Civility on Universe Today comments?

[iantresman]

I was wondering whether the Forum rules on "2. Civility and Decorum" apply to the Universe Today news story comments too?

[Moose]

BAUT is BAUT and Universe Today is Universe Today. UT has its own rules.

/ But I'd submit that Rule 2 is a good rule to follow wherever you happen to be.

[iantresman]

I think I've finally found some rules for Universe Today.

[mahesh]

It's just nice to be nice. Anywhere in the Universe. Today and every day. What IS the problem?

[TheOncomingStorm]

From Universe Today:
Don't promote your personal, alternative physics theories – This is the same as advertising. You've got an idea and you want the world to know about it, then start up your own website, and blog away, but don't do it here.
Basically the electric/plasma universe people don't follow this rule and some responds sometimes not in the greatest manner but in a some what "please not this again manner".

[TheHalcyonYear]

I was wondering whether the Forum rules on "2. Civility and Decorum" apply to the Universe Today news story comments too?

Interesting. Are you suggesting that there are issues where "Civility and Decorum" would keep certain information or theories from getting a fair hearing? Perhaps if you went into a it more detail the question could be more clearly considered.

[HenrikOlsen]

Interesting. Are you suggesting that there are issues where "Civility and Decorum" would keep certain information or theories from getting a fair hearing? Perhaps if you went into a it more detail the question could be more clearly considered.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that iantresman is asking the question with nefarious intent?

Perhaps if you just came out and made the accusation in plain language someone might care.

[iantresman]

I feel that a Universe Today poster, "Hon. Salacious B. Crumb", is being uncivil, and recent ad hominems bring the website into disrepute, and contribute little to the article at hand.

See for example, the comments in one article, calling people a "con artist", and "jackasses", and again, and "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar" and again, and other pejorative language in comments in other articles.

[iantresman]

From Universe Today:
Don't promote your personal, alternative physics theories – This is the same as advertising. You've got an idea and you want the world to know about it, then start up your own website, and blog away, but don't do it here.
Basically the electric/plasma universe people don't follow this rule and some responds sometimes not in the greatest manner but in a some what "please not this again manner".

Absolutely, and there are ways with dealing with this. But turning a blind eye and giving someone cart blanche to be uncivil does not look good, especially when it is indiscriminate.

[ToSeek]

It's certainly not something the moderators here have any control over.

[slang]

Absolutely, and there are ways with dealing with this. But turning a blind eye and giving someone cart blanche to be uncivil does not look good, especially when it is indiscriminate.

Carte blanche.

Why comment on this issue here on BAUT, in the BAUT feedback session? Contact the UT people, or use the UT feedback forum.

[TheOncomingStorm]

I feel that a Universe Today poster, "Hon. Salacious B. Crumb", is being uncivil, and recent ad hominems bring the website into disrepute, and contribute little to the article at hand.

See for example, the comments in one article, calling people a "con artist", and "jackasses", and again, and "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar" and again, and other pejorative language in comments in other articles.

Best thing is to contact Fraser directly.I have also seen and have been insulted by electric universe proponents so bith sides are guilty,

[iantresman]

Why comment on this issue here on BAUT, in the BAUT feedback session? Contact the UT people, or use the UT feedback forum.

Because TheHalcyonYear suggested I "went into a it more detail", and HenrikOlsen suggested that I "came out and made the accusation in plain language". As this seems to be the wrong place, I apologise.

As you suggested, I have contacted the University Today people.

I have also seen and have been insulted by electric universe proponents

I do not approve of anyone being insulting, disrespectful or uncivil. The "infraction system" seems to be a fair solution.

[TheOncomingStorm]

It happened on the Bad Astronomy site and the posters got banned or got bored and moved on.

[DrRocket]

I feel that a Universe Today poster, "Hon. Salacious B. Crumb", is being uncivil, and recent ad hominems bring the website into disrepute, and contribute little to the article at hand.

See for example, the comments in one article, calling people a "con artist", and "jackasses", and again, and "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar" and again, and other pejorative language in comments in other articles.

An ad hominem argument is one in which one argues that some position taken is invalid because of some shortcoming of the person advocating that position. So the conclusion is false, and the premise from which the conclusion is drawn is that the advocate is faulty. This is faulty logic.

An ad hominem agrument is not an insult, which is quite different. An insult is simply an assertion that some individual is in some sense faulty, without any reason being presented or further conclusion drawn.

An argument that because someone has presented a false argument, or a deliberate lie, that that person is then either mentally below par or a liar, is a totally different logical assertion. While I have not evaluated the validity of Salacious B. Crumbs logic in this regard, it is clear to me that his assertions are made in the context of such an analysis. Thus his argument is not an actual ad hominem.

One might consider his comments as insulting to the individual towards which they were directed. I would. Whether or not the insults are accurate would have to be judged on the merits. But one might wish that the point be made in a more tactful manner even if the point is valid. Or not, depending on one's personal biases towards the proponents of EU theory and regard for sound scientific reasoning.

[grant hutchison]

An ad hominem argument is one in which one argues that some position taken is invalid because of some shortcoming of the person advocating that position.

And it doesn't even have to be a shortcoming for the argument to be ad hominem and therefore fallacious: "He's such a kind and generous fellow, you can't take anything he says about capital punishment seriously."
But the equation of "ad hominem" with "simple insult" is so engrained in BAUT culture we're kind of stuck with it. (And don't get me started on "begging the question" ... )

Grant Hutchison

[Moose]

There's a distinction between name-calling and an ad hom. Rule 2 pretty much applies to name-calling, which can be (and often is) in the form of an ad hom.

You're wrong because you're (only) a math hobbyist. = ad hom.
You're a doodyhead = name-calling.
You're wrong because you're a doodyhead = both.

[iantresman]

An argument that because someone has presented a false argument, or a deliberate lie, that that person is then either mentally below par or a liar, is a totally different logical assertion. While I have not evaluated the validity of Salacious B. Crumbs logic in this regard, it is clear to me that his assertions are made in the context of such an analysis. Thus his argument is not an actual ad hominem.

I was not meaning ad hominem in the sense of an "ad hominem argument", but in the literal sense, that the comments were aimed "at the man", ie. personally. I think this is an "ad hominem abusive".

Either way, the Universe Today guidelines are "to be nice" and [not] "being rude". I believe that calling someone (ie ad hominem) a "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar", contradicts the guidelines, and is not civil.

By all means criticize the idea, the reasoning, the facts, the deductions, that they may be idiotic, moronic, wrong, etc, but applying pejorative terms to an individual are ad hominem insults.

[captain swoop]

Universe Today is a seperate Web Site. Why are you concerned?

[TheHalcyonYear]

Universe Today is a separate Web Site. Why are you concerned?

hmmm, interesting. I didn't know it was considered separate and governed by separate rules.

Perhaps iantresman, as I, thought this was the place to come for assistance concerning rule infractions on Universe Today. Perhaps if he was directed to the proper individuals.

[Van Rijn]

I'd assume you'd contact them here:

http://www.universetoday.com/contact-me/

Just a thought - It might be worth an entry in the FAQ stating that mods don't moderate the UT article or BA blog comment sections. Few people read the FAQ posts, but it would be a good place to link to when threads like these come up.

[DrRocket]

I was not meaning ad hominem in the sense of an "ad hominem argument", but in the literal sense, that the comments were aimed "at the man", ie. personally. I think this is an "ad hominem abusive".

"ad hominem" is not a noun.

Neither is "abusive".

[Swift]

hmmm, interesting. I didn't know it was considered separate and governed by separate rules.

Perhaps iantresman, as I, thought this was the place to come for assistance concerning rule infractions on Universe Today. Perhaps if he was directed to the proper individuals.

Neither the UT website (and the comments that may get posted there), nor the BA's blog (and comments that may get posted there) are covered by the BAUT rules. As far as I know, Fraser and the BA take care of their respective blogs - certainly the mods here aren't responsible for them.

However, the distinctions can be confusing, and questions about them are neither rare nor unreasonable. If we can, we'll answer them. IIRC, both blogs have contact information for Fraser and the BA respectively.

[mugaliens]

An ad hominem argument is one in which one argues that some position taken is invalid because of some shortcoming of the person advocating that position. So the conclusion is false, and the premise from which the conclusion is drawn is that the advocate is faulty. This is faulty logic.

An ad hominem agrument is not an insult, which is quite different.

Frankly, I find any response which skirts the issue or my comments and instead resorts to personal attacks against myself to be an affront, at least to logic, and depending on the severity, can indeed be insulting.

Thus:

Some, but not all ad hominems are insulting.

Some, but not all insults are ad hominems.

[HenrikOlsen]

Because TheHalcyonYear suggested I "went into a it more detail", and HenrikOlsen suggested that I "came out and made the accusation in plain language".

Actually I suggested THY came out and made the accusation in plain language, not you, as her questions seemed intent on accusing you of something.

[iantresman]

Mea culpa, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Crummy]

I feel that a Universe Today poster, "Hon. Salacious B. Crumb", is being uncivil, and recent ad hominems bring the website into disrepute, and contribute little to the article at hand.

See for example, the comments in one article, calling people a "con artist", and "jackasses", and again, and "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar" and again, and other pejorative language in comments in other articles.

Well this is a very interesting move by iantresman as a desperate plea to get some attention after his own statements by me were absolutely proven to be full of deliberate half-truths, deliberately worded semantics and verbiage.

Let's see.

Deception No.1. You make a complaint here, but cannot even point towards the article so other can make up there own mind. (The line to the Universe Today story in question is World-wide Campaign Sheds New Light on Nature's "LHC", just in case anyone wants to look at it.

Deception No.2. You accuse me of calling someone a "liar", didn't you. Now let's tell the truth. I did say that once to a Michael Jackson (as you linked), but you forgot to mention this was in 133 responses and that the topic was on Climategate - and I was not alone in the outrage and condemnation of the numerous accusations. I should not have said it , yes you are right, but it was during a very passionate and divisive debate.
(nice cherry picking, though)
I rarely call someone a "liar", but I never called you that, did I. (The "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar", actually was said first by you. I.e.

iantresman says : March 18th, 2010 at 4:27 am
@Crumb, your pejorative language directed at specific individuals is contrary to the Universe Today guidelines and even your own views on Civility and Decorum. Continually calling people a jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar (even though you claim it is a no no), is tedious and makes the forum look bad.

Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says: March 18th, 2010 at 6:23 am
In the end, "jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar" applies so perfectly to YOU! Funny isn't it, I think I just proved it!

And why did I say this; You did an open Goggle search looking for "crumb moron" to find the words to claim I "Continually calling people a jackass, an idiot, a moron, a liar." Worse, I proved almost conclusively that your other pseudonym of "Solrey" and that it was similar to the problem of "sock-puppetry" mentioned earlier in Wikipedia.

Let's see. Now I actually never did say that to you, did I? (playing the very same deliberately worded semantics to prove an important point.)

Also, with the other complains, you haven't mentioned that you did a Google search with the words "crumb moron", which you left in your URL link. (nice cherry picking, again.)

Deception No.3. You of course make out you are the innocent victim here, are you not the one who attacked me? I.e. You said;

"The only person who has mentioned extreme theories and their website, is yourself. It has no place here"

What website? I did not mention even if I had a website. (I think you were fishing to find my identity - hence I ignored you.)

Extreme theories? (What!! Your the EU/plasma cosmology supporter, not me!) What extreme theories?

So, according to you, it is also OK to also provoke people, eh?

===================

Now yes I use the term "jackass", which I use meaning "stupid person", and I have mostly applied this to the blogger known as "Anaconda" (familiar here I think.)

As far as I know, it is not a curse or swear word nor particularly derogatory. (A discussion of this was held with a thread in Universe Today, and it was deem acceptable. Of course you didn't mention I modified it to EUJ - Electric Universe (you guessed it)

===================

Now let make a further little point to conclude.

The whole argument against me is that you took exception to the fact I pointed out that "Electric Universe is NOT scaleable", unlike the view that it is equally applied from the laboratory to the largest of astronomical objects or phenomena. (I also did not comment this at first to you directly but another blogger!)

But of course, the real reason why you are striking out here, is you were bitter about me reminding the forum;

"Now let's see. Wasn't it you who got banned from Wikipeadia on "Plasma Cosmology", which I believe was for using sock-puppetry to back-up their contribution of contended fact when citations were lacking?"

(Exacerbated by me mocking you when you wanted me to give citations, even though you citations were not irrelevant.)

After this very quote, is where you posted this thread.

So there you go. Still want to play the victim here?

Your a real tricky when it comes to the facts. (Sounds like a familiar group of pseudoscience presumed to be knowledgeable on plasmas and magnetic fields.)

(Note: I'm sorry if I've broken the rules here, but I must be able to defend myself from this individual.)

[Crummy]

Ah. I should have said a few more things.

I mostly think here that iantresman is just upset because I belittled him, ignored him and just didn't "play ball."

I also think there has to be some formal process of challenging (or deleting) plasma cosmology proponents radical or quite ill-informed ideas. Although it is probably censorship, it would counter the pre-organised agenda and methodology to raise a bigger profile (just like a cult).

I still find most offensive the "Thunderbolts.Info" directive (under "a role for you");

"Scholarly and Scientific Liaison

As our Internet presence expands the opportunity to reach independent minded and accredited researchers will continue to grow. Visitors who now have a good sense of the “Electric Universe” hypothesis can be helpful in directing the attention of others to the site. Your active liaison on our behalf will make possible much broader interdisciplinary communication than any of us could achieve on our own.

In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.

As I said at "Universe Today"

"Never trust a site that is recruiting people. Science is a discipline based on deduction and reasoning to draw reproduceable scientific conclusions from the available observed data. It is not some moralistic "democratic process" where the majority dictates accepted theory."

For me the real debate here is how long blog sites can remain impervious to the workings of those aiming to debunk or undermine credible science with pseudoscience or dogma - with a prearranged and organised agenda.

Science in general is more and more under attack, while the pseudoscience cults cause trouble and deride anyone who stands against them. (Intuition surely cannot replace the rigid rule of science and the scientific method, otherwise science as a whole really is in trouble!)

(With EU'ers, I do admit I provoke them to say things they normally wouldn't say. In Universe Today forum, for example, our persistence had been well rewarded, as the EU fringe has been little problem for months. Were it not for my perseverance in the last year or so - destroying every argument that I've challenged them on. When they start their mumbo-jumbo, I've mostly crushed them.

Sure, words and language can be very horrible weapons, but if someone persists with to same old repeated rhetoric just to persuade others who do not have the ability to separate fact or knowledge from deliberate malicious fiction, what do you do?

So maybe my general approach is 100% kosher, but who else will start standing up against the agendas of "darkness." (I am not actually swearing though, and never use derogatory or offensive regarding race or sex.)

Question: If iantresman is so outraged with Universe Today, why is it that Universe Today has let me continue with my general attack on these EU individuals that has been going on for about two years?
Could it be what I have said supports mainstream science in a logical or proper manner? Or is it because I have mostly effectively stopped their destructive influence? It is not as if I do not make useful and accurate contributions to their stories from time to time - especially on stellar evolution theory.)

So the real issue here, IMO, and what iantresman is doing here in this thread, is nothing at all about civility or decorum - it's all just a smokescreen. It is about protecting his "brand name" - the brand name that is sometimes called the "Electric Universe."

Bottom line is that iantresman was really wanting to pick a fight; I.e.

"It is very sad that a small number of individuals are resorting to ad hominems. It is utterly unscientific, and the kind of argument one might expect from the kind of people that they are criticizing."

and;

If you have a specific criticism, please provide a peer-reviewed citation. These do no necessarily lend weight to those promoting alternative theories, but they do contradict some of your comments.

Mind you, I had directed my response directly to the blogger "solrey" I.e. "@ solrey" (Which subsequently proved to be actions of sock-puppetry.) It is again interesting that iantresman initial complaint of "ad hominem" WAS ACTUALLY NOT AGAINST HIM. (I think he was provoking me so he could claim I was now "ad hominem" him. Premeditated?)


If I have offended anyone, I'm sorry. If I have affected some Electric Universe proponent, I have no real regrets - I've been called everything else (and worst) by them.

"I might be rancid butter, but at least I'm on your side of the bread"

[Swift]

NO!

Crummy, I am not going to piece through all of this but you are NOT going to continue this battle here. There will be no further discussions about what happens on other sites, even if related to BAUT, and this thread is closed.