What to do about 'Jerry posts'

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

From the number of warnings I have personally received, I would have to say the answer is no, we can not discuss the "style/attitude" of other posters.

Of course that's a difficult rule to follow when the "other poster" is all style/attitude and no substance.

Well, personally, if one (or more) of my posts are insulting/offensive, or rubbing someone the wrong way, I'd like to know. Chances are very high that I did not do it on purpose. But why is public discussion of such a post necessary? The board has PM functionality. It's easy to get defensive and let things get out of hand when you're called out publically like that.

Everyone here at one point or another says something that's taken the wrong way, or was said out of anger/frustration without really thinking. But the situation gets much worse when it becomes a big public issue. Not least of the problems is that it completely derails the thread (just look at this one). Of course we're not all going to agree about everything, and not all of our personalities will be compatable with everyone else's. But most of us, the ones that post here regularly anyway, aren't trying to intentionally get into shouting matches with each other. The mods do a great job of taking care of the constant instigators.

The key is to just use some tact and curtosey. If someone says something that offends, maybe try sending them a PM (nicely). Or if it's real bad, PM a mod (nicely) and ask for some help. (Note to mods: No need to thank me for asking people to PM you mods even more, and make more work for you ).

"Can't we all just get along?!"

[Whirlpool]

Can't we all just get along?!"

I would LOVE to see that here .

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Well, personally, if one (or more) of my posts are insulting/offensive, or rubbing someone the wrong way, I'd like to know. Chances are very high that I did not do it on purpose. But why is public discussion of such a post necessary? The board has PM functionality. It's easy to get defensive and let things get out of hand when you're called out publically like that.

Everyone here at one point or another says something that's taken the wrong way, or was said out of anger/frustration without really thinking. But the situation gets much worse when it becomes a big public issue. Not least of the problems is that it completely derails the thread (just look at this one). Of course we're not all going to agree about everything, and not all of our personalities will be compatable with everyone else's. But most of us, the ones that post here regularly anyway, aren't trying to intentionally get into shouting matches with each other. The mods do a great job of taking care of the constant instigators.

The key is to just use some tact and curtosey. If someone says something that offends, maybe try sending them a PM (nicely). Or if it's real bad, PM a mod (nicely) and ask for some help. (Note to mods: No need to thank me for asking people to PM you mods even more, and make more work for you ).

"Can't we all just get along?!"

Fazor...
I was going to break this post down
In order to list each item that I found offensive.

But It proved impossible because every molecule in it offended me.

C'mon Big Boy, Let's have it out here and now...
Or are Ya Chicken?

[Serenitude]

As someone who periodically has threads started about them, you get used to it after a while Patrolling the ATM and CT forums has it's price

I would reinforce an excellent point brought up, above. What is often mistaken for bias is actually a problem of scope. The forums are HUGE. The active mod staff is comparitavely small. We just simply cannot read every post in every thread. We try, but we fail. We really rely on the community, either through PMs or the "report post" button, to report circular arguments, ad-homs, ATM material, you name it. Any problems. Don't just assume that it's been read by a mod and "glossed over". Assume it hasn't been seen

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

...when the "other poster" is all style/attitude and no substance.

FYI, when I speak of "other poster" I am speaking of an amalgam of numerous posters...none of which are posting to this thread.

[Whirlpool]

" Oh Cloud(Neverfly's Avatar)... your hair looks like Chocobo's !! are Ya Chicken?"

Pardon me Neverfly, trying not to be offensive , BUT I see some resemblance.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

As someone who periodically has threads started about them, you get used to it after a while Patrolling the ATM and CT forums has it's price

I would reinforce an excellent point brought up, above. What is often mistaken for bias is actually a problem of scope. The forums are HUGE. The active mod staff is comparitavely small. We just simply cannot read every post in every thread. We try, but we fail. We really rely on the community, either through PMs or the "report post" button, to report circular arguments, ad-homs, ATM material, you name it. Any problems. Don't just assume that it's been read by a mod and "glossed over". Assume it hasn't been seen

That is why you identify the trouble-makers such as myself.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Whirlpool

" Oh Cloud(Neverfly's Avatar)... your hair looks like Chocobo's !! are Ya Chicken?"

Pardon me Neverfly, trying not to be offensive , BUT I see some resemblance.

Pardon me Neverfly, trying not to be offensive , BUT I see some resemblance.<<< You need to edit this part out

[Fazor]

Well, honestly that post was meticulously crafted so that each letter of each word, right down to the punctuation was aimed at offending you, Neverfly. I'm happy to see that it worked.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Well, honestly that post was meticulously crafted so that each letter of each word, right down to the punctuation was aimed at offending you, Neverfly. I'm happy to see that it worked.

Like a charm. I'm going to go drink a Dr Pepper and try to calm my seething nerves now <grumble Gripe>

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

Lurker, post 31:



Then, in post 64, directed to 01101001:



And now to Jerry:



More about Jerry:



Oh the irony! And the confusion. Lurker, should we discuss the behavior/posting style of individual posters, or shouldn't we?

There is no irony here nore is there any confusion. I stand by what I said earlier. In this case, Jerry made comments and I responded to his comments just as I am responding to your comments here. I am not singling you out I am responding to a post you made.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

And yet I infer entirely different motive. But I freely admit that I don't have any clue about Jerry's motives, and I think it's rude to speculate on other people's motives. The fact that you have once suggesfully guessed one painter's motive doesn't make you a person who knows motives of other people.


Perhaps you should read the moderator note in the beginning, the thread wasn't started by Jerry nor was the title created by him. And this still wouldn't show Jerry's motives of making those posts.


I admit that it might be seen as rude, and I regret that I were stupid enough to use that word. However, I didn't use it as ad hominem (i.e. I didn't use it to discredit anyone's arguments).


Let's take one quote from you (from here):

Suggesting that Jerry has psychological condition is hardly a proper way to "criticize Jerry’s methodology and logic".

To me it seems that you have made it a point to post rude things about Jerry, but I don't know that for sure because I don't know how to flawlessly infer people's motives.

This is the difficulty I have with the ATM forum. If a theory has merit it should be discussed. If it does not the thread should be locked. The idea that one forum is more appropriate disquieting. There are many noted researchers in the goesciences who believe that there in inadequate evidence to support global warming, however, simply by meantioning this fact in any other forum other than ATM I run the risk of getting warned or even banned for some period of time. If I meantion the big bang in this forum or any forum on this board this is not the case.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

(Sigh) There you go again...

I'll just briefly clarify my position and then I'm done here. If there is a need to post negative things about some person's motives, in my opinion then one should be certain about those motives, it is not enough if they are safely inferred, or educationally guessed. And, it is hard for me to imagine why there really would be such need to say those negative things, especially if one makes a point of repeating them time and time again about same person. That is just plain rude in my book.

I agree... I don't believe that motives should be discussed here. In addition to the issues Ari very rightly points out, I would add that it is always the motives of the ATM posters whose motives are examined and posted about. No one ever asks if Jay Utah has suspect motives for his posts.

[Neverfly]

This is an Edit for a previous post. I had stood by an assumption that I probably should not have. Rather than change my words I'll post a correction here:
I said:

My own interpretation of events:
01101001 did NOT own up to it. In fact he got defensive- ( I probably would too...) However, I read the "Did you skip school that day" as kinda...
Well... It's not that bad really but could easily imply that the guy was a lazy student. It sounds like you are calling a person ignorant.
The best thing to do at that moment would be to say, "I shouldn't have said it like that"
01101001 denied that it had that meaning and I'm sorry... Like Nereid saying that calling them Jerry Posts and linking to Jerry's post was NOT directed at anyone in particular...
It didn't jive with my common Sense. It kinda insults my intelligence if it's said to me- "That purple cow is green"

01101001 does not need to own up to having done nothing wrong.
However it sounded may have been different than how it was meant. A simple "I meant this" will usually solve the problem and 01101001 did indeed do that in his posts in explaining that "skip" meant "miss."

I stand corrected and hope that 01101001 doesn't pursue me with razor blades

...Or worse... Fazor Blades.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

Neverfly, your rebuttal to me was well-put, and probably more polite than I deserved. But to me, Lurker's words in this thread goes beyond mere self-contradiction. Lurker starts by pointing out to others that we should not discuss the posting style/attitude of posters. But when 01101001 owned up to an example Lurker used to exemplify a posting style/attitude Lurker dislikes, Lurker felt free to criticize 01101001. And when Jerry stepped into the thread, Lurker then critizes his posting style/attitude pointedly. From where I sit, this isn't just self-contradiction, it's a 180 turn-about that approaches hypocrisy. I will admit, I got carried away in the way I pointed this out. However, my question to Lurker (which was a sincere one) still stands: should we, or should we not, publically discuss the posting style/attitude of posters?

If you find my comments hypocritical I can do nothing about that. However I find no hypocrisy in my comments.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Lurker

I agree... I don't believe that motives should be discussed here. In addition to the issues Ari very rightly points out, I would add that it is always the motives of the ATM posters whose motives are examined and posted about. No one ever asks if Jay Utah has suspect motives for his posts.

Clarity of Motives.
Lurker since you post on ATM- then it makes sense that certain motives may drive you to ignore evidence. These motivations must be addressed by you- in order to promote clarity in your reasoning.
That is not a bad thing.

No-one needs to question JayUtah's motives because they are clear and based on the evidence at hand.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is an Edit for a previous post. I had stood by an assumption that I probably should not have.

Thanks, but now what am I supposed to do with all these hot coals? Guess I'll grill lunch, instead.

Rain check? Good for one free flaming at a later date.

Smiling...

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Clarity of Motives.
Lurker since you post on ATM- then it makes sense that certain motives may drive you to ignore evidence. These motivations must be addressed by you- in order to promote clarity in your easoning.
That is not a bad thing.

I love circular logic. I cannot post about global warming in any other forum other than ATM because supporting the proposition that there may not be enough evidence to prove global warming is ATM. But wait... if I post in ATM I must be ignoring evidence...

This is what is wrong with ATM... certain posts are damned to ATM and since they are damned to ATM they are damned for being posted in ATM

Originally Posted by Neverfly

No-one needs to question JayUtah's motives because they are clear and based on the evidence at hand.

So are certain arguments concerning global warming, but they go against the consensus.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

...Or worse... Fazor Blades.

Scarey. If those are as sharp as my wit... well, then you just might get bludgeoned to death

[CodeSlinger]

This is what Jerry wrote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

This is a public forum - there will be abusive comments and curt retorts. The owners of the board inforce fairly strict rules of decorum. Within those guidelines, let the fur fly! Call people on bad facts, poor logic, weak and poorly documented arguments, unsupportable opinions and needless repetition (there has been too much of that on this thread!)

I interpret Nereids question as a plea to be less obnoxious. I can do that - we all can.

Most importantly think, evaluate, be skeptical, don't be afraid to question and learn; and try to understand the opinions and positions of others.

Oh, and have fun. (This is the fun part of science)...and close this thread!

This is the part of Lurker's response which I have issue with:

Originally Posted by Lurker

I agree with this... but Jerry, sometimes you are your own worst enemy. Your inability to ever admit that you might have been wrong about anything makes it difficult to support you. I think it would result in harmful precedents here if the mods banned you but I can't say that I would miss your tactics here...

It doesn't look like Lurker is just responding to Jerry's comments, it looks more like Lurker took Jerry's participation in the thread as justification for cutting loose with pent-up criticism.

---

When Nereid explains that Jerry *has* stated he was wrong, and gives an example, Lurker goes on to say:

Originally Posted by Lurker

I had missed that post... If that is the extent of his admission of mistake, it is pretty thin compared to the times he has been proven incorrect...

But yes... I have never seen Jerry modify or correct a position he has taken based on the mistakes he has made. I agree with him that skepticism is a good thing, but it applies to his ideas as well as mainstream ideas.

He has also, in my opinion, on occasion engaged in the same baiting tactics that he accuses others of engaging in. When he ceases this activity I will have more sympathy when he finds it used against him.

More criticism of Jerry, not even in response to his comments.

Yes Lurker, I do find your comments hypocritical, but there is something you can do about it. Explain to me how you are being consistent, and I will retract my accusation of hypocrisy. Is your standard, perhaps, that we cannot discuss another poster's posting habits, but once that poster steps up in a thread, he is fair game?

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Scarey. If those are as sharp as my wit... well, then you just might get bludgeoned to death

Don't bet on it. I think I need Kevlar not a shield.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger

Yes Lurker, I do find your comments hypocritical, but there is something you can do about it. Explain to me how you are being consistent, and I will retract my accusation of hypocrisy. Is your standard, perhaps, that we cannot discuss another poster's posting habits, but once that poster steps up in a thread, he is fair game?

CodeSlinger... this is the issue that I have with this forum, everything becomes a long and drawn out issue. If Jerry thinks I discussed him rather than addressing him... then I apologize to him. He is welcome to discuss the matter either here or in IM... As far as your concerns, I believe it is a misunderstanding. I am not, however, going to debate the issue with you either here or in IM. If you wish to consider me hypocritical this is your choice and I have no issue with this.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger
However, my question to Lurker (which was a sincere one) still stands: should we, or should we not, publically discuss the posting style/attitude of posters?

We should not. Criticizing a posting style in public without naming names is ok, but that can be difficult to do if pressed for an example, as one will inevitably wind up naming somebody. So, one is stuck in a bit of a Catch-22 on that point.

As for poor Jerry over here (who has taken this whole thing rather well), he isn't the only one posting ATM ideas in a mainstream forum ('Feathered Onion', anyone??), and that habit doesn't make him, or anyone else, a bad person or undesirable to have around, IMHO, unless they become rude and/or make a fuss. I don't feel one way or another about the whole issue, really, as long as the MT viewpoint gets expressed in the thread so that there is no confusion if one is not at all familiar with the field that the ATMer is talking about. I realize it can be a headache for Mods, however, as they may be, and usually are, the ones stuck with elaborating the MT viewpoint in the thread in question.

Must get back to my memo now.

[CodeSlinger]

Well, I was in the middle of drawing up another reply to Lurker. But I find myself agreeing with Paracelsus, and the others who have spoken against public criticism of posters. Reply scrapped, and in any case, there's enough material already out here that everyone can judge for themselves.

[John Mendenhall]

We're many pages into this thread. Time for a review of the original questions.

Originally Posted by Nereid

Such as this one.

Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before.
(snip)
2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before.
(snip)
What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads.
(snip)
And for avoidance of doubt, my concern is over the repetitious posting of the same material by the same BAUT member(s) (not a new member posting such material for the first time).

Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

If so, what to do about it?

The length of the thread answers the concern question. Even Jerry himself has taken the hint (post #105).

What to do about it? Nereid said “Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.” This makes it tough for a single moderator to deal with. We are not meeting in person in a large room; it is difficult to make an obnoxious poster realize he or she is being obnoxious. I have elsewhere in private communications suggested that in some situations a jury of moderators might be needed to settle issues. This is a good example; refer obnoxious posters who are living just inside the rules to a jury, and let them take the appropriate actions. This makes it clear that it is a majority opinion, and takes care of moderator/poster personality conflicts (which we have occasionally seen).

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

As for poor Jerry over here (who has taken this whole thing rather well), he isn't the only one posting ATM ideas in a mainstream forum ('Feathered Onion', anyone??), and that habit doesn't make him, or anyone else, a bad person or undesirable to have around, IMHO, unless they become rude and/or make a fuss.

I beg to differ. I think, and I don't refer to Jerry at all in this but other posters I've seen do it (I don't spend much time in the science-y fora), that it is rude when a poster repeatedly brings up an ATM idea outside the ATM forum. There's a whole subject we don't discuss on the board because there's someone who can't avoid proselytizing on the subject, no matter which forum of the board it comes up in. That's rude.

As to speculating on people's motives, we all do it all the time. It's part of human nature and colours our posts even if the post doesn't directly attribute a motive to anybody.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

I beg to differ. I think, and I don't refer to Jerry at all in this but other posters I've seen do it (I don't spend much time in the science-y fora), that it is rude when a poster repeatedly brings up an ATM idea outside the ATM forum. There's a whole subject we don't discuss on the board because there's someone who can't avoid proselytizing on the subject, no matter which forum of the board it comes up in. That's rude.

As to speculating on people's motives, we all do it all the time. It's part of human nature and colours our posts even if the post doesn't directly attribute a motive to anybody.

Emphasis is mine... I have to disagree with you here. As was pointed out by another poster, anyone who posts on a topic that has been relegated to the ATM forum is suspected of having ulterior motives simply because they are posting in support of a topic that has been restricted to the ATM forum. I can understand the frustration. As I have pointed out before, I risk censure for advertising ATM topics outside the ATM forum simply by posting the words GLOBAL WARMING.

I don't think it is rude... I think it shows a frustration with the class system that has grown up here. If you post with the "scientific Consensus" you may post anywhere and your motives are considered pure. If you post against the concensus you must post in ATM and the thread begins with your motives suspected.

[Neverfly]

Lurker, I disagree with you.

Generally people are intelligent and have the discretion to tell the difference between someone idly commenting on an idea or making a connection...
And promoting an Against The Mainstream idea outside of its bounds.
Many ATM'ers do it in the hopes of slipping through the cracks.
A few don't mean to do it but are enthralled with their idea and it creeps out.

The trouble is that if an ATM idea gets promoted in Mainstream, it's tiring for others to have to refute it (again) and also risk derailing the thread into an ATM argument.
Many ATM theories are pretty outlandish and not currently accepted in Mainstream science. Allowing the theories to be posted about outside of ATM promotes confusion and more "work" for Mainstream posters trying to keep things simple and clear.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Lurker, I disagree with you.

Generally people are intelligent and have the discretion to tell the difference between someone idly commenting on an idea or making a connection...
And promoting an Against The Mainstream idea outside of its bounds.
Many ATM'ers do it in the hopes of slipping through the cracks.
A few don't mean to do it but are enthralled with their idea and it creeps out.

The trouble is that if an ATM idea gets promoted in Mainstream, it's tiring for others to have to refute it (again) and also risk derailing the thread into an ATM argument.
Many ATM theories are pretty outlandish and not currently accepted in Mainstream science. Allowing the theories to be posted about outside of ATM promotes confusion and more "work" for Mainstream posters trying to keep things simple and clear.

A quote from a previous post of yours below. One may not post outside the ATM forum on certain subjects; yet since one posts in the ATM forum one's motives may be suspect. It is a class system that is unfair to ATM ideas. ATM posters cannot post outside ATM but because they post in ATM their motives are suspect and must be addressed. If you post with the mainstream no such examination is required.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Clarity of Motives.
Lurker since you post on ATM- then it makes sense that certain motives may drive you to ignore evidence. These motivations must be addressed by you- in order to promote clarity in your reasoning.
That is not a bad thing.

No-one needs to question JayUtah's motives because they are clear and based on the evidence at hand.

This is ad hominem in its worst form because it is sanctioned by the forum moderators and those who run the board. The definition of ad hominem as presented in Wikipedia is:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The motivations of a poster are irrelevant all that matters are the of the argument and the evidence produced. It has been stated time and time again that Ad hominem is one of the most grievous sins that can be committed in these forums and yet structural ad hominem rules are being discussed and considered for this forum.

[Paracelsus]

As I have pointed out before, I risk censure for advertising ATM topics outside the ATM forum simply by posting the words GLOBAL WARMING.

Lurker, I post threads about global warming all the time, as everybody reading this thread knows, and haven't gotten sanctioned as promoting ATM ideas. People have also posted threads that take the opposite view to my views about GW, and those posts aren't considered ATM either. I'm unsure of what you are referring to by the above remark. Could you give examples as to when you've been censored for posting on this topic in regular fora?