Posting style (split from Climate science was wrong!)

[Bufofrog]

On 1/22/2020 at 9:47 PM, wallflash said:

I regard what I said as relevant. I did , however, post a new thread , which is what I came here for . I am just surprised by the attitudes displayed here , which are worse than on any of the other 3 forums I do or have in the past participated in .

I wonder where these wonderful forums are.  I think this forum seems to lean toward civility more than the average science forum.

There are some ideas about climate change that are just plain bat-shit crazy stupid and it is difficult not to roll your eyes and say "STFU bozo".

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." Donald J. Trump

[wallflash]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I wonder where these wonderful forums are.  I think this forum seems to lean toward civility more than the average science forum.

There are some ideas about climate change that are just plain bat-shit crazy stupid and it is difficult not to roll your eyes and say "STFU bozo".

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." Donald J. Trump

 

*shrug* 

I have watched people refrain from doing that for decades . But not my forum , not my rules  . 

 

Im thinking this has run its course and I’ll focus on other things 

[Bufofrog]

1 minute ago, wallflash said:

 

*shrug* 

I have watched people refrain from doing that for decades . But not my forum , not my rules  . 

 

Im thinking this has run its course and I’ll focus on other things 

Fair enough.  I am curious about these other forums you spoke of, could you supply one of two of these forums names?  Thanks.

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, wallflash said:

 

*shrug* 

I have watched people refrain from doing that for decades . But not my forum , not my rules  . 

 

Im thinking this has run its course and I’ll focus on other things 

youre insult is hiding behide this . 

[wallflash]

40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Fair enough.  I am curious about these other forums you spoke of, could you supply one of two of these forums names?  Thanks.

 

 

Beliefnet was the forum with the Science  and Religion area . It had a vibrant discussion area from all religions to politics to science . They shut down the forums 6-7 yrs ago and are strictly a read and blog site now . 

 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, wallflash said:

 

 

Beliefnet was the forum with the Science  and Religion area . It had a vibrant discussion area from all religions to politics to science . They shut down the forums 6-7 yrs ago and are strictly a read and blog site now . 

 

That suggests to me the forum part was probably deemed unmanageable.

[wallflash]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That suggests to me the forum part was probably deemed unmanageable.

 

It  required a butt load of mods , even though they were volunteer . I think they had one or two paid mod supervisors . They had an excessive number of forums also , almost every silly variety you could find . Even had a subforum in the Jedi Knight faith ( not kidding at all) and some faith called Ekunkar or something somewhat similar that turned out to be an aromatherapy religion ( didn’t know there was one ) . Also a Satanist subforum . 

They got bought by a corporation who made the decision to shut down the forum side . No profit in it  I guess  . 

Edited January 24, 2020 by wallflash

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That suggests to me the forum part was probably deemed unmanageable.

They were all nice about it. 

19 minutes ago, wallflash said:

 

It  required a butt load of mods , even though they were volunteer . I think they had one or two paid mod supervisors . They had an excessive number of forums also , almost every silly variety you could find . Even had a subforum in the Jedi Knight faith ( not kidding at all) and some faith called Ekunkar or something somewhat similar that turned out to be an aromatherapy religion ( didn’t know there was one ) . Also a Satanist subforum .

 

Sounds like facebook.

19 minutes ago, wallflash said:

They got bought by a corporation who made the decision to shut down the forum side . No profit in it  I guess  

Indeed...

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by dimreepr

[wallflash]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They were all nice about it. 

Sounds like facebook.

Indeed...

 

There were folks asking why it was being turned into FB . I don’t FB , so I have no reference. 

It was strange to watch it happen . We all knew well in advance the exact time ( midnight ET on the chosen day ) , so everyone was on at the last hour trying to make the final post . Navigating around the site at 12:01 was eerily similar to walking though a huge deserted building all by yourself . It’s a shame , it was a great site . 

[dimreepr]

Just now, wallflash said:

There were folks asking why it was being turned into FB . I don’t FB , so I have no reference. 

It was strange to watch it happen . We all knew well in advance the exact time ( midnight ET on the chosen day ) , so everyone was on at the last hour trying to make the final post . Navigating around the site at 12:01 was eerily similar to walking though a huge deserted building all by yourself . It’s a shame , it was a great site . 

as is this.

[wallflash]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

as is this.

 

I agree  . I have been a member for a while now . I have not posted much but have read extensively in the physics area . New to this area . 

[dimreepr]

Then why start with an insult?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, wallflash said:

No, Im not saying there can’t be disagreements over lying. I’m saying it isn’t  necessary to accuse others of the possibility that they are lying if they don’t agree with the mass . No one here knows the inner thoughts of another poster or scientist . 

Why not? If someone says something blatantly untrue, isn't it intellectually dishonest not to consider all the possibilities? There's lying and ignorance. What other possibility is there for blatant untruths?

I know that in certain conversations, pointing out someone's error is considered rude. But that's not the paradigm under which science discussion operates.

 

2 hours ago, wallflash said:

And no, that’s not all you have . I participated for decades in forums in which science nerds debated creationists ,

As have I. And just scientists — no need to disparage them by calling them nerds. Which, given your position here, I'm sure you'll you'll agree.

 

 

[Strange]

There is nothing magically nice about scientists. It is not like they are all Vulcans dealing only with facts and logic. There are a few very well respected physicists with blogs where they will occasionally make pretty ... uhm ... "direct" comments about other physicists who they disagree with.

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is nothing magically nice about scientists. It is not like they are all Vulcans dealing only with facts and logic. There are a few very well respected physicists with blogs where they will occasionally make pretty ... uhm ... "direct" comments about other physicists who they disagree with.

Well, for some the topic can feel more personal. If you are a biologist (or even an evolutionary biologist ) and there is a strong movement that denies the reality of it, it has real impact on your work.

[wallflash]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why not? If someone says something blatantly untrue, isn't it intellectually dishonest not to consider all the possibilities? There's lying and ignorance. What other possibility is there for blatant untruths?

I know that in certain conversations, pointing out someone's error is considered rude. But that's not the paradigm under which science discussion operates.

 

As have I. And just scientists — no need to disparage them by calling them nerds. Which, given your position here, I'm sure you'll you'll agree.

 

 

 

 

By nerds I simply and humorously mean science junkies or science enthusiasts who aren’t actually employed as scientists but follow it as a hobby or pastime . I am a science nerd with limited capabilities. I mostly read . But I enjoy learning what I can about physics and especially astrophysics  and astronomy . 

So I had no intention of insulting myself  

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, wallflash said:

By nerds I simply and humorously mean science junkies or science enthusiasts who aren’t actually employed as scientists but follow it as a hobby or pastime . I am a science nerd with limited capabilities. I mostly read . But I enjoy learning what I can about physics and especially astrophysics  and astronomy . 

So I had no intention of insulting myself  

Could be  the composition of the fora, then. While the overall community is relatively small here, it has quite a few degree holders as well as active scientists who can provide insights at least in certain topics. The type of debate is likely going to be a bit different than exclusively among enthusiasts.

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, wallflash said:

By nerds I simply and humorously mean science junkies or science enthusiasts who aren’t actually employed as scientists but follow it as a hobby or pastime . I am a science nerd with limited capabilities. I mostly read . But I enjoy learning what I can about physics and especially astrophysics  and astronomy . 

So I had no intention of insulting myself  

So you're the arbiter of what's insulting or not? That's what you've set yourself up as, with the first couple of posts, and now this.

 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

I worked in IT as an operational HRIS systems administrator in a 3,500 employee public organisation and I worked very closely with internal and external Auditors to make sure that our data wasn't polluted with a whole pile of crap. I was the business owner of the organisation's HRIS and databases <...> There's horses for courses and modifying data to suit your purposes just doesn't wash in my professional opinion.

You'd be surprised just how extremely familiar I am with the vocation and org type you describe (though, not usually at companies as small as the one you mention here with only 3.5K ee's), but I'm not terribly clear how the post you made ties to the discussion taking place.

Perhaps you can clarify? If I try reading between the lines, it seems like you're suggesting climate scientists fudge their data thus rendering it untrustworthy and their conclusions false. Am I reading you right?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I know that in certain conversations, pointing out someone's error is considered rude. But that's not the paradigm under which science discussion operates.

Hard to pass up an opportunity now to share this classic:

 

[wallflash]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

So you're the arbiter of what's insulting or not? That's what you've set yourself up as, with the first couple of posts, and now this.

 

LOL .  I humorously included myself in the nerd category and explained how I meant it . I guess I’m going to have to go bang my head against the wall 10 times in penance  for insulting myself . 

 

Have a a nice day  

Edited January 24, 2020 by wallflash

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, wallflash said:

LOL .  I humorously included myself in the nerd category and explained how I meant it . I guess I’m going to have to go bang my head against the wall 10 times in penance  for insulting myself . 

 

Have a a nice day  

I guess I can refer to Germans as Nazis from now on since I'm of German heritage and don't mean it in a negative way.

I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse to serve your purposes or if you really can't see all the flaws in your arguments.

[wallflash]

44 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I guess I can refer to Germans as Nazis from now on since I'm of German heritage and don't mean it in a negative way.

I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse to serve your purposes or if you really can't see all the flaws in your arguments.

 

 

Obtuse about nerd being an insult? Perhaps you should ask the poster here that has “supernerd “ in his avatar if he gets offended every time he reads here  

 

Oh wait, supernerd is an actual rank here . It appears you need to be upset at the forum owners .I find it laughable that this is an issue . I refer to myself as a science nerd all the time . 

 

 

As for flaws in my arguments, you have the opportunity to show them whenever you wish . Feel free to do so . I am not bothered by learning I was looking at something wrong, but I am equally unimpressed by claims of errors that don't back it it by showing them 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by wallflash

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I can't decide if you are being purposely obtuse to serve your purposes or if you really can't see all the flaws in your arguments.

Really? As with most, it's pretty obvious IMO

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Really? As with most, it's pretty obvious IMO

Yeah, you are right.

[iNow]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:40 PM, Phi for All said:

I'm suspicious that you're setting the stage here by painting people as unreasonable and rude if they argue against you. 

This was really insightful, though slightly displaced from another similar possibility which has crossed my mind...

Namely, he consistently ignores feedback in all of his various threads, keeps repeating invalid points even after getting corrected, keeps failing to support anything with evidence even when asked, then gets called out for trolling.

Voila! He gets to point back here and tell us all how blinkered we are and how we’re all far too eager to call innocent well meaning people like him trolls... something which all those other better forums would NEVER do.