(2020-01-01, 09:10 AM)letseat Wrote: [ -> ]Since this is the dedicated meta thread, anyone know why Ethical skeptic has stopped posting?
That's my fault, I think. I was a little hard on him in the moon landing doubt thread, and he protested to the moderator (David), who sided with me. There was some bad timing in there too: I came to the conclusion that I
had been too hard on him, and was navigating to the moon landing doubt thread to acknowledge as much and maybe try to clear the air... when I discovered I'd been banned (for an unrelated reason).
(2020-01-01, 10:09 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]That's my fault, I think. I was a little hard on him in the moon landing doubt thread, and he protested to the moderator (David), who sided with me. There was some bad timing in there too: I came to the conclusion that I had been too hard on him, and was navigating to the moon landing doubt thread to acknowledge as much and maybe try to clear the air... when I discovered I'd been banned (for an unrelated reason).
Well to be more precise, I brought you and T.E.S. together in a PM, and you accused him of writing scientific bullshit on occasions. One of his posts in particular - nothing to do with moon landings - was mentioned, and I challenged T.E.S. to be more specific about what he had written in open forum. He went off in a huff, so Laird was probably correct about T.E.S. He has not been banned. I think many people were a bit suspicious of him - why was most of what he wrote so hard to understand? Indeed, you quoted Doug (RIP) on that very subject.
However, I was reluctant to try to settle the matter, but Laird precipitated that situation, and I think he did a good job.
BTW, Laird's temporary ban from Skeptiko is over - he is back once more.
David
(2020-01-04, 04:06 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Well to be more precise, I brought you and T.E.S. together in a PM, and you accused him of writing scientific bullshit on occasions. One of his posts in particular - nothing to do with moon landings - was mentioned, and I challenged T.E.S. to be more specific about what he had written in open forum. He went off in a huff, so Laird was probably correct about T.E.S. He has not been banned. I think many people were a bit suspicious of him - why was most of what he wrote so hard to understand? Indeed, you quoted Doug (RIP) on that very subject.
However, I was reluctant to try to settle the matter, but Laird precipitated that situation, and I think he did a good job.
BTW, Laird's temporary ban from Skeptiko is over - he is back once more.
David
Now you’re here I would ask you to be more even-handed in moderating those that side with you on an issue, and those that don’t. You’re blind to it obviously... I don’t think you realise, even now, that your moderation style directly resulted in the split, and the birth of this forum.
(2020-01-05, 04:56 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Now you’re here I would ask you to be more even-handed in moderating those that side with you on an issue, and those that don’t. You’re blind to it obviously... I don’t think you realise, even now, that your moderation style directly resulted in the split, and the birth of this forum.
Implying this forum shouldn't exist. Personally I prefer the pure forum, wide ranging nature of this place. And I think the more focused, episode oriented nature of the skeptiko forum is just fine.
(2020-01-05, 04:56 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Now you’re here I would ask you to be more even-handed in moderating those that side with you on an issue, and those that don’t. You’re blind to it obviously... I don’t think you realise, even now, that your moderation style directly resulted in the split, and the birth of this forum.
LOL. Stir that pot, Malf. Love it.
For replicating
post #27 to this thread
on Skeptiko post-ban, I have been
rebanned by David.
I would like to appeal to David, as I know that he reads this forum: David, what did I say in that post that is either untruthful or unfair? As for truth: all of that which I wrote is solidly backed by evidence. As for fairness: scientific literacy is obviously relevant in a thread about climate science; hence it is perfectly fair to bring up the level (or lack thereof) of scientific literacy of another member in that thread, particularly one who is both posting prolifically to it as well as presenting himself as scientifically literate enough to have an informed (skeptical) opinion of the science.
Furthermore: what do you hope to achieve by banning me? This purely punitive measure changes nothing about me. I have contributed a lot to Skeptiko and would continue to do so if not banned. Wouldn't it be better to have a discussion - either private or public - to work out our differences and how to proceed? You are welcome to initiate that discussion on this forum if you prefer not to unban me to have it on Skeptiko.
(2020-01-06, 09:52 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]For replicating post #27 to this thread on Skeptiko post-ban, I have been rebanned by David.
I would like to appeal to David, as I know that he reads this forum: David, what did I say in that post that is either untruthful or unfair? As for truth: all of that which I wrote is solidly backed by evidence. As for fairness: scientific literacy is obviously relevant in a thread about climate science; hence it is perfectly fair to bring up the level (or lack thereof) of scientific literacy of another member in that thread, particularly one who is both posting prolifically to it as well as presenting himself as scientifically literate enough to have an informed (skeptical) opinion of the science.
Furthermore: what do you hope to achieve by banning me? This purely punitive measure changes nothing about me. I have contributed a lot to Skeptiko and would continue to do so if not banned. Wouldn't it be better to have a discussion - either private or public - to work out our differences and how to proceed? You are welcome to initiate that discussion on this forum if you prefer not to unban me to have it on Skeptiko.
Sorry, but you returned in a very combative fashion, and it really spoils the forum when people just squabble. If you promise to keep away from the moon landings and CC threads I might just give you another chance.
David
(2020-01-06, 11:42 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]I might just give you another chance.
If that's not enough to make you run like the wind from that echo chamber of uncritical thought, you have only yourself to blame...
(2020-01-06, 11:42 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but you returned in a very combative fashion
Then let me explain:
I was posting on a thread about global warming. I accept that the threat that global warming poses is significant and existential, and that it is urgent that we as a global civilisation do something about it. Anybody arguing that we need or ought not do anything is putting us all at risk. A strong response to such a person is justified. If their argument is that they understand science and that the science behind global warming is a hoax, then pointing out that in fact they are scientifically illiterate is justified.
Now, I know that you see things differently. You side with the person who argues that we need or ought not do anything. To you it does not matter that somebody who has no relevant expertise makes false claims about climate science. But please try to see things from my perspective to at least
understand why I take the approach that I do. Can you try to do that, David?
(2020-01-06, 11:42 PM)David001 Wrote: [ -> ]... If you promise to keep away from the moon landings and CC threads I might just give you another chance.
David
Yeah c’mon Laird. There’s plenty of other nitwitted conspiracy theory threads you can comment on. Jeez.