BANNED Posters...

[tmosher]

Oh crud...I go out of country for a week and I miss Pavel? Boy do I have bad timing...or maybe I have good timing. Depends on how you look at it.

[Morrolan]

same here... Pavel's rugged mysteries and carpeted stories are my favorite woo... :(

he'd be endearing, if his knotted epistels weren't potentially harmful for the gullible.

[Torsten]

junkyardfrog (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=483502#483502)

[Lurker]

junkyardfrog (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=483502#483502)


It was a fair call... :o

[peter eldergill]

Sorry to sound a bit ignorant here, but would it have been OK to just post a link to the article

Perhaps I don't see the wrong idea here. I understand that it's copywrited, but why the big deal about posting it to help provide evidence to your post? Is it because he didn't quote the author?

Please clarify so I don't make the same mistake (Not that I actually read scientific articles :oops: )

Later

Pete

[Archer17]

Sorry to sound a bit ignorant here, but would it have been OK to just post a link to the article

Perhaps I don't see the wrong idea here. I understand that it's copywrited, but why the big deal about posting it to help provide evidence to your post? Is it because he didn't quote the author?

Please clarify so I don't make the same mistake (Not that I actually read scientific articles :oops: )

Later

PeteFrom the FAQ #5:
Do not post copyrighted material here. It is within the law to post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. This is very serious. I won't have anyone breaking the law on my site, especially copyright laws. Do it twice and you will be banned.I'll generally post a sentence or two but specify where I got it from.

[Gillianren]

as I understand copyright law (not as well as I should), you can quote what is considered "fair use." it's also my understanding that "fair use" generally constitutes about 10% or less of the complete item, though there are some exceptions. also, you really do have to credit the author.

well, it's kind of satisfying to know that one of the "lurkers" he was "educating" was the BA, who was really paying attention all along. (though I am kind of surprised that the copyright thing was what knocked him off the board.)

[peter eldergill]

Archer...

How then should it be done...by posting a link instead?

From my opinion, if someone wanted to use my material, I'd be flattered! But the law's the law.

I was going to say a couple more things but again, the law's the law. Since nobody's making money (except Phil 8) ?) out of posting an article on this board, does that still make it illegal? Again, I'm just curious, not trying to start a massive debate.

I don't know why I really care as I've never done this myself and probably won't ever do it anyways!

Later

Pete

[Archer17]

Darn it Gillianren! .. I added my "sentence or two" addendum to the FAQ thing I cited and you posted in the mean time. :wink: (Well, that was my "edit" folks). I never really knew if there was a % involved in "fair use" myself but figured if it was kept as short as possible there should be no problem.
well, it's kind of satisfying to know that one of the "lurkers" he was "educating" was the BA, who was really paying attention all along. (though I am kind of surprised that the copyright thing was what knocked him off the board.)Glad to see I wasn't the only one that appreciated that irony.

[Tensor]

Peter,
Go to General Astronomy and check out one of ToSeek's posts starting a thread. That's about as good as it gets for an example.

[Morrolan]

well, it's kind of satisfying to know that one of the "lurkers" he was "educating" was the BA, who was really paying attention all along. (though I am kind of surprised that the copyright thing was what knocked him off the board.)Glad to see I wasn't the only one that appreciated that irony.

same here...

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

[Tensor]

I saw that Archer..... 8) :wink:

[Archer17]

I saw that Archer..... 8) :wink:I thought of it first! .. You just type quicker! :wink: 8)

[Tensor]

I saw that Archer..... 8) :wink:I thought of it first! .. You just type quicker! :wink: 8)

:P

[Gillianren]

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

good point. I mean, it proves that he has more of a life than I do (oh, like who doesn't?), but he must be kinda bummed. mental hug, Phil.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

I saw that Project-Orion guy at Space dot com a few days ago, he was making vulgar remarks and threats against the board, has he tried to come back here since ? :-?

[Lurker]

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

good point. I mean, it proves that he has more of a life than I do (oh, like who doesn't?), but he must be kinda bummed. mental hug, Phil.
Yeah... I don't envy the BA's job... it's gotta be tough...

That he handles it as well as he does is a real tribute... especially how he handles mistakes...

[AstroRockHunter]

Morrolan wrote:

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

To me, this begs the question:
"If the BA only has time to police and/or be stern when he logs onto the board, does that mean that those of us who do post here have too much time on our hands???" :roll:

[Halcyon Dayz]

I made a post today that could have been understood as an ad hominem. I got wise and deleted it in seconds.
If the BIG BAD A had been peeking I would have been in trouble to.


... does that mean that those of us who do post here have too much time on our hands???" :roll:
Of cause it does. :lol:

[William_Thompson]

Can someone be automatically cursed if they have a simular or even the same name?

[Maksutov]

Can someone be automatically cursed if they have a simular or even the same name?
Pretty sure they won't have the same name since once a name is used, that's it for that "handle" TTBOMK. IP numbers are the usual route for IDing returning banned folks. Plus there's also the subtle method of writing style. Sometimes not too subtle, especially when it has to do with rugs. Then there are other methods which the BA correctly doesn't discuss.

[Maksutov]

Morrolan wrote:

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

To me, this begs the question:
"If the BA only has time to police and/or be stern when he logs onto the board, does that mean that those of us who do post here have too much time on our hands???" :roll:
Which logically leads to

"If a poster posts a post, and no one reads it, does the post exist?" :-k

[Lurker]

Morrolan wrote:

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

To me, this begs the question:
"If the BA only has time to police and/or be stern when he logs onto the board, does that mean that those of us who do post here have too much time on our hands???" :roll:
Which logically leads to

"If a poster posts a post, and no one reads it, does the post exist?" :-k

Now Maksutov, take this in the spirit it's intended... I only say this because I care...


Get A Life Man!!! :P

[Maksutov]

Morrolan wrote:

anyway, i noticed the BA been policing today. i wonder if it doesn't get him down: most every time he gets to post it's to warn, ban or be stern...

To me, this begs the question:
"If the BA only has time to police and/or be stern when he logs onto the board, does that mean that those of us who do post here have too much time on our hands???" :roll:
Which logically leads to

"If a poster posts a post, and no one reads it, does the post exist?" :-k

Now Maksutov, take this in the spirit it's intended... I only say this because I care...


Get A Life Man!!! :P
Too late! Already got one!


FRENCH GUARD: Allo! Who is eet?
ARTHUR: It is King Arthur, and these are my Knights of the Round Table.
Whose castle is this?
FRENCH GUARD: This is the castle of my master, Guy de Loimbard.
ARTHUR: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a
sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night, he
can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.
FRENCH GUARD: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen.
Uh, he's already got one, you see.
ARTHUR: What?
GALAHAD: He says they've already got one!
ARTHUR: Are you sure he's got one?
FRENCH GUARD: Oh, yes. It's very nice-a. (I told him we already got one.)
FRENCH GUARDS: [chuckling]
ARTHUR: Well, u-- um, can we come up and have a look?
FRENCH GUARD: Of course not! You are English types-a!
ARTHUR: Well, what are you, then?
FRENCH GUARD: I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent, you
silly king-a?!
GALAHAD: What are you doing in England?
FRENCH GUARD: Mind your own business!
ARTHUR: If you will not show us the Grail, we shall take your castle by
force!
FRENCH GUARD: You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your
bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur
King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt!
Thppt!
GALAHAD: What a strange person.
BTW, that's a pretty neat expression you used there, Lurker. Did you just make that up today? :wink:

[Kesh]

Topic, people, topic! [-X :lol:

[frogesque]

Revolver

Edit: Ref. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22293)

aka. Majin Vegeta. Pity - I did have hope for him at one stage :(

[Brady Yoon]

His posting style annoys the **** out of me. :-?

[frogesque]

His posting style annoys [edit] me. :-?

Not any more it won't 8) Initially I thought he was just a kid trying to break out of a restrictive religious upbringing but later he seemed to loose the plot and contradict himself - especially with all the gun stuff. His re-incarnation as Revolver tended to be a bit abrasive and provocative. Lately I have ignored his threads.

[frogesque]

Did I see the fleeting ghost of a post - perchance a first ToSeeking? :wink: Nahh - I must have imagined it :lol:

[Gullible Jones]

Argh... Damn!


Initially I thought he was just a kid trying to break out of a restrictive religious upbringing but later he seemed to loose the plot and contradict himself - especially with all the gun stuff.

You've never met a midwestern Christian, have you? I have... Out in the midwest, it seems that guns have almost reached the point of being religious objects.

Anyway, I actually hope he comes back... He may be a bit annoying at times, but he is a kid asking for assistance... And he ain't stupid either.

[Captain Kidd]

Argh... Damn!


Initially I thought he was just a kid trying to break out of a restrictive religious upbringing but later he seemed to loose the plot and contradict himself - especially with all the gun stuff.

You've never met a midwestern Christian, have you? I have... Out in the midwest, it seems that guns have almost reached the point of being religious objects.

Anyway, I actually hope he comes back... He may be a bit annoying at times, but he is a kid asking for assistance... And he ain't stupid either.
It's my understanding he can't. He'll just get rebanned as soon as he either identifies himself or the BA gets enough evidence that it is him. These are permanent bannings.* His IP eventually too if he keeps it up. It's curtains call for him.

What I'd like to know is why he pushed that IPB so hard.

*SciFi Chick and Jpax2003 notwithstanding.

[Kesh]

I have no sympathy. He's a kid with a desperate need for attention, and he doesn't care what kind of attention he gets. I just hope at some point he seriously seeks out someone who can help him reign in those impulses, or he's going to have a very lonely life. :-?

[Kristophe]

You know, every once and a while he'd actually have valid questions, but for the most part all he ever seemed to do was make snide, back handed remarks about left wingers, talk about how much he loves shooting devices, try to force a PSX/XBox/Nintendo console flame war, or spam the board with "I hate PHPbb". I'm with Kesh on this one.

[frogesque]

Kesh, Kristophie:

Very similar to the point of view I had come round to. I wasn't surprised at his demise. We have plenty of younger posters on the board who are neither attention seekers nor confrontational. Being young isn't the same thing as being ignorant however 'clever' a person may apear to be.

[Gullible Jones]

If his parents are as dogmatic as he says, I can't really blame him for his irritability.

[Captain Kidd]

If his parents are as dogmatic as he says, I can't really blame him for his irritability.If.

I've got to fourth what Kesh, Kristophie, and frogesque have said and I can't help but distrust almost all of his posts. Claiming overbearing, dogmatic parents would, and did, evoke symphatic, hackle-raised reactions.

[Musashi]

5th

[Moose]

*grunt*

[Kristophe]

Kristophie

Erm, not that I mind (quite the opposite, I'm rather amused by it), but there's no second i in my nickname.

[frogesque]

:oops: My apologies Kristophe

[mickal555]

Hmmmm

Interesting.

He's homeschooled ya know....

hmmmm

I've chatted with him a few times on msn- he did nothing wrong apparently.

I have a feeling he pestered the BA alot in PM's...

[hippietrekx]

I have a feeling he pestered BA with one to many "I hate this board software"...

I'd get mad if someone criticized my perfectly good... uh.. stuff...

This board may be simple (not that many bells and whistles) but it works.

*shrug* I just always thought boards were more about the people on them, not the software...

--htx

[Gullible Jones]

I'll agree with hippietrekx... The people on a board are more important than the software.

(Of course, if the software stinks, then the board might be so hard to maintain as to be rather short-lived... But that's not the case with the BABB, so I suppose we can assume that phpBB is good enough software!)

[The Bad Astronomer]

I really don't want to post in this thread, but I feel I have to so that I clear this up. In the case of Revolver, he was not banned for pestering me or insulting the board or anything like that. He posted about that other board software over and over again, and that is spamming; advertising without permission. In the last thread to which he posted, I made it clear that I wouldn't tolerate it any more. He then did it again, so I banned him.

I have recently banned one other person for pretty obvious FAQ violations, and I've warned at least a half-dozen more. I want to make my actions clear.

[paulie jay]

Hmmmm

Interesting.

He's homeschooled ya know....

snip
Oh sure - and I believe that as much as I believe anything else he ever had to say.

[Captain Kidd]

Kristophie

Erm, not that I mind (quite the opposite, I'm rather amused by it), but there's no second i in my nickname.

Well that's the last time I trust frogesque and blindly copy/paste any of his quotes without confirmation. ;)


Hmmmm

Interesting.

He's homeschooled ya know....


A lot are, including half of my cousins and my kid eventually. (I'm just ribbing ya.)

[frogesque]

Kristophie

Erm, not that I mind (quite the opposite, I'm rather amused by it), but there's no second i in my nickname.

Well that's the last time I trust frogesque and blindly copy/paste any of his quotes without confirmation. ;)


I'm not sure I can be held responsible for my own actions never mind anyone elses 8-[

:wink:

[ToSeek]

lyndonashmore (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=486403#486403)

[TravisM]

:D

[Celestial Mechanic]

:D
I just can't bring myself to rejoice in anyone being banned, not even oriel36 or Revolver/Majin Vegeta or even The Man of a Thousand Avatars, Dunash/Yul/Prince/FinalYul/Prinz/Oyvey/Hezakiah's Sundial, et al.

[Tranquility]

lyndonashmore (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=486403#486403)

Wow that guy was still there? How did he survive over a year in ATM? Did that journal article he wanted to publish ever show up? And if it didn't, did you guys let him live it down?

[A Thousand Pardons]

oriel36[/b] or Revolver/Majin Vegeta or even The Man of a Thousand Avatars, Dunash/Yul/Prince/FinalYul/Prinz/Oyvey/Hezakiah's Sundial, [i]et al.
Agreed. I still feel like I'm missing ol' JW, but only by an inch or two

[R.A.F.]

:D
I just can't bring myself to rejoice in anyone being banned...

I totally agree. :(

[Lurker]

I just don't understand people like lyndonashmore... so certain and sooooo wrong... :(

[Lance]

... so certain and sooooo wrong... :(

Do you read Godlike Production (http://godlikeproductions.com/bbs/default.php)? It is a wide spread phenomenon.

[Grey]

... so certain and sooooo wrong... :(
Yup. I wish that more folks like this would be able to recognize their basic mistakes.

[Tobin Dax]

lyndonashmore (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=486403#486403)
I was waiting for that to happen. I've seen it coming for days. I didn't want it to, because I'm guessing that Lyndon will now martyr himself. (I mean, heck, he wouldn't be banned if the BA didn't think he had the right idea. :roll: ) That doesn't mean I don't think he deserved it; he did get a warning that he failed to respond to. Since Lyndon seems to have a distorted view of more than just science, though, I'm just afraid that it may have done more harm than good.

(Note, I'm not saything that the BA was wrong, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.)

[gethen]

:D
I just can't bring myself to rejoice in anyone being banned...

I totally agree. :(
Yeah. I still miss Rose. :wink:

[Lurker]

... so certain and sooooo wrong... :(

Do you read Godlike Production (http://godlikeproductions.com/bbs/default.php)? It is a wide spread phenomenon.
No I am afraid of the spyware over there. I keep tabs by talking to Monique.

[peter eldergill]

Wow

I looked at page one of the the relaoded. Twenty five pages in one month is fantastic. I didn't read even one post of it before, so I don't know what happened. It sounds like the general consensus of his theory was that it is nonsense.

Would simply locking the thread have been more prudent and also have made the same point? I just don't know

Later

Pete

[Candy]

<--- ME SOON :(

[Kristophe]

Lyndon had sort of an abrasive attitude toward anyone he acknowledged as questioning his work. He also had very questionable credentials, claiming such things as having worked with people who would have been long dead before he was born. Mostly, though, he just ignored all opposition to him save for a select few "pets". He loved to pick on his favourites without actually answering their questions or directly acknowledging their comments. He knew better than everyone else, it seems.

What got him banned was not answering one of Phil's questions, which is a huge no-no.

[Sylas]

Lyndon had sort of an abrasive attitude toward anyone he acknowledged as questioning his work. He also had very questionable credentials, claiming such things as having worked with people who would have been long dead before he was born. ...

I've never seen that. His credentials, for what it is worth, are an honours degree in physics from the Uni of York, and the fact that he actually teaches physics at a secondary college in Dubai.


What got him banned was not answering one of Phil's questions, which is a huge no-no.

Quite so.

Lyndon was fun, and it was actually very educational to work through his various errors.

In my estimation, Lyndon is a cut above some other ATM posters who supposedly have better credentials and more experience, but lack Lyndon's ability to actually develop a model with cufficient clarity that it can be evaluated. Lyndon's physics was wrong; but it was presented with the kind of detail that made it possible even for a physics beginner to work through and find the errors. That's better than folks who can't even manage to be wrong, and only get as far as opaque.

But he was quite incapable of recognizing an error; and would bring up all kinds of extraneous references in an attempt to bolster his model. In the end, I think Phil is doing him a favour.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Kristophe]

Lyndon had sort of an abrasive attitude toward anyone he acknowledged as questioning his work. He also had very questionable credentials, claiming such things as having worked with people who would have been long dead before he was born. ...

I've never seen that. His credentials, for what it is worth, are an honours degree in physics from the Uni of York, and the fact that he actually teaches physics at a secondary college in Dubai.

I am 99% certain I saw him make claims of having worked along side someone of note who wasn't alive, and using this as support for his claims. Of course, despite my searching, I'm incapable of finding it. I'll clamp my teeth down on that comment until I can find what I'm looking for.

[Tensor]

Lyndon had sort of an abrasive attitude toward anyone he acknowledged as questioning his work. He also had very questionable credentials, claiming such things as having worked with people who would have been long dead before he was born. ...

I've never seen that. His credentials, for what it is worth, are an honours degree in physics from the Uni of York, and the fact that he actually teaches physics at a secondary college in Dubai.

I am 99% certain I saw him make claims of having worked along side someone of note who wasn't alive, and using this as support for his claims. Of course, despite my searching, I'm incapable of finding it. I'll clamp my teeth down on that comment until I can find what I'm looking for.

I found one instance, but only because it was in a thread about the cosmological red-shift, in which I was involved:


Its a long time since I helped Liouville come up with his theorem, but I don't remember us deciding that it applied to a single particle, such as a single photon…….I remember Feynmann telling me that the photon is a particle so how come it gets 'spread out? LINK (http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15303&postdays=0&postorder=asc&hig hlight=photon+tensor&start=25&sid=56a01fa3b145ff34 6cdd13defad59e05)

A few posts later:
Joseph Liouville died in 1882. No wonder your memory is hazy.

While Feynmann may be possible (but I seriously doubt it), with Liouville there is no way. And notice he claimed the helped Liouville discover the theorem, although he may have been joking about it.

[Brady Yoon]

What's the point of discussing who gets banned and who doesn't? Sometimes, I think this topic is idle gossip..

[Celestial Mechanic]

What's the point of discussing who gets banned and who doesn't? Sometimes, I think this topic is idle gossip..
I admit that there is a bit of an atmosphere like Mme. Defarges' knitting circle here, but I think this thread serves two purposes:
It is a place to find out why a particular poster was banned, often with a link to the offending post; and,
It offers an ongoing discussion of the reasons leading up to banishment.
But I agree that the idle gossip aspect is not good.

[Moose]

Okay, catching up here:

Candy (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=486892#486892) game misconduct for dropping gloves.

SciFi Chick (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=486892#486892) game misconduct for high sticking.

William_Thompson undisclosed game misconduct for what appears to be multiple infractions, including (way) too many socks (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=492112#492112) on the ice.

Zarkov (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=489779#489779) (and sock URI (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=490625#490625)) game misconduct for persistent offsides and assorted icing.

(pauses to catch breath) Did I miss anyone?

[Frog march]

Yes, it's The Banned on the Run....

[Kristophe]

Yes, it's The Banned on the Run....
*groan*
And I thought Darth Mall was bad.

[Jpax2003]

Yes, it's The Banned on the Run....
*groan*
And I thought Darth Mall was bad.

How about "Bad Astronomy Banned"

(parody of the song... We're an american band, We're coming to your town, we'll help you party down, we're an american band"

[tofu]

Okay, catching up here:
Maybe I'm slow, but I'm confused by the use of the word "game" in your post.

[Kristophe]

Okay, catching up here:
Maybe I'm slow, but I'm confused by the use of the word "game" in your post.

"Game misconduct" is a phrase used in sports, and specifically hockey. It's a penalty that results in an ejection. Think "red card".

[Moose]

Thanks Kristophe.

Just a colorful hockey metaphor as an alternative way of saying "banned".

[Lurker]

I have given considerable thought to the banning of Candy and SciFi Chick since BABBling was closed. I have come to the conclusion that while I can agree with the BA’s decision to ban Candy, I cannot agree with his decision to ban SciFi Chick. My disagreement stems from the fact that the issues that lead to difficulties on this board result from two very different types of posters. The first type is those who come here to disrupt the form and bait other posters. The other type, however, consists of those posters who are sometimes worn down by the nonsense of those who refuse to deal in respect and logic.

It is this second type of poster that I believe does not get treated fairly on this board on occasion. These are good people who are pushed and pushed by others who simply refuse to see reason. Many of them calmly and reasonably talk their opponents into exhaustion. These people at their best debate the likes of lyndonashmore who was ultimately driven away by the absolute “cold as steal” type of analysis that this board should cultivate. There are others in this forum who are not yet seasoned” enough to do this as consistently. These people are the hope for the future; they are interested and willing to discuss the issues, but they need a chance “screw up” to make mistakes and learn from them. Where is the future if we tell these people, “If you make a mistake or maybe two, you’re outta here!!”?

It is in this last category that I think SciFi Chick falls into. Let me be very clear here, I do not think that she behaved appropriately, and I do not condone what she said. But I do think that she was pushed very far and that she made an honest mistake. People here who have the ability to deal calmly with the difficult people who come to this forum are not born; they are taught and allowed to develop over time. If we don’t help them, then to whom will we look for support when we need it?

BABB has been a home to me for over three years now. I think there are good people here and that it is basically a sound community. These things just make it that much harder to say that my feelings in this matter are strong enough to cause me to choose to leave this forum. I have a great deal of respect for Phil and a lot of the regulars who post here, but, given the nature of this situation, I feel that good conscience requires me to move on. I’ll miss you guys… lurker has grown up a lot here in the last three years… I wish circumstances were a lot different…


Don McLaughlin
(Lurker, The Wanderer)

[hippietrekx]

:cry: We're going to miss you Lurker. Or I will anyway. You always had the "observation from a distance" stand-point on things. I guess that's from your lurking for so long before posting. It's a rare perspective. Don't lose it, where ever you take your BABBling needs to next.

Well, you *could* at least visit us once in a while. Let us know how you're doing and such. :)

--htx

[captain swoop]

Get over yourself. Sc-Fi Chick had been banned and let back in once, she was on her last life.
I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Anyway I don't usualy comment on things like this so I won't any more.

[Moose]

Get over yourself. Sc-Fi Chick had been banned and let back in once, she was on her last life.

Mistakenly banned. Phil went out of his way to admit that banning was hair-trigger and unjustified, hence the reinstatement. Does an annuled banning count as a warning? Should it?

Was she placed under warning during that incident? If not, then she (again) failed to receive one on what seems to be another somewhat marginal call. If she had recieved official warning, then IMO she'll have to take her lumps.

In any case, she knew better than to toss in a dig on a thread the BA was sure to be watching closely, although I do note that in all other posts on that thread, SciFi Chick went out of her way to resist a significant level of provocation. Knowing my temper, I'm not sure I would have done that well.

This isn't a call for any specific action, and I'm not inclined to "take a stand" on this issue. I'm simply not confident that Phil's call, in this case, was the right one.

[Frog march]

Someone should turn the whole afair into an opera.

May be Phantom of the Bad Board or Babb Side Story

http://img266.echo.cx/img266/2049/operasmilie0ig.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)


edit- or The Good the Babb and the Ugly

[R.A.F.]

From the FAQ...


There will be posters who will disagree with what I say. That's fine, and I welcome it, if there is a reasonable doubt about something I have said. As the top law here, I will endeavor to be as fair, open and honest as I can. That said, I will reiterate that I AM THE FINAL LAW HERE.

[Frog march]

From the FAQ...


There will be posters who will disagree with what I say. That's fine, and I welcome it, if there is a reasonable doubt about something I have said. As the top law here, I will endeavor to be as fair, open and honest as I can. That said, I will reiterate that I AM THE FINAL LAW HERE.


But the BA himself talked about being under pressure(away from the board) so perhaps it could be said that he made a snap decision when perhaps under normal circumstances posters would have just got a warning. So maybe the banning could just be turned into a suspension.

[Paul Beardsley]

Someone should turn the whole afair into an opera.
I don't know about you, but I don't find anything about this business remotely funny.

I'm not saying Phil did the wrong thing. It is his board, and he's entitled to run it as he wishes to. But I do think something along the lines of, "You two. Calm down. Now!" would have been more appropriate than a banning. A time-out rather than an expulsion, to use a school analogy.

I've carried on posting, but the board is a less happy place than it was.

[Frog march]

Someone should turn the whole afair into an opera.
I don't know about you, but I don't find anything about this business remotely funny.

I'm not saying Phil did the wrong thing. It is his board, and he's entitled to run it as he wishes to. But I do think something along the lines of, "You two. Calm down. Now!" would have been more appropriate than a banning. A time-out rather than an expulsion, to use a school analogy.

I've carried on posting, but the board is a less happy place than it was.


Oh, no, it's not funny, not that I find operas particularly funny.

But, nether the less, it(and forums in general) would make a good and dramatic subject for either an operas or a musical.

[mickal555]

or a soape

[Frog march]

or a soape

definitely, on the radio though.

[Swift]

Sorry to see you go Lurker. (Hope you lurk to see this) Hope to see you around the web

[Grey]

I'll just add (in case the Bad Astronomer happens to be reading this), that I've often wondered if a temporary ban would be a good option to have available. At the moment, though it's possible to be warned, there's really only one punitive measure for inappropriate behavior on the board, which is a full, permanent banning. Now, for obvious trolls, that seems reasonable, but for someone that let their emotions get the better of them, locking them out for a week or a month for a first or second offense might be a useful option to have. It's probably more bookkeeping, though.

[Cylinder]

From this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22560):


The most important thing to remember: if you feel yourself getting overheated by some topic, walk away from the keyboard. Posting in haste very rarely accomplishes your goals, and as we have seen can result in quite the opposite. This does not mean you cannot be emotional-- we are humans, after all. Heated debates are fine, but I will not condone sheer argumentation. Find some other place for that.

From this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22351):


The irony is that either one of them, at any time before the blow up, could have simply not posted. They could have walked away from the board, walked away from their keyboard, given themselves an hour or two or 12 to calm down.

I don't think any rational member here takes any satisfaction in seeing other rational and well-established members banned - I certainly do not. But I think that is totally beside the point. The point is that there are simple ground rules that the BA enforces on this forum - one of which is keeping discussions polite and free from ad homs.

The BA should be allowed by us to enjoy this forum just as we do. He covered the expense and effort required to host this forum. For him to invite us in to his space and then ask him to clean up after our messes is frankly embarrassing. Well-established members should be held to a higher standard, since they should better understand the rules.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I will make a rare post in this thread to clear something up.

Yes, I am under outside pressure right now. However, when I came upon the Scientology thread, I was actually in a decent mood, and not on any sort of "hair trigger". I was pretty upset by what happened in that thread, and in the course of about an hour it went from marginal to grossly over-the-top.

Now, when I'm upset by something, I try very hard not to let it affect other aspects of my life. If I had let my own emotions run away from me, I can assure you that by now -- and my history on this board supports this -- I would have repented and posted about it. However, that is not the case. This situation can be treated independently. The only way any of this was affected by my own personal situation was the locking of BABBling, because I simply didn't have the time to deal with any problems that might arise.

About the postings themselves, of course people's past behavior is counted here. I do try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps I lean too far in letting the anti-scientists have their say (I have commented on this before in other threads).

But in this case, as I tried to make very clear in the sticky at the top of this forum, both posters had been around here a long time and should have known better. Candy's posts were obviously well over the line (which is why I didn't feel the need to comment too much about them in the post where I banned them both). Also, there is a clear difference between being persistent questioning and ad hominem needling. SFC's posts were also over that line. She addressed not just the content of Candy's posts but also the personal aspects of them as well, and while she may have had a point, posting what she did in that thread was totally inappropriate.

I knew when I made that decision there would be people who would be very upset by this, and I knew from past experience that some people might leave the forum because of it. That's sad, but that's their decision. I am not trying to be hardcore here, but I am sometimes put in a position where I have to make difficult decisions. My own rules assure this, as do other people's postings. I am a fallible human, and it's hard to be consistent. Moderators might help, or they might make consistency harder. I'm not sure, and I am still wrestling with that choice. When I have more time, ironically, I'll be able to think about it more.

[Moose]

Thanks for the clarification, BA. I appreciate it.

[Frog march]

What the BB need is a,

http://michel.michel.com/Members/Guardian/Help/images/emergency_stop.gif

on each thread.

When it is pressed, say 5 times, by different posters that thread becomes locked until it can be looked at by a moderator.

This way the site can self moderate.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Phil, sometimes Ya' Gotta Do, What ya' Gotta Do.

Heck, I'm Sometimes Surprised, at The Kinda Stuff, you've Let me, Get Away With!

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

=D>

[Archer17]

Well, that's it then. I was actually going to wait until this thing blew over and make a private petition to the BA to reexamine SciFi's banning but it's obvious the BA's mind is made up. This is the BA's board and while I wouldn't have banned SciFi, that's me. I think a lot of us liked SciFi and hate to see her go - I know I did - but Dr. Plait's mind is made up and while I don't agree with his decision, I can respect his right to manage his board as he pleases.

I think it's time we moved on and put the "Scientology' incident behind us .. what is done is done. Those that can't accept what happened will have to make up their own minds as to what they're going to do. As for me, I'm going to put this behind me and get back to why I joined this board in the first place.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Well, that's it then. I was actually going to wait until this thing blew over and make a private petition to the BA to reexamine SciFi's banning but it's obvious the BA's mind is made up. This is the BA's board and while I wouldn't have banned SciFi, that's me. I think a lot of us liked SciFi and hate to see her go - I know I did - but Dr. Plait's mind is made up and while I don't agree with his decision, I can respect his right to manage his board as he pleases.

I think it's time we moved on and put the "Scientology' incident behind us .. what is done is done. Those that can't accept what happened will have to make up their own minds as to what they're going to do. As for me, I'm going to put this behind me and get back to why I joined this board in the first place.

Yeah ...

The Word Association Thread!

[Runs and Hides ...]

:oops:

[kucharek]

Yeah ...

The Word Association Thread!

[Runs and Hides ...]

:oops:

Let's see who dares to bump that thread... I can only think of a few who could do it without getting to much ... comments. 8)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Yeah ...

The Word Association Thread!

[Runs and Hides ...]

:oops:

Let's see who dares to bump that thread... I can only think of a few who could do it without getting to much ... comments. 8)

DONE!!!! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9711&start=24375)

Actually, Mickal, Beat me To It ...

=D>

[Gillianren]

I've never touched the Word Association thread. but, hey, kids, that's your thing; have at, if you like.

to be honest, after the latest Incident, I was half-afraid that the BA would decide to take his ball and go home, and then where would we all be? I also find it interesting how both times Sci-Fi Chick got banned, more people understood the banning of the other person in the argument than hers.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I also find it interesting how both times Sci-Fi Chick got banned, more people understood the banning of the other person in the argument than hers.
One of whom is still a valued contributor here--and seems to get along fine with her elsewhere.

[AGN Fuel]

I don't think any rational member here takes any satisfaction in seeing other rational and well-established members banned - I certainly do not. But I think that is totally beside the point. The point is that there are simple ground rules that the BA enforces on this forum - one of which is keeping discussions polite and free from ad homs.

The BA should be allowed by us to enjoy this forum just as we do. He covered the expense and effort required to host this forum. For him to invite us in to his space and then ask him to clean up after our messes is frankly embarrassing. Well-established members should be held to a higher standard, since they should better understand the rules.


I strongly agree with you, Cylinder. The reason that this board is exemplary is because the ground rules are clear, sensible, understood and enforced. As a result, subjects that on other boards would quickly wind up in an expletive-laden flame war, can here be discussed rationally and generally in good humour.

The BA's decision was very clearly a difficult one for him and not one that he made on the spur of the moment....


But I'm going to eat dinner, play with my cat, and maybe just not think about this board for an hour of my life. Then I'll come back and see what's what.

...and his decision was unquestionably the right one for the high standards that the BABB insists upon. It is those standards that create the environment that allows so many people from so many lands to meet as a community to share our (often vastly differing) viewpoints, without fear of ridicule, invective or retaliation.

Without those standards, this board will not exist.

[Meteora]

I think it's time we moved on and put the "Scientology' incident behind us .. what is done is done. Those that can't accept what happened will have to make up their own minds as to what they're going to do. As for me, I'm going to put this behind me and get back to why I joined this board in the first place.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Of course, those of us who miss SciFi Chick here can still chat with her over at FWIS (http://loresinger.com/FWIS/index.php).

[peter eldergill]

Sorry, I don't know how to link, but truthufo has been banned in lunar conspiracies (I can't believe I'm the one spreading this gossip now 8) )

Could someone link it for me?

Me no link thingy understand to do

Later

Pete

[Musashi]

truthufo (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6252)

Here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=495355#495355)

;)

[Gillianren]

I'm shocked--shocked!--that such a fine, intelligent . . . .

yeah, okay, I think we all saw it coming.

[Archer17]

Sorry, I don't know how to link ..Here's how I do it. For a post, right-click on the "post thingy"--> http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif that's next to the 'Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:11 pm' at the top of the post and click on 'add to favorites.' Once you find it in favorites, right click and select properties to get the URL (address). Enter it thusly (use these brackets --> [ ] instead of { } that I used for demonstration purposes): {url=http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=495355&sid=b304ffaf67ac119811556e6 d6fe61ad9#495355} thruthufo {/url}

That bracket format is the ticket for condensing any link into the word(s) of your choosing Mr. Eldergill and is simpler when linking to a website or article in that site. For a link to a website/article you'd just have to paste the address in the first bracket: , pick a word or two of your choosing to describe what you're linking to, and then add (whatever.com) at the end.

Edited because I goofed in the first paragraph.

[Maksutov]

Sorry, I don't know how to link ..Here's how I do it. For a post, right-click on the "post thingy"--> http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif that's next to the 'Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:11 pm' at the top of the post and click on 'add to favorites.' Once you find it in favorites, right click and select properties to get the URL (address). Enter it thusly (use these brackets --> [ ] instead of { } that I used for demonstration purposes): {url=http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=495355&sid=b304ffaf67ac119811556e6 d6fe61ad9#495355} thruthufo {/url}

That's the format for condensing any link into the word(s) of your choosing Mr. Eldergill. For a link to a website/article you'd just have to paste the address in the first bracket: , pick a word or two of your choosing to describe what you're linking to, and then add (whatever.com) at the end.
Even simpler with Firefox. Just right click on the little "post" icon, and select "Copy Link Location". Then paste into the format Archer17 provided and voila!

Or was that viola? http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/musik/a075.gif

[mickal555]

To show an example of how to do code you can also do this:


[url=www.wjhirjp.com] linky[/url]

[jt-3d]

Yup, that feller had a chip on his shoulder and it was easy to see him getting banned. I was going to caution him but figured it wouldn't do any good anyway. He is entirely too arrogant.

[Jpax2003]

Even simpler with Firefox. Just right click on the little "post" icon, and select "Copy Link Location". Then paste into the format Archer17 provided and voila!

In Microsoft Internet Explorer the menu selection is called "Copy Shortcut."

[Archer17]

Even simpler with Firefox. Just right click on the little "post" icon, and select "Copy Link Location". Then paste into the format Archer17 provided and voila!

In Microsoft Internet Explorer the menu selection is called "Copy Shortcut."Didn't know that Jpax. Easier than my round-about way. Kudos to you 8)

[peter eldergill]

Ha!Did it! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=495400#495400)

Did it work?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yep. Well done. :)

[Tobin Dax]

Looks like it.

And here I was wondering what some loon had thought he'd done and come here to post about. I'm kinda disappointed now. :( 8-[

[jt-3d]

Jerry (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=497468#497468). *CLANG*

[Yorkshireman]

I think I saw that coming. He was starting to go well overboard on the NASA conspiracy / disinformation theories. It'll be interesting to see which direction he goes now - does he post on any other fora?

[frogesque]

I will actually miss Jerry. His posts got a lot of reaction and real quality science posted on the board to counter all his nonsense.

[mid]

I will actually miss Jerry. His posts got a lot of reaction and real quality science posted on the board to counter all his nonsense.

Me too. He may not have been right, but as the Pauli quote says, at least he was wrong most of the time.

[Maksutov]

Despite the minimal "Kaysing effect", I won't.

The amount of bandwidth wasted by someone who wouldn't 'fess up to being wrong was, well, remarkable. Couple that with the unfortunate digs at decent, dedicated scientists and engineers doing real, painstaking, useful work.

Plus go back in those seemingly interminable threads and see how many of our questions got answered.

I hate to see anyone banned, but this will help the board's ecology.

[Laser Jock]

I just noticed that Blog Hunter (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6249) has been banned. I'm not sure why -- possibly copyright violation.

[Frog march]

I just noticed that Blog Hunter (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6249) has been banned. I'm not sure why -- possibly copyright violation.

the blog got him first? and then the BA banned him.

[beskeptical]

I think this reply (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=495987#495987) might have something to do with it but I'm not sure. The guy's blog was pretty poor in attacking the BA using very confusing reasoning. I really couldn't figure out what his argument even was.

[Laser Jock]

I think this reply (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=495987#495987) might have something to do with it but I'm not sure. The guy's blog was pretty poor in attacking the BA using very confusing reasoning. I really couldn't figure out what his argument even was.

But Blog Hunter did not write that blog (I think); he was just quoting it. That's why I suggested that it could have been a copyright violation. He quotes a large section in this post. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=494913&highlight=#494913) He didn't get any sort of warning, and I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't some mistake or confusion.

[P.Asmah]

I'm very surprised and disappointed to see Jerry go, especially as his tone seemed moderate in the 'offending' posts.

I personally thought he was doing a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas, which I thought was one purpose of this BB, and I also fear that this action could be construed as science by censorship.

[papageno]

I'm very surprised and disappointed to see Jerry go, especially as his tone seemed moderate in the 'offending' posts.

I personally thought he was doing a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas, which I thought was one purpose of this BB, and I also fear that this action could be construed as science by censorship.

Accusing NASA and ESA of covering up unwanted findings, is not challenging mainstream ideas.
He could not get over the fact that he utterly failed in predicting Huygens crash.
He repeatedly failed to support his claims.

[Frog march]

I'm glad Bloghunter joined the board(if breifly), the exchange of coments between the blogger(marko) and BABBers, on the blog he link to, was a good read. Well the first half was.

[Tensor]

I'm very surprised and disappointed to see Jerry go, especially as his tone seemed moderate in the 'offending' posts.

I personally thought he was doing a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas, which I thought was one purpose of this BB, and I also fear that this action could be construed as science by censorship.

Accusing NASA and ESA of covering up unwanted findings, is not challenging mainstream ideas.
He could not get over the fact that he utterly failed in predicting Huygens crash.
He repeatedly failed to support his claims.

Not to mention calling the people working on the Huygen data outright liars.

[Maksutov]

I'm very surprised and disappointed to see Jerry go, especially as his tone seemed moderate in the 'offending' posts.
"Moderate tone" and "not listening" should not be confused. "Moderate tone" and "constant criticizing with no factual basis" should not be confused. "Moderate tone" and "inability to admit mistakes that would invalidate the hypothesis" should not be confused.


I personally thought he was doing a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas, which I thought was one purpose of this BB, and I also fear that this action could be construed as science by censorship.
If "a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas" means sticking with your ideas no matter how many times they've been shown to be wrong, then, yeah, that's a good job. In the world of actual science that's known as "dogmatism" and other, less flattering terms.

"Science by censorship" could only apply if a scientific process were being censored. Jerry's weren't.

[TriangleMan]

I personally thought he was doing a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas, which I thought was one purpose of this BB, and I also fear that this action could be construed as science by censorship.
His posts are still here for all to read, they have not been removed or 'censored'.

Jerry also has the other 99.99999% of the internet in which to relay his ideas, or start a webpage of his own.

Dogmatically sticking to ideas without providing evidence, and failing to address criticisms of the idea, does not advance science.

[Metricyard]

I will actually miss Jerry. His posts got a lot of reaction and real quality science posted on the board to counter all his nonsense.

I find it ironic in a way that alot of the posts that Jerry linked to also had a wealth of information. It's didn't do much good in supporting his theory, but informative noetheless. And I'm sure alot of posters here learned more about the Huygens probe then they wanted to know. :D


I personally thought he was doing a good job of challenging some mainstream ideas, which I thought was one purpose of this BB, and I also fear that this action could be construed as science by censorship.

When Jerry first started his Huygens thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18178), he at least started out with some sort of mathematics to prove his theory.

When Huygens didn't crash and proved to be just short of a textbook experiment, Jerry started on a path of total self destruction.
We went through a variable G, variable mass and variable light speed. Then we went from sticky heat shields to bouncing heat shields,to too windy, right down to data mining the electronic schematics of the probe.

This is not science, this was an act of desperation.

[P.Asmah]

His posts are still here for all to read, they have not been removed or 'censored'.
Well, his work has effectively been cut short. I think the timing is unfortunate as I suspect Deep Impact data will raise serious challenges to mainstream ideas about comets being little more than dirty snow balls, and the repercussions here are potentially, er, big. We shall see.

[Musashi]

His posts are still here for all to read, they have not been removed or 'censored'.
Well, his work has effectively been cut short. I think the timing is unfortunate as I suspect Deep Impact data will raise serious challenges to mainstream ideas about comets being little more than dirty snow balls, and the repercussions here are potentially, er, big. We shall see.

He has only himself to blame for that. His actions are the ones that are suspect here, not the administrator's.

[R.A.F.]

Well, his work has effectively been cut short.

Cut short?? The Huygens thread was 79 pages long.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Blog Hunter is a sock puppet, with many many socks here, all of which have been banned. It had nothing to do with quoting or anything else.

[Laser Jock]

Blog Hunter is a sock puppet, with many many socks here, all of which have been banned. It had nothing to do with quoting or anything else.

OK, that's good to know.

[Ari Jokimaki]

I will miss Jerry's participation in cosmology threads. I curse the day when he got interested in that Huygens stuff.

[SKY]

Wise Bass (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=500342#500342).

[Gullible Jones]

Now that was a shame, he contributed some interesting stuff didn't he? ](*,)

[MrObvious]

I'll miss Jerry's posts too. Definately an interesting POV he had and it certainly made people think, right or wrong he still gets credit on that front.

[Fram]

Michael Mozina. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502159#502159) For refusing to acknowledge any mistake (except his change from fusion to fission), even the most basic ones.

[Eta C]

Well, while I'm not rejoicing, I'm not shedding any crocodile tears either. IMO Mike had a habit of using exactly the tactics he accused others of (ad homs, strawmen, and evasions) as well as not realizing where the burden of proof lay. Still, I learned some new things about SOHO EIT imagery while researching responses so it wasn't a total waste of time.

edit to add (and ironically, his one revision was to go from something that was at least qualitatively correct-- fusion -- to one that's as patently wrong as the rest of his model).

[Gillianren]

I learned an awful lot myself. as I did keep saying, I'm not a scientist. however, those who took the time to contribute educated me about such things as particle physics without once being dull. I'd like to thank you, even if he never quite got it.

[Kesh]

I'm not terribly surprised, after that last batch of photos he tried to pull. Yeesh.

[Swift]

I learned an awful lot myself. as I did keep saying, I'm not a scientist. however, those who took the time to contribute educated me about such things as particle physics without once being dull. I'd like to thank you, even if he never quite got it.
That's the main reasons to discuss things like that with creators of these new theories: they are opportunities for those of us experienced in various "arts" (as they say in patents) and new practitioners to use our minds and to learn new things. I learn tons of stuff by reading what others say and by trying to explain things myself.

[ToSeek]

Michael Mozina. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502159#502159) For refusing to acknowledge any mistake (except his change from fusion to fission), even the most basic ones.

So being utterly pig-headed is now a banning offense? ;)

[Gillianren]

and how many of us should be worried if it is?

I'm just heartbroken that he's gone. he never responded to my last post in there. (I don't think I would have posted again, but I might've been sucked back in, and I wouldn't have wanted that.)

[Fortis]

Well, while I'm not rejoicing, I'm not shedding any crocodile tears either. IMO Mike had a habit of using exactly the tactics he accused others of (ad homs, strawmen, and evasions) as well as not realizing where the burden of proof lay. Still, I learned some new things about SOHO EIT imagery while researching responses so it wasn't a total waste of time.
There was a surprising number of strawmen targets in there, though I think that some of them arose because he simply wasn't paying attention to the content of our responses, e.g. the gravitational lensing of neutrinos.

Still, reading the thread did feel like watching a train steadily heading towards the bridge that was out.

[Van Rijn]

I had pretty much the same reaction. The thread refreshed some of my old 'lernin, some of the questions led me to think more about solar physics, and between other posters here and research I learned a number of things. As for Michael, if nothing else, his ideas were interesting if you know what I mean. But it definitely had reached the point of diminishing returns, and then some.

[TinFoilHat]

Michael Mozina. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502159#502159) For refusing to acknowledge any mistake (except his change from fusion to fission), even the most basic ones.
Well, that was inevitable. For someone who liked to accuse people of attacking strawmen, he seemes to have some very bizarre ideas about what the standard model of the sun, the solar system, and relativity for that matter actually are.

[Musashi]

Those threads taught me a lot. It was very strange... I think Michael got caught with some bad interpretations and then didn't want to step back and understand where he was wrong.

[Nereid]

I too learned much.

I wish that more folk who spend time on internet fora would put the hours in that Michael obviously did to get the results - freely available from source websites - and work with them.

One thing I learned, in situations like this, is to start from the observations (one thing Mike got so frustrated about), not the rhetoric.

For example, he called it a model, and this mislead me into thinking he had something quantitative. Only later did I realise that all (?) there was was qualitative photo interpretation (and not even from FITS file, merely .jpg and .gifs!).

[Eta C]

I too learned much.

I wish that more folk who spend time on internet fora would put the hours in that Michael obviously did to get the results - freely available from source websites - and work with them.

One thing I learned, in situations like this, is to start from the observations (one thing Mike got so frustrated about), not the rhetoric.

Perhaps, but Mike's time would have been better spent understanding what those observations really meant instead of fixating on his personal misinterpretation. It would also have been better spent examining the other observations he casually dismissed (neutrino signatures, blackbody spectra, helioseismology, etc.). One reason for the frustration I felt was his selectivity in what he considered an "observation." In addition, some of us have spent years studying physics and astronomy and as a result, sometimes have little patience for someone like Mike who wants to overthrow the last 100 years or so of scientific development based on a few hours of web browsing and a simple misunderstanding. I'll agree, the self-righteous attitide (such as mine :oops: ) scientists adopt in response can be irritating but it is understandable.


For example, he called it a model, and this mislead me into thinking he had something quantitative. Only later did I realise that all (?) there was was qualitative photo interpretation (and not even from FITS file, merely .jpg and .gifs!).

And this is part of the problem we tried (and failed) to get Mike to understand. Without quantitative predictions, no model or theory can be compared to experiment or to other theories. Any theory has a lot of experimental results it needs to account for. The bar for any new theory is quite high, and it gets worse when you start your jump from a hole in the ground.

[Nergal]

Michael Mozina. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=502159#502159) For refusing to acknowledge any mistake (except his change from fusion to fission), even the most basic ones.
I'm disappointed. Though he's clearly "guilty" of everything in that quote, he was always civil in his hard-headedness. Plus, I learned a lot from those threads.

I feel it's important for this board to allow people like Michael to have a voice (as long as they are civil about it). Not so much for themselves or because their ideas have merit, but so that the rest of us can learn from the disection of their claims.

I hope the ban is temporary. I feel that thread locking, accompanied by a stern warning, would have been more appropriate.

--Nergal

[Fram]

Well, thread locking with a stern warning had happened on the first of his threads. As this was the second one, a banning seems reasonable, even though he may be the first to be banned mainly for stubborn stupidity (although his debating tactics, with wild accusations and a Calimero syndrome, may have had something to do with it as well).

[Baloo]

Still, I learned some new things about SOHO EIT imagery while researching responses so it wasn't a total waste of time.


Yeap, from this point of view the ATM threads are not a waste of time; often the refutations come from directions I don't expect to be linked with the subject.
Also I found the "solid sun" threads to be interesting from another point of view: I always wondered how this kind of theories (based on flawed assumptions and interpretation of data and lacking the understanding of basic scientific principles) are born and "developed". Now I've see it with my own eyes...starting with a solid sun and then adding some electric universe, a kind of planet X around which the sun is turning, a "universal magnetic field of some sort", a new 3D gravitational model (to replace our "old 2D model"), considerations about the beginning of the universe. Soon Michael's theory has become the "grand theory of unification of everything". :roll:

[Eta C]

I'm disappointed. Though he's clearly "guilty" of everything in that quote, he was always civil in his hard-headedness. Plus, I learned a lot from those threads.

Civil? Not at all. check out the posts around this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=499267&highlight=#499267) for some examples of Mike's "civility." Now I'll admit that I'm not exactly on my best behavior there, but Mike is clearly over the edge. His later posts, while not as blatently rude, show the same attitude.


I feel it's important for this board to allow people like Michael to have a voice (as long as they are civil about it). Not so much for themselves or because their ideas have merit, but so that the rest of us can learn from the disection of their claims.

I hope the ban is temporary. I feel that thread locking, accompanied by a stern warning, would have been more appropriate.

--Nergal

I think Mike had a chance to shout himself hoarse. The BA clearly felt that the threads had served their purpose. Mike's claims had been shredded, and nothing new was going to come out of them. Now I'm not saying this was right or wrong, but it's Phil's board and I'll accept his judgement on this one.

[Grey]

I'm disappointed. Though he's clearly "guilty" of everything in that quote, he was always civil in his hard-headedness.
I'd actually disagree with that. Although he was much more civil in the second thread than the first, there were quite a few messages in the first thread where he crossed the line, in my opinion. I think that, as is often the case, the BA actually gave him more leniency in that regard than he might have for someone who wasn't an ATM proponent.

[Kesh]

Also, being civil does not excuse someone from violating the rules. Take a courtroom, for instance... any lawyer who introduces Facts Not In Evidence is going to get chastised at the least, and cited for contempt if he does it repeatedly. It doesn't matter how civil he or she is in the presentation, if they keep breaking the rules, they're going to get in trouble.

[Nergal]

Civil? Not at all. check out the posts around this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=499267&highlight=#499267) for some examples of Mike's "civility." Now I'll admit that I'm not exactly on my best behavior there, but Mike is clearly over the edge. His later posts, while not as blatently rude, show the same attitude.
While that's rather...what's a good word...combative, I don't think it was over the edge. More like toeing the line. Granted, he held that tone for multiple posts/threads, which isn't exactly a good thing.


Now I'm not saying this was right or wrong, but it's Phil's board and I'll accept his judgement on this one.
As will I. Agree or disagree, it's ultimately BA's call and I'll support it.

[Grey]

Soon Michael's theory has become the "grand theory of unification of everything". :roll:
In some respects, it almost has to end up that way. I think most folks with ATM ideas don't realize just how much independent lines of research tend to support each other. So if you're going to make radical changes to what might seem like a small area, you inevitably need sweeping changes to a much broader field in order to make those changes possible.

[Van Rijn]

Civil? Not at all. check out the posts around this one (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=499267&highlight=#499267) for some examples of Mike's "civility." Now I'll admit that I'm not exactly on my best behavior there, but Mike is clearly over the edge. His later posts, while not as blatently rude, show the same attitude.
While that's rather...what's a good word...combative, I don't think it was over the edge. More like toeing the line. Granted, he held that tone for multiple posts/threads, which isn't exactly a good thing.


I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, but --

I looked back on a few pages to refresh my memory. Right out of the door, per Michael, our arguments were "simplistic" and we were self-righteous, were making strawman arguments, etc. To me, that does go beyond the edge. Though I have to admit his reactionary style colored my opinion, so I may look at this more strongly than you do. He was asking most of the questions and flatly dismissing or ignoring the answers. At the same time, he answered very few of the questions asked of him, usually demanding to know why you were asking the question. That was extremely annoying. In any event, once the issues had been laid out, there really wasn't anywhere else to go.


One thing I learned, in situations like this, is to start from the observations (one thing Mike got so frustrated about), not the rhetoric.

I think that happened: Very early on, Michael brought up his "unlit sunspot" observation, among others. It was the discussion about this, among others, that made it clear that he didn't understand a number of very basic concepts and that his observations carried little weight.

[W.F. Tomba]

Also, being civil does not excuse someone from violating the rules. Take a courtroom, for instance... any lawyer who introduces Facts Not In Evidence is going to get chastised at the least, and cited for contempt if he does it repeatedly. It doesn't matter how civil he or she is in the presentation, if they keep breaking the rules, they're going to get in trouble.
But is there a rule on this forum against refusing to acknowledge your own mistakes and being pigheaded about it? I suppose there is now, but until the last two bannings (Jerry and Michael Mozina) I did not know such a rule existed. It certainly wasn't clearly established and laid out beforehand, as the rules of the courtroom are.

It bears noting that some of the errors Mr. Mozina ignored were pointed out to him by the BA himself. Does that make a difference? When the BA highlighted the blatant incorrectness of those positions, was there meant to be an implicit threat of banning if the errors were repeated? I would love a little clarification from the man in charge on this issue.

[Tensor]

Among the other items noted about his posting style, two others, that bothered me were:

His complaint about us using an argument from authority, and yet he would keep telling us about Dr. Manuel's ideas and observations.

When provided with a citation, he would demand that you prove how the citation included his ideas. Not realizing, even after he had been told, it was up to him to show how his model didn't violate the citation.

BTW, Van Rijn, thanks for the clarification on the different focal lengths for neutrinos. I missed the the difference for opaque and transparent lensing objects.

[A Thousand Pardons]

But is there a rule on this forum against refusing to acknowledge your own mistakes and being pigheaded about it? I suppose there is now, but until the last two bannings (Jerry and Michael Mozina) I did not know such a rule existed. It certainly wasn't clearly established and laid out beforehand, as the rules of the courtroom are.
There is a rule against troll behavior.

Usually, I think, it takes the form of drive-by posting (the rule, I mean) but clearly there are posters whose raisin d'être is making outlandish claims and making other posters frantic. How do you tell the difference between one and a sincere but delusional one? I guess that takes some probing.

[Gillianren]

I went and read the other threads people linked during the discussion and here, afterward. we were far from the only people to point out his errors. (well, I say we . . . . though, now I come to think about it, even I managed to point out an error or two.) I'm pretty sure some information came up on all four threads that I read on the subject. that's far more stubborn than the average, I think.

he was unfailingly rude. it can be argued that he stayed pretty close to the line the whole time, but I really think he was over it just as often. for the record, the "second person" I felt was making ad homs that I referred to in the second thread here was him, not anyone still around. bear in mind, he was not only making ad hom attacks on people with whom he was actually discussing the subject, he was accusing every other heliologist (I'm just assuming that's the right word; do feel free to correct me) in the world of covering up "the truth" in order to protect their grant money.

I found it deeply frustrating. he never even answered the most basic of questions, saying instead either "look at the pictures!" "Dr. Manuel agrees with me!" or, most irritating to me, "I can't do the work of a billion scientists." where on Earth did he get that number?

[Van Rijn]

BTW, Van Rijn, thanks for the clarification on the different focal lengths for neutrinos. I missed the the difference for opaque and transparent lensing objects.

You're welcome. That didn't occur to me either until I did some research. I know a little about astronomy and physics, but I would never pretend to be a solar physics expert. Learning tidbits from other posters and research (even if it was mostly by googling :) ) was one of the better aspects of the discussion.

[Nereid]

Soon Michael's theory has become the "grand theory of unification of everything". :roll:
In some respects, it almost has to end up that way. I think most folks with ATM ideas don't realize just how much independent lines of research tend to support each other. So if you're going to make radical changes to what might seem like a small area, you inevitably need sweeping changes to a much broader field in order to make those changes possible.
Hear hear! =D>

In so many of the 'ATM' threads I've been involved with - one or two here, many others on other internet fora - this is, to me, the most profound 'lesson'.

While one may be able to 'unpick' some obscure - or not so obscure! - aspect of astrophysics, when it comes to proposing an alternative, one finds one must 'unexplain' a large part of modern physics.

This was brought home to me recently by Ari, who pointed out to me (not in this forum) that all but one (?) of the 'serious' alternative cosmologies simply take the Hubble relationship (redshift/distance, slope = H0) on board, and try to find an alternative mechanism, but not estimate H0 using that mechanism!

[Nereid]

I too learned much.

I wish that more folk who spend time on internet fora would put the hours in that Michael obviously did to get the results - freely available from source websites - and work with them.

One thing I learned, in situations like this, is to start from the observations (one thing Mike got so frustrated about), not the rhetoric.

Perhaps, but Mike's time would have been better spent understanding what those observations really meant instead of fixating on his personal misinterpretation. It would also have been better spent examining the other observations he casually dismissed (neutrino signatures, blackbody spectra, helioseismology, etc.). One reason for the frustration I felt was his selectivity in what he considered an "observation." In addition, some of us have spent years studying physics and astronomy and as a result, sometimes have little patience for someone like Mike who wants to overthrow the last 100 years or so of scientific development based on a few hours of web browsing and a simple misunderstanding. I'll agree, the self-righteous attitide (such as mine :oops: ) scientists adopt in response can be irritating but it is understandable.


For example, he called it a model, and this mislead me into thinking he had something quantitative. Only later did I realise that all (?) there was was qualitative photo interpretation (and not even from FITS file, merely .jpg and .gifs!).

And this is part of the problem we tried (and failed) to get Mike to understand. Without quantitative predictions, no model or theory can be compared to experiment or to other theories. Any theory has a lot of experimental results it needs to account for. The bar for any new theory is quite high, and it gets worse when you start your jump from a hole in the ground.
Eta C, I suspect we are in 'violent agreement' :)

I was merely pointing out that, unlike most 'ATM' proponents, Mike actually spent some time working with observations (even if they were the 'eye candy' ones, not the quantitative source). In other discussions, I have found it difficult to get those enamoured with some 'left field' idea to even consider thinking about the observational support for the idea, let alone (dog forbid) actually examining the observational data. :P

[Cylinder]

But is there a rule on this forum against refusing to acknowledge your own mistakes and being pigheaded about it?

At least a common law rule that has existed for as long as I have been here. TBA has on many occasions offered participants one of three choices:

a) answer the questions directed at them in a meaningful manner; or
b) acknowledge your mistake; or
b) leave the board
[Choose one]

That's the way science works. If you cannot defend your hypothesis or acknowledge that fact in a meaningful manner, then your credibility becomes suspect.

[W.F. Tomba]

But is there a rule on this forum against refusing to acknowledge your own mistakes and being pigheaded about it?

At least a common law rule that has existed for as long as I have been here. TBA has on many occasions offered participants one of three choices:

a) answer the questions directed at them in a meaningful manner; or
b) acknowledge your mistake; or
b) leave the board
[Choose one]

That's the way science works. If you cannot defend your hypothesis or acknowledge that fact in a meaningful manner, then your credibility becomes suspect.
I accept that, but I don't think he ever explicitly presented Michael Mozina with such a choice. That's why I want to know if we should consider that choice to be implicitly offered whenever the BA makes a post like this:

You are still assuming your model is correct, and using it to interpret what others say. This is wrong.

1) Gases mix. Iron, hydrogen, sulfur, calcium: in a gaseous state, they can be mixed. You'd get emission from all of them. Iron won't just sink to the bottom because it's heavy; the real situation is far more complicated. Convective and turbulent mixing will prevent an internally heated gravitationally bound gaseous ball form being perfectly stratified.

2) If the iron is not solid, and is not a layer as you propose, then there is no problem. You seem to be mixing and matching the gas model and your solid model to create a problem that doesn't exist.
I'll also accept your word that this is a longstanding unwritten rule. But I do not understand why such a rule needs to remain unwritten.

[Ari Jokimaki]

This was brought home to me recently by Ari, who pointed out to me (not in this forum) that all but one (?) of the 'serious' alternative cosmologies simply take the Hubble relationship (redshift/distance, slope = H0) on board, and try to find an alternative mechanism, but not estimate H0 using that mechanism!

Well, that's slightly wrong way to put it (assuming it's me you're talking about). I'm only aware of one, I don't know about the others. Now that you mentioned this I remembered that also Lyndon Ashmore (who has also been subject in this "Banned posters" thread, coincidentally enough :) ) puts an effort to derive H0 in his tired light model.

[Grey]

Now that you mentioned this I remembered that also Lyndon Ashmore (who has also been subject in this "Banned posters" thread, coincidentally enough :) ) puts an effort to derive H0 in his tired light model.
Though, just to keep the record straight, to get the right result he assumes a specific value for the density of the intergalactic medium without any particular justification (entirely leaving out the issue of his faulty reasoning :)).

[Kesh]

I'll also accept your word that this is a longstanding unwritten rule. But I do not understand why such a rule needs to remain unwritten.

Perhaps that's a good point. Maybe you should PM the BA about this, and see if he would add that to the FAQ/rules, so there's less dispute about it in the future.

[TriangleMan]

I'll also accept your word that this is a longstanding unwritten rule. But I do not understand why such a rule needs to remain unwritten.

Perhaps that's a good point. Maybe you should PM the BA about this, and see if he would add that to the FAQ/rules, so there's less dispute about it in the future.
I think this is covered by the "I am the final law here" rule. BA can ban someone for whatever reasons he wants, although he usually takes time to warn offenders beforehand. There have been exceptions, Bradguth comes to mind.

[R.A.F.]

I've been following this thread re. "does the board need more specific rules" and I believe that a lot of it is covered under the "be polite" rule.

Once it has been established that a posters "idea" has been shown false, I consider it highly impolite (especially on a science board) for that person to continue to post the same old "stuff", and ignoring the evidence presented.

And that's my opinion...:)

[W.F. Tomba]

I'll also accept your word that this is a longstanding unwritten rule. But I do not understand why such a rule needs to remain unwritten.

Perhaps that's a good point. Maybe you should PM the BA about this, and see if he would add that to the FAQ/rules, so there's less dispute about it in the future.
Well, I'll at least ask him about it.

[Laser Jock]

Electric Ashalar (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506045#506045)

[Tensor]

Wow, I didn't see that one coming. :wink:

[Gillianren]

I only actually read that thread yesterday, and as soon as I saw there'd been additions to this thread, I knew who it would be. (I don't follow Martian Chronicles much.)

[W.F. Tomba]

I'll also accept your word that this is a longstanding unwritten rule. But I do not understand why such a rule needs to remain unwritten.

Perhaps that's a good point. Maybe you should PM the BA about this, and see if he would add that to the FAQ/rules, so there's less dispute about it in the future.
Well, I'll at least ask him about it.
I PMed him, and he responded by saying that he has just updated the FAQ. Here's the new part, #4 under "Ground Rules":

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19638). This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend those arguments. People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. If it appears to me that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will get banned. I will warn you first, but only once.
So I reckon that's all cleared up. Thanks, Bad Astronomer! =D>

Edited to restore link in FAQ quote.

[frogesque]

Electric Ashalar (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506045#506045)

[Maksutov]

Electric Ashalar (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506045#506045)
Always read a few notes back before posting. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506068#506068)

[frogesque]

Electric Ashalar (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506045#506045)
Always read a few notes back before posting. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=506068#506068)

:oops: Didn't go back far enough! Need more coffee.

[frogesque]

twelfth : Vapourised - troll/spamming, made 2 posts.

[Eta C]

Another one day, one idea, one thread troll of a poster TheyComeOften (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6367). Check here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23276) for details.

P.S. Call me "Bad Master" 8)

[Maksutov]

Another one day, one idea, one thread troll of a poster TheyComeOften (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6367). Check here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23276) for details.

P.S. Call me "Bad Master" 8)
Now you just need to "hook" up with some "Good Slaves"... :wink:

[N C More]

Hmm..."TheyComeOften". Apparently, "TheyLeaveOften" as well. :wink:

[peter eldergill]

Wow! Almost a week without someone getting banned!

Theycomeoften was pretty funny..."Your explanation was not what I wanted to hear so I'll ignore it and insult you!"

Pete

[Maksutov]

Wow! Almost a week without someone getting banned!

Theycomeoften was pretty funny..."Your explanation was not what I wanted to hear so I'll ignore it and insult you!"

Pete
Perhaps his real name was Dave:

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/2643/babbadbanners90ej.jpg

[Taks]

i knew theycomeoften was a goner... tsk tsk.
taks

[01101001]

PrincessJO (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6381), a proponent of Planet X

[01101001]

drolma (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6385), a proponent of astrology

[PatKelley]

Add drolma2 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6392) to that.

[pghnative]

Stardate (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?search_author=Stardate) Sort of a self-banning.

[farmerjumperdon]

I understand a civilized group needs rules, as well as consequences for breaking them. I also understand the need to display compassion, a strictly human trait not written into the rules.

Sure, if you do the crime, you do the time; but isn't lifetime banishment a bit cruel for the offense committed? Especially when the offending party fesses up for their sins, provides a pretty good explanation despite the vulnerability it exposes, and throws themself on the mercy of the judge?

Why can't Candy's and SciFi Chick's sentences be commuted as a one-time second chance. If they have already been given that chance, then. . . never mind. If not, why not?

As OJ said when he got his speeding ticket: "It's not like I killed somebody."

[pghnative]

To add: Was I the only one who resisted posting to her "BA, look at me" thread in the hopes that the thread would die and she would come to here senses?

My feeling is that sometimes in life you gotta break the rules. And if you can do so without bothering anyone, more power to you. But if you do decide to break the rules, the last thing you want to do is jump up and down and say "hey, I'm breaking the rules, y'all"

[Argos]

Add drolma2 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6392) to that.

From Drolma (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=511108&highlight=#511108)

take one:
"don't believe someone else's research no matter what they have after their name (ph.d/ms/....) "

take two
"(...) the main 2 systems of astrology in use today (western & vedic):

[1] (...)

[2] astrology of the seers by dr. david frawley (...)"

I love that coherence. :)

[jfribrg]

I understand a civilized group needs rules, as well as consequences for breaking them. I also understand the need to display compassion, a strictly human trait not written into the rules.

Sure, if you do the crime, you do the time; but isn't lifetime banishment a bit cruel for the offense committed? Especially when the offending party fesses up for their sins, provides a pretty good explanation despite the vulnerability it exposes, and throws themself on the mercy of the judge?

Why can't Candy's and SciFi Chick's sentences be commuted as a one-time second chance. If they have already been given that chance, then. . . never mind. If not, why not?

As OJ said when he got his speeding ticket: "It's not like I killed somebody."

SFC had her second chance. I believe it was JPAX who also got a second chance at the same time, and as far as I know, has been living within the rules ever since. Lifetime bans do seem kind of harsh. I suspect that the BA feels he wastes enough time banning first timers without having to deal with reinstatements and the inevitable accusations that some folks are given second chances and others are not.

[R.A.F.]

Why can't Candy's and SciFi Chick's sentences be commuted as a one-time second chance.

The BA answered that question here. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=486994&highlight=candy#486994)

[farmerjumperdon]

No, that's just citing the rules again. It's not really an answer to the appeal to be compassionate and consider the crime as having been paid for. Unless the answer is that there is no room for compassion here.

If SciFi and JPax got 2nd chances, why not Candy? Why give 2nd chances? Why set the precendent? Because the precedent has already been set, and again, because we are a compassionate species, in general.

It worked for JPax, it did not for SciFi. No formula involving human behavior is perfect, but they are worth pursuing.

[R.A.F.]

Unless the answer is that there is no room for compassion here.

Holy "jumping to unwarranted conclusions", Batman!!

Posting here is a privilage...those who abuse that privilage get banned...

...end of story...

[Archer17]

farmerjumperdon - This has already been discussed. Drop it.

[teddyv]

No, that's just citing the rules again. It's not really an answer to the appeal to be compassionate and consider the crime as having been paid for. Unless the answer is that there is no room for compassion here.

If SciFi and JPax got 2nd chances, why not Candy? Why give 2nd chances? Why set the precendent? Because the precedent has already been set, and again, because we are a compassionate species, in general.

It worked for JPax, it did not for SciFi. No formula involving human behavior is perfect, but they are worth pursuing.

If memory serves, SFC and JPax never got a first warning.

[pumpkinpie]

Unless the answer is that there is no room for compassion here.

Holy "jumping to unwarranted conclusions", Batman!!

Posting here is a privilage...those who abuse that privilage get banned...

...end of story...

Ditto that end of story (though I am making it longer...)

The BA's response at the end of the thread is the final word:

My decision was the correct one. And coming back as a sock puppet for a month before announcing it doesn't help.

Remember, his board, his rules, his decisions.

[Moose]

If SciFi and JPax got 2nd chances, why not Candy? Why give 2nd chances? Why set the precendent? Because the precedent has already been set, and again, because we are a compassionate species, in general.

Correction: SciFi Chick didn't get a "2nd chance", the BA realized he'd banned her without cause, and reversed that decision. She got one chance.

Jpax got an honest-to-goodness second chance, but only because BA didn't feel right reinstating SciFi and not him.

If there's a precedent set, Fdj, it is that the BA is willing to correct genuine mistakes when he makes them. This, unfortunately, wasn't one of his rare mistakes.

The rules are pretty clear.

In any case, I'm pretty sure a more lenient policy of suspension wouldn't be feasible (in terms of scale) unless the BA were to appoint moderators with more than locking power, something I understand the BA is reluctant to do.

[Kristophe]

You know, I wasn't going to say anything, but the devil on my shoulder is compelling me...

The "rules" in the FAQ are not laws as they are laid out by govrening bodies and the courts, and upheld by peace officers. Those laws are for the benifit of society, and there are a series of checks and balances to make sure that they are fair and in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The FAQ is more a set of guidelines that the BA has laid out for people who wish to post here, under his watch, on his coin, and by his good graces. He is allowed to be as abretrary as he wants to be when it comes to banning people, because this isn't a public forum. It's his forum, and he grants us access to it. It's his reputation that we end up tarnishing if he lets stuff get out of hand, just as it's his reputation he ends up tarnishing if he himself gets out of hand.

He's free to make himself look bad all he wants. We are not. Not on his forum, anyway.

[Nereid]

You know, I wasn't going to say anything, but the devil on my shoulder is compelling me...

The "rules" in the FAQ are not laws as they are laid out by govrening bodies and the courts, and upheld by peace officers. Those laws are for the benifit of society, and there are a series of checks and balances to make sure that they are fair and in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The FAQ is more a set of guidelines that the BA has laid out for people who wish to post here, under his watch, on his coin, and by his good graces. He is allowed to be as abretrary as he wants to be when it comes to banning people, because this isn't a public forum. It's his forum, and he grants us access to it. It's his reputation that we end up tarnishing if he lets stuff get out of hand, just as it's his reputation he ends up tarnishing if he himself gets out of hand.

He's free to make himself look bad all he wants. We are not. Not on his forum, anyway.
To amplify:

This is a private space, whatever the BA decides to do, it's TOTALLY his call. If you don't like it, you can take it up with the BA, or leave (or both).

At one or two levels higher, the success of BA as an internet forum depends on a great many factors, many of which are unknown to us'ns (and the BA), and some of which are very likely unknowable, in our lifetimes.

Does this thread contribute to BA's long term success (however defined, or measured)? Yes.

Is this thread's contribution to that success capable of being estimated, with some degree of certainty, today? Almost certainly No.

To what extent are the (narrow, wide, or anything in between) effects of human's behaviour (e.g. BA 'unbanning' certain members) wrt other human's behaviour (e.g. total traffic on BA) estimatable? {insert your favourite answers here}

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Jerry (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=497468#497468). *CLANG*I will actually miss Jerry. His posts got a lot of reaction and real quality science posted on the board to counter all his nonsense.

Me too. He may not have been right, but as the Pauli quote says, at least he was wrong most of the time.

Jerry and his theory of a Metal comet, Cassini-Huygens crashing at Saturn and missing Titan, and his gravity-Pioneer plans are now gone

[Maksutov]

Jerry (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=497468#497468). *CLANG*I will actually miss Jerry. His posts got a lot of reaction and real quality science posted on the board to counter all his nonsense.

Me too. He may not have been right, but as the Pauli quote says, at least he was wrong most of the time.

Jerry and his theory of a Metal comet, Cassini-Huygens crashing at Saturn and missing Titan, and his gravity-Pioneer plans are now gone
The Huygen[sic] thread didn't go very far. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=377418#377418)

[Gillianren]

I'm not sure what Candy expected. the first time, there might have been room for negotiation, but after coming back as a sock puppet, then announcing it, the BA was absolutely right. the first time, she was in the heat of the moment. there might have been some wiggle-room. it was, of course, the BA's call ultimately, 'cause it's his ball. but the second time, she was in lengthy, knowing violation of the rules. she should have known what was going to happen.

[jfribrg]

I'm not sure why she couldnt have emailed the BA instead of making such a public statement. Even if he might have been inclined to reinstate her (which I doubt), he couldnt after she spent a month as a sock puppet. Knowing her posting style was somewhat unique, she might have figured that it was only a matter of time before someone figured it out. I miss her even though I do understand the BA's position.

[farmerjumperdon]

OK then.

[farmerjumperdon]

Apologies if I offendeed anyone by asking the question again. Just wanted to state my opinion, and like I said, ask one more time.

There were responses which all supported the BA in his decision, and I understand that, and am no longer asking that question.

What I was not ready for was the nasty little PM I got, and did respond somewhat in kind. Might be a weakness, but when I get called names and treated rudely, I am only human and am likely to respond with same. I did not and will not even read the further PM from the person since I do not want to propogate a hatemail chain - I just wish the civility required on the board also applied to the PMs.

[ToSeek]

I just wish the civility required on the board also applied to the PMs.

Who says they don't? It's just that our host can't see the PMs unless they are pointed out. I daresay someone who sends out obnoxious PMs would be banned just as someone who makes obnoxious posts.

[Archer17]

..What I was not ready for was the nasty little PM I got, and did respond somewhat in kind. Might be a weakness, but when I get called names and treated rudely, I am only human and am likely to respond with same. I did not and will not even read the further PM from the person since I do not want to propogate a hatemail chain - I just wish the civility required on the board also applied to the PMs.I wasn't the one that initiated that PM exchange farmerjumperdon, you did. Don't start something via PM you can't finish and then whine about it out here.

I'd have no problem with the BA reviewing the PMs in question.

[Argos]

No more casualties, please. Both of you are good guys. Take a deep breath and count with me:

one.................two..................three.... ..........four...............five..............

six..........seven.............eight.............. nine...............ten.............

[Archer17]

Argos .. your post s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d this thread out.

I wouldn't have said anything here if farmerjumperdon didn't bring it up. I have no intention of keeping anything going out here and if farmerjumperdon refrains from futher PMs, it won't continue "there" either.

[Cylinder]

The most important thing to remember: if you feel yourself getting overheated by some topic, walk away from the keyboard. Posting in haste very rarely accomplishes your goals, and as we have seen can result in quite the opposite. This does not mean you cannot be emotional-- we are humans, after all. Heated debates are fine, but I will not condone sheer argumentation. Find some other place for that.

[farmerjumperdon]

I say "You forgot to say please," what I thought was tongue in cheek friendly reply to your capitalized order to "DROP IT." It was an attempt to ratchet it back a notch and lighten up. Guess it didn't work.

[farmerjumperdon]

I misspoke. It was not capitalized.

[Archer17]

I say "You forgot to say please," what I thought was tongue in cheek friendly reply to your capitalized order to "DROP IT." It was an attempt to ratchet it back a notch and lighten up. Guess it didn't work.If that was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" then I obviously misinterpreted your meaning farmerjumperdon and my response reflected that. I also think you misinterpreted my meaning when I said "drop it" earlier. It wasn't meant to be an "order," it was a suggestion. In hindsight I probably should have prefaced it with "I suggest." The only reason I made that post was to try prevent a past incident that's still a sore spot with many of us to be resurrected. The last thing I would try to do is cause a fight when my motivation for posting was to prevent one. I feel that a more pro-active approach to head off potential trouble is warranted after what happened in June. If I would have suggested SciFi Chick and Candy "drop it" back then .. who knows? Maybe we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Since we both responded to each other based on faulty interpretation, I think we should consider this a "bump in the road" that inevitably happens when communication is limited to text and put it behind us. I am .. with no hard feelings.

[Edited for clarity]

[hhEb09'1]

that inevitably happens when communication is limited to textinevitable when communication is limited to language, expressions, posture, electronic transmission, film, advertising, art, physical force, ... :)

[Swift]

P.Asmah (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=513955#513955)

[Gillianren]

gosh, now we'll never get his numbers! (because, you know, we were going to get numbers just any time now.)

[dgruss23]

I haven't closely followed any of these threads that have led to ATM bannings, but it seems that they've been ignoring the advice in the sticky.

[Nereid]

I haven't closely followed any of these threads that have led to ATM bannings, but it seems that they've been ignoring the advice in the sticky.Yes, it would seem that this is indeed the case.

[papageno]

I haven't closely followed any of these threads that have led to ATM bannings, but it seems that they've been ignoring the advice in the sticky.Yes, it would seem that this is indeed the case.

The BA also gave unambiguous warnings in the relevant threads.

[farmerjumperdon]

Agreed, a mutual misunderstanding. My apologies.

And there was much rejoicing. #-o :)

[Archer17]

Agreed, a mutual misunderstanding. My apologies.

And there was much rejoicing. #-o :)I re-read it and my post was rougher-sounding than it needed to be. My apologies as well.

[jt-3d]

ahhh... http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/grouphug.gif ...*sniffle*

[peter eldergill]

Here's the original banned posters thread from BaBB

Oh, and apparantly projectorion has been banned (again)

Pete

[Nereid]

Oh, and apparantly projectorion has been banned (again)
Indeed, this is so (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=29212).

[Fram]

As is his alter ego Wayne Smith.

[farmerjumperdon]

ahhh... http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/grouphug.gif ...*sniffle*

Very good. Cute and funny. I love being able to laugh at myself, even after the fact.

[CJSF]

I never figured out why russ watters was banned.

CJSF

[ToSeek]

I never figured out why russ watters was banned.

CJSF

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=351727&postcount=83

[CJSF]

[reads linked post]

OK... so I repeat my question... I never figured out why russ watters was banned. We've had far worse manners and less tactful posts than that, and haven't had people banned over them. Particulary with Jerry and most recently with A.DIM and Outcast.

CJSF

[Wolverine]

OK... so I repeat my question... I never figured out why russ watters was banned.

The explanation was offered here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=352428&postcount=867).

[CJSF]

The explanation was offered here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=352428&postcount=867).

OK, well I'm glad the BA missed a lot of my rantings at Jerry. Yikes.

CJSF

[R.A.F.]

The explanation was offered here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=352428&postcount=867).

That wasn't one of my better days... :o

[Taks]

you were scolded, weren't you? :)

taks

[peter eldergill]

I notice that these lrecent links are single responses, so I don't really have a good idea of the context of the post or the thread. Was this done on purpose, or is this what the new program does all the time?

Pete

[Kesh]

If by "new program" you mean the forum software, yes, it apparently does when someone wants to link to a specific post. If nothing else, you can click on the name of the thread (in the upper-right-hand corner of the single post) to read the whole thread, and see what happened.

[A.DIM]

[reads linked post]

OK... so I repeat my question... I never figured out why russ watters was banned. We've had far worse manners and less tactful posts than that, and haven't had people banned over them. Particulary with Jerry and most recently with A.DIM and Outcast.

CJSF

Christopher, I'd been around BABB for several years and while I engaged in some contentious debates, I find your use of "manners and tact" in labeling me inappropriate here.

[mickal555]

Wayne Smith stole my advatuar :evil:

[Archer17]

What do you mean? You're still a FAT rhino (or whatever it is). ;)

[mickal555]

It's not a rhino- It's a hippo, and they are very dangerese so you'd better watch out!

He's not fat either... He's been doing weights

This is what I mean btw
http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?find=lastposter&t=29752

[Archer17]

It's not a rhino- It's a hippo, and they are very dangerese so you'd better watch out!

He's not fat either... He's been doing weights

This is what I mean btw
http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?find=lastposter&t=29752:eek: That ain't right ..

[Normandy6644]

Yeah Mickal I saw that too. At first I was really confused because I thought it was you! Oh well, problem solved I guess. :D

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

...ummm...just a ?...posters that were banned at the old BABB don't seem to be banned here...is there an amnesty? anyone want to pm me on this?

[Fram]

Almost all posters that were banned on BA or UT have been given an amnesty, for different reasons (one of them that it was hard to decide what to do with posters who were banned at one site and allowed at the other).
Fraser (I think) has said that some posters (those beyond hope, I suupose you could call them) have stayed banned (I have seen e.g. that Dr. Manuel (I think) of the Electric Universe theory was banned shortly before the merger, and that he has stayed banned).
Most people, e.g. Candy and Scifi Chick, are unbanned and can come back if they wish to.
This was (for me) the main reason to stop with this thread and start a new one, so that we could start afresh as well. But this one has been resurrected and will stay around, I suppose. So be it!

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

actually I liked Candy and SciFiChick, (liked in the sense that they were fun people and had fun posts) it's nice to see them again...PEACE!!!