I'd like to create a Hall of Shame for all of the infamously memorable people on SFN.

People that are:

• Idiotic
  
• Strawmanners
  
• Trolls
  
• Twats
  
• Pseudoscientists
  
• Religion-spreading evolution-hating people
  

And so on.

 

Shall we begin? Make your suggestions here.

 

 

(Please-just their names and what they did. No name-calling, flaming, or whatever. If you were put here and you disagree, hush.)

I don't think we should be putting names in here of people that are still around.

Some of them come back occasionally.

 

Hmm...

 

How about "classical idiots"--those that have been around. If one here is banned, put him up.

willowtree.

 

i actually miss him

Christ's Slave a.k.a chatha

Meets all of the above criteria.

me when i first came here....man, i was infamous...

Great, a list I actually have a chance at. But what area?

 

Strawmanning? Nope, I don't cut the hay for another two months.

 

Trolls?. I get a cold hiding under bridges.

 

Pe-ewdoscientist? I'm not a scientist, so it doesn't matter whether I bathe or not. ( Or whether my idea stinks.)

 

Religion spreading? Is that something like manure spreading?

 

*sob* Is there nothing left? *sob*

To have a place in the hall of shame for all those who label people as pseudoscientists and cranks, how about we add the category "Total Jerk"?

To have a place in the hall of shame for all those who label people as pseudoscientists and cranks, how about we add the category "Total Jerk"?

read thier posts, you'll learn quickly...

Though not all-around bad, Johnny5 certainly had his moments, especially his last.

 

I want to curse you out, by my superintelligence prevents it. Keep your latex. You don't know how to use it anyways. And to all those who liked me...Yeah I'll miss you. Phi for all whined about something a day or so ago. I suspect I threaten his lack of intelligence. And mokele, you weren't there now were you. Bye all You are just nerds after all. I am the end of the evolution of the human race. I am the Universe. And I'm out.

For strawmanning, Revprez has to take the cake.

I know its been said but i have to say it again

.....Curse you CHRIST SLAVE !!!.....

 

~Scott

whats the reasoning that justifies making a thread entirely about insulting people?

Nicholas... for using the same, flawed argument over and over and over...

whats the reasoning that justifies making a thread entirely about insulting people?

He's bored and it's fun?

No one can deny logic so just and pure...

 

I would also like to state once again, for the record, both that Willowtree was certifiably INSANE, and that Christ Slave, well.... if you don't already know, it's best you not be exposed to this woeful tale.

I'd like to create a Hall of Shame for all of the infamously memorable people on SFN.

People that are:

• Idiotic
  
• Strawmanners
  
• Trolls
  
• Twats
  
• Pseudoscientists
  
• Religion-spreading evolution-hating people
  

And so on.

 

Shall we begin? Make your suggestions here.

 

(Please-just their names and what they did. No name-calling' date=' flaming, or whatever. If you were put here and you disagree, hush.)[/quote']

What an awful and shameful thing to do or suggest.

 

To me it indicates just how far our civilization has fallen from its healthy moral and ethical roots, that you don't even know right from wrong, yet you wish to brand others with a shameful stigma. Makes me want to vomit.

 

Why don't you make an honour role instead, and inspire people to do their best?

 

It's shameful enough to be neglected and not noted for anything, even courtesy. Most people I think are put down, insulted and told they are useless and can't accomplish anything about ten times as much as they are encouraged. This is exactly what breeds social misfits and serial killers. So go ahead, make some more. Maybe they'll give your daughter a lift home from the bar.

 

TWATS

More patriarchical sexist (=racist) shiite.

Why not just say "No girls allowed"?

If 'TWATS' is okee dokee, why not just say 'C*NTS'.

Where's a hall monitor when you need one?

yet you wish to brand others with a shameful stigma.

That's the one. What's so wrong with disscussing peoples actions?

Why don't you make an honour role instead' date=' and inspire people to do their best?[/quote']The expert ranking already accounts for that, but I'm sure no-one would be opposed if you really wanted to start an honour role. Although it would still be branding people.

More patriarchical sexist (=racist) shiite.

Why not just say "No girls allowed"?

If 'TWATS' is okee dokee' date=' why not just say 'C*NTS'.

Where's a hall monitor when you need one?[/quote']Twats only refers to a certain part of girls, maybe if cocks were also included in the list you'd be happier?

I fail to see how sexism equates to racism but that doesn't matter because there hasn't been an example of either so far.

Twats carries the connatation of ignorance and idocy whereas your alternative term carries connatations of argressiveness and general unpleasantries so each term has a seperate purpose.

...you don't even know right from wrong, yet you wish to brand others with a shameful stigma...

how can he conform to what you think "right and wrong" are when you have yet to define them? right and wrong are POV; they are different for each person.

I nominate Cap'n Refsmmat under the 'idiotic' and 'troll' category, for this post:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=197431&postcount=1

That's the one. What's so wrong with disscussing peoples actions?

I guess I wouldn't say the case is black and white.

Presumably on a Physics Forum we are mainly discussing physics.

I suppose if there really is a problem then a person's actions could be discussed.

At least that would be better than labelling the person.

(i.e., remind someone of guidelines, as opposed to attacking them directly and branding them.)

how can he conform to what you think "right and wrong" are when you have yet to define them? right and wrong are POV; they are different for each person.

Actually I probably agree with this.

The difference is, he is proposing to judge others on some standard (his own?),

whereas I am not suggesting we brand anyone without establishing an ethical foundation first at the very least.

 

In some sense I am 'judging': judging that a 'Hall of Shame' would be a bad idea.

In places of employment and schools, such activity has led to emotional attacks by disgruntled employees and horrific incidents of juvenile violent crime. The internet is not a 'safe' place to engage in an UNSAFE and stupid practice.

an honour role... would still be branding people.

Quite right. But my point relies rather not on the technicality of 'branding', but in merit of praise over criticism and attack. My original point should have made clear that people are put down ten times as often as they are encouraged, and this has a horrific cost upon us all.

I don't think there's enough name-calling in this thread.

I don't think there's enough name-calling in this thread.

 

Sorry, I've already given it my best shot

 

The original proposal was to dedicate some web space to a list that is in fact name-calling.

Exactly, and so far everyone's just been talking about it.

Meta, we hear and acknowledge your objection to this thread but as this is a democracy and you appear to be in th minority we will be swiftly moving on to resume the branding of the most idiotic members of this forum.