population and Scientist (by poll) that you could not accept on this forum....45% of scientist polled and 83% of those polled believe, either believe in creation or that Creationism (10,000 year) or Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

There is a difference between holding a subjective personal belief and science. It doesn't matter if 45% of scientist, which is pretty meaningless considering that I'm certainly not qualified to comment on astrophysics, so I wouldn't expect an expert in physics to be all that well educated when it comes to evolutionary biology. Hell, I have a degree in a biomedical science and I only took one course on evolution in university, and it was an elective.

Whether you want to believe there was something special at work is fine, but that just simply isn't science.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Take a look at the general population and Scientist (by poll) that you could not accept on this forum....45% of scientist polled and 83% of those polled believe, either believe in creation or that Creationism (10,000 year) or Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Wrong. According to my made-up nubers it's 256.548%

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Thank you for this thread. Is there some way to ban someone from posting in particular subforums? Would that solve the problem?

Cypress had no problem bringing up his pet theory, if we can call it that, at every opportunity. He did not restrict himself to Biology.

[quote="jackson33"]

Take a look at the general population and Scientist (by poll) that you could not accept on this forum....45% of scientist polled and 83% of those polled believe, either believe in creation or that Creationism (10,000 year) or Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

And 51% of the general population believe in the existence of ghosts. So what? A lot of people believe in a lot of silly things.

Considering that only 10% of the general populace can get all the questions on the following quiz correct (and none of these questions are hard), I'd just say that the vast majority are just scientifically illiterate, and that their opinions don't count.

http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/

I scored in the top 10%, and I knew off the top of my head all but 2 of the questions. A little bit of thought is all that is required to perfect that quiz, really.

Me too. The quiz is very easy, but I don't expect the average fellow to know most of them.

I got all correct and agree that its a sad state when most people wouldn't score high on the quiz.

Yes, getting 100% correct was easy, but consider this.

The question on the medicine recommended to reduce the risk of heart attack is hardly central to important science. I know the answer because I take aspirin on medical advice.

Who cares whether Pluto is or is not a planet? That's just terminology and not central to astronomy.

I could make similar arguments for several of the other questions.

Conclusion: a person knowledgeable about science could still get three questions wrong.
What would that mean? Well that would include 44% of those taking the test. So, on that basis at least half the test subjects are reasonably well informed about science.


Edited to correct a plethora of typographical errors.

I am ashamed to admit I answered all questions correctly.

And moreover the score confirmed my own assessment.

Those were quite retarded questions though. Not a single question on scientific practice. Just some factual tidbits knowledge.

Interesting; Well I also am in that 10%, but only because I answered what those in science would say, not what I felt was correct, especially outside the listed answers. For instance, CO2 and AGW....

SkinWalker; If your still re-thinking your decision, I might ask you to consider the test in how conception of a poster can be confused by certain folks based on their own viewpoint, then in the context of the people responding to 'janus' test. I have no doubt, nor would I bet anyone having posted on this thread, believes cypress, would have scored less.

I got 12/12 in the standard quiz, but i may have got the last one wrong in the second quiz as it didn't give me the result.

"What is the last grade or class that you completed in school?"

----------------------

As for the issue in this thread, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to be banning people from a forum. It may make people hesitant to post controversial, possibly offensive or what could be perceived as aggressive posts. We all have an ignore user button.

-------------

No "what did he say posts" please.

Originally Posted by jackson33

I might ask you to consider the test in how conception of a poster can be confused by certain folks based on their own viewpoint

I think regardless of one's viewpoint, it's rather likely that cypress was conceived after his father ejaculated inside his mother during coitus. I mean... That is sort of independent of one's viewpoint... We're all pretty much conceived the same way... Independent of one's viewpoint or "perception."

Damn, I was betting on a turkey baster being involved.

I think a good contrast to cypress is Waveman28. He has a theory that isn't seen as scientifically credible, and challenges modern physics with a controversial theory just like cypress. The difference, however, is that Waveman28 know's where his theory belongs on the forum, and how to not push his agenda in any thread that could in any way relate to his theory. He doesn't go into every thread on relativity or QM and blast it with his theory on the Aether, and has consigned to allow his thread on the aether remain in pseudoscience where the rest of us feel it belongs. He still argues for his theory, and has constructive posts in that thread without ever playing the victim. That difference, I personally believe, is what makes Waveman28 a better contributor and a much more competent member of the forum than cypress ever was and any like him ever will be. The constant pushing of his agenda is what lead to the ban, and it's the defining point, not the controversy behind his posts, that makes his ban more reasonable than one might think.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by jackson33

I might ask you to consider the test in how conception of a poster can be confused by certain folks based on their own viewpoint

I think regardless of one's viewpoint, it's rather likely that cypress was conceived after his father ejaculated inside his mother during coitus. I mean... That is sort of independent of one's viewpoint... We're all pretty much conceived the same way... Independent of one's viewpoint or "perception."

conception; noun: the creation of something in the mind...

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=conception

How did you score, on the test...

The religion forum is nothing more than an atheist rant festival.

To accuse anyone of pushing an agenda in that area is a joke. Abuse of power is the lowest form of trolling.

At least you cannot accuse Cypress, or any theist moderator of that.

Okay. That's it, man. You are SO banned for saying that.

We don't have a religion subforum.

Originally Posted by inow

Okay. That's it, man. You are SO banned for saying that.

Ha Ha,

At least some atheists have a sense of humor.

I will think of you when I see the "Karate Kid" this weekend.

Originally Posted by dedo

Originally Posted by inow

Okay. That's it, man. You are SO banned for saying that.

Ha Ha,

At least some atheists have a sense of humor.

some of us atheists pride ourselves on being human too, you know

Why wouldn't atheists have a sense of humour? Is accepting the existence of a deity blindly a funny thing then which atheists are incapable of?

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Is accepting the existence of a deity blindly a funny thing ...

come to think of it, that IS pretty funny

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Why wouldn't atheists have a sense of humour? Is accepting the existence of a deity blindly a funny thing then which atheists are incapable of?

The idea that some people may be less capable of perceiving, and therefore accepting, the existence of God is something that I have not seen explored in the various threads
in the religion vs. atheism section.

However, it is possible I might have missed it.

That would explain a lot.

We haven't a "religion vs. atheism section."

That depends on whether it is more accurate to refer to a section by what it is "called" or by what actually happens there.

If the two diverge too much, then the first becomes Orwellian, and the second is more accurate.

*Yawn.