Proposal ban Stokes Pennwalt.

[Undecided]

I have been constantly ad hom-ed attacked by Stokes Pennwalt, and I think we at sci forums are sick and tired of it. Here is merely a sampling:

Calm yourself, sister. There was no intention of "attacking" anything. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. Verbose apologies if I hurt your feelings.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33733

If you weren't so obstinate and cantankerous you might actually learn something from these threads.
--------------------------------------------------------------
o noes plz don't call me names dood!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nico
The US for all her tech marvels can do shit against 30 Silkworms in 4 waves coming against her.

Right on chief. Too bad I put that myth to bed here. Argumentum ad nauseam has always been one of your strong points, and I'm happy to see you've been no let-down this time around. Also, the posters of this forum beg to know your credentials and the data on which your perfunctory commentary is based.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 15ofthe19
This is such a fascinating phenomenom to witness. The probability of nico contradicting herself and actually supporting the arguments of the poster that she's trying to prove wrong is directly proportionate to the number of arguments she posts in an attempt to win the so-called "debate".

Take a respite from the thread. Come back within 2 days to find him arguing a position in stark, polar contrast to what it was before. That way, we don't even have to refute his arguments, because eventually he will do it for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyke
This latest bit of propoganda is being brought to us by Sciforums own version of Baghdad Bob, Comrade nico.

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/nico.jpg*Picture*

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave up on correcting him long ago. If he insists on debasing himself through the use of a tenuous grasp of the english language, far be it from me to stop him...It wouldn't, and he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=528509#post528509
----------------------------------------------------------
Ugh, behind that comment is the same false logic you try to apply to politics and that's exactly why it makes you look so utterly out of touch with reality. Like the saying goes, "socialism works......
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=527952#post527952
-----------------------------------------------------------
Too early to tell if Bush is the cause. Reading comprehension is not your forte, apparently.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=526868#post526868
--------------------------------------------------------
^^ you can link to a picture on the internet. Congratulations.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your propensity for inventing counter arguments is annoyingly cute. One of these days I hope you get bored of crying fallacy at every turn. It is quite sophomoric.
---------
Incidentally, I'm going to start taking credit for single-handedly improving your vocabulary by several orders of magnitude. Our next lesson will be how to actually use those words correctly. Make sure not to get banned again before then, k guy?
http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/structure.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by nico
http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/brain/images_27925/crying_baby.jpg*picture*
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31911&page=3&pp=20


This is merely some of his ad hom attacks and his propinquity of posting nothing but pure insults and not adding anything to conversations. I seriously suggest you check out his posts, full of ad homs against posters. Not only against me ladies and gentlemen, others as well. I think we who have dealt with Stokes are sick and tired of his extreme arrogance, and this inability to be a poster who adds’s value to a conversation. I think we all understand that he needs to get out because he is not going to change.

http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=41061&page=6

If you want to see the rest of his attacks, this is where I left off. I think we can all agree this is excessive and it is only to get worse. Ban Stokes Pennwalt…

Just for reference:

(argumentum ad hominem)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

[Mr. Chips]

Jesus, are you retarded or something? I posted a link to the fucking NRC's analysis of TMI as an addendum to my own a few pages back. That so completely trumps anything your agenda-driven no-nukes sources can muster that it puts the issue to bed completely.

You know, if you actually bothered reading what people who are clearly more knowledgeable than you about the topic post, you might actually learn something instead of coming off as such a raving asshat. Perhaps if you support your assertions with science rather than uninformed rhetoric you'll gain a little prestige.

Of course I do believe I posted scientific analysies and I do believe I also attempted to explain why the NRC might post untrustworthy data but none of that mattered. When you are in conversation with someone who believes that you are wrong because you are inferior there is no use in going on with the attempt at communication. The whole subject of that thread, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32882 was quite ad hominem in nature as well as straw hat in my opinion. It's ad hominem nature was suggested by nasor:

You've accused Stokes of setting up a straw-man argument, but I don't see why you would believe this. A straw-man argument occurs when someone refutes a weaker version of an opponent's argument rather than the strongest version. Stokes isn't attempting to refute any particular anti-nuclear argument; he's merely claiming that most anti-nuclear activists are ignorant and uneducated. While this might be insulting to anti-nuke activists, it doesn't have anything to do with creating a straw-man argument. If anything, it's an ad-hominem fallacy..

My experiences tell me that when someone who uses such an approach of deriding their debate opponents other than acknowledging at least the possiblity of the opposite point of view is allowed free reign, others who can and do have a strong vested interest in the out come can jump in and spin the conversation far and wide from any consideration of a person's points at all and I do believe that is what happened to that thread. I basically stopped posting because they couldn't acknowledge that there are knowledgeable people, experts, who disagree with them who may have some credibility to their points of view. I do have other things to do but in general, I felt I was strong armed out of the debate, not with reason, but by pure antagonistic bull headedness.

[15ofthe19]

Why is Undecided carrying the torch for nico? Shouldn't nico be fighting her own battles?

On a serious note. If you want to ban Stokes, one of the few posters on this forum that might actually fit the definition of "scientist", (and the last time I looked, this place is called SCIforums), then you might as well ban all scientists. Get rid of everyone who actually works or studies for a living in some sort of scientific discipline. You can't perpetuate double standards and call yourself a fair moderator.

If this is the route this site wishes to go, might I suggest some name changes.

"High School Lunchroom.com"
"ITookAClassInThisAreaOfStudySoI'mAnExpert.Com"

I'm sure this post will most likely be deleted, despite this forum being labeled "Open Government".

Just a few thoughts. :D

[Spyke]

Toughen up, nico.

[Rappaccini]

Yeah, seriously, man.

[Mr. Chips]

Online forums become play-grounds ruled by and for bullies. I've seen it happen more often than not. Originators can get fed up and leave it to the whim of the vicious or they can hang in there and see if they can corner some of the spoils from the unsuspecting who wander into the lair even though these may just be ego stroking in nature and not really amount to any real or substantial reward.

Most that I've posted here, most of what I've read here has basically been a waste of my time and efforts. I really should just move on.

[phlogistician]

Stokes Pennwalt seems to know what he's talking about, and demonstrates a sound grasp of the science and technologies he makes posts about. In fact, a minority at sciforums.

People sometimes come across as arrogant when you are talking to them about their area of expertise, and they see you as making schoolboy errors with the science. The answer is to stop whining, and listen. You never know, you might learn something. Talking to him has knocked the rust off some of my Physics.

And personally, if an ad-hom is well crafted, it's almost art. Sometimes it's funny too.

Lastly, never forget, you have a choice whether to engage people in conversation. If you realise you don't like them, their content, or their style, you have the choice to avoid them. If you wade in, and get bitten, you've only got yourself to blame.

[tablariddim]

I can think of a few far more arrogant people on this board, so what shall we do; set absolute criteria for behaviour, writing style, intelligence, spelling, 'interesting ideas', I mean, where exactly do we draw the line, and who judges?

You know, discrimination and prejudice is bad enough in the real world, let's not bring it into this community. If you hold antipathy for someone, just ignore them.

[Spyke]

nico links a picture of a mullethead, whom he calls Stokes. Stokes then posts a pic of Baghdad Bob which he depicts as nico, and nico suddenly calls for Stokes to be banned. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Besides, I'm the one who referred to nico as Baghdad Bob in the first place. Why didn't nico called for me to be banned also. After all, he said my posts were nothing but ad hominems. Me thinks that having a different position from nico is equated to an ad hominem in his world.

[Mr. Chips]

As far as I can tell, phlogistician, Stokes physics seems to disagree with the majority of physicists in some regards, for example the claims that depleted uranium is only an alpha emitter or that nuclear waste only needs to be sequestered for 300 years. Stokes seems incapable of accepting the Linear No Threshold hypothesis though it appears to be accepted by every major nuclear regulatory agency on the planet. In light of its existence there is more reason to suspect and look at the findings of the credentialed and respected scientists who present their evidence of the dangers of low-level radiation exposure and yet Stokes dismisses these scientists as unworthy, eco-nazis, and a slew of other derisions. A scientist in my opinion, expresses opinions and considers others and does not go about expressing the idea that they are god like with no possibility of mistaken or influenced perspective.

At least Stokes and others who enjoy kissing up to the bully has got to love ya, phlogy.

[Undecided]

I don't deny Stokes is a man of the scientific world, but he purposely spews out vile attacks against me and others. No one here can deny the ad homs that he has done against others. Mr.Chips is an example of Stokes ad hom-ing him, you see this is typical it's just focusing on me. But there are other victims, he has been warned before by the administration I know. But he insists on breaking the rules and attacking me and others for no other reason but to attack.

For those who voted no, do tell me is this appropriate?

Does American military preeminence make your penis feel any smaller? Because you've got this ROW superiority complex I cannot understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Or Stokes incessant use of pics to try to make an ad hom point:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31794&page=2&pp=20

nico came out of the closet to say:
And you assume yours is somehow different then his assessment? I yet to hear anything from you other then DOSENT WORK! Simply compelling, and really no one wants to hear your arguments here in WEP b/c again this is the wrong forum to discuss such issues.
----------------------------------------
Anyway, now that nico has pretty much proven his premeditated ignorance, I'm done dealing with his drivel. Does anybody else have any questions?
--------------------------------------
In other news, nico continues to be unable to understand the depth of a very complicated issue. Film at 11.


http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31089&page=2&pp=20

Notice that Stokes is what is called a provocateur this constantly; he starts with ad homs and ends with ad homs.

I am not surprised that Stokes supporters would turn this thread into a referendum on me, but it's not. It's against Stokes and his overt use of ad homs against various posters. I have tolerated Stokes for quite a while, and I have warned him and moderators of his actions. He ignores them, and thus he now should pay for the crimes he had committed. You know it as well as I do, he is a serious poster, when it comes to attacking others.

[Undecided]

Also I think we can agree that Stokes does fit the mold of a troll to a tea:

2.Criticising your opponents spelling or grammar will make you look pedantic. Far better to deliberately misread a message, then follow-up with an utterly incongruous statement.

3. Selective editing is a good way to avoid engaging with your opponent's better arguments. Simply delete that intelligent, pointed question which ends paragraph three and reply instead to the weaker arguments beneath. Should your opponent post something like "I'm sorry but you're talking crap", snip everything but the first two words then graciously accept his apology.

and:

38. Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.


I think we can all see this in Stokes' writings, and it becomes quickly apparent that he is not a good poster if he is defined as a troll. I wouldn't have minded Stokes if he wasn't such an ad hom poster. I think most ppl on WE&P would tell you I am a serious poster, but I do retaliate when I am attacked. If you give me respect I will give you the respect you deserve. In this case that simply does not exist, and sadly I had to retaliate, and lower myself to his levels. But I think if you are serious about debate, you should vote yes because we all know he is not going to change.

[goofyfish]

I'll say it again, obviously into the wind (unfortunately), but this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. There are few here, myself and yourself included, that hold the skills to perform according to the "classic" expectations of a debate. As to "having to lower" yourself, who forced you? Who forced you to retaliate? Nobody. You made a decision to do so and reap the results, whatever they may be.

:m: Peace.

[Undecided]

I concede that I was not being a exemplarily example of constraint, but I think any poster would get sick and tired of constantly being attacked for no verifiable reason, and Stokes has a motive to do this. He said he can't stand me being so called "anti-american" he does this on purpose, this ad hom attacks are premeditated and nothing is done to stop them. I tried talking to everyone who has power to solve this issue, and I get very little in return. So what do you expect me to do?

As to "having to lower" yourself, who forced you? Who forced you to retaliate? Nobody.

Then who forces somebody who is going to be killed by someone to defend themselves? Same logic.

[15ofthe19]

So what do you expect me to do?

Well, here's one option.

Toughen up, nico.

Here's another.

Life is not always going to be black and white. It might be time to re-evaluate the strategy of constantly marrying yourself to a position before you've considered every angle. Saves you a lot time in the long run. Rebuilding burnt bridges is at best extremely difficult, and at worst impossible.

[Undecided]

This is from the official rule book from WE&P:

You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening. Racial slurs or remarks are also not welcome here, nor are messages that are insulting towards other forum members. You will not be warned - at a minimum, offensive posts will be removed without notice.
------------------------------

MOST RELEVANT: Posts that interrupt a serious thread with ANY inane comments that in no way, shape, or form relate to the original topic, will be deleted. Threads that repeat a previously posted theme may be merged or deleted in its entirety.


Need I really say more? I have shown, and Mr. Chips have shown here the official breaking of these rules. Stokes has repeatedly ignored the warnings of the administration, there is too strong of a case here, especially on the inane comments, I think you can now see where I am coming from. I have tolerated Stokes for months on end keeping a tight lip, but now it's just ridiculous.

[sargentlard]

As to "having to lower" yourself, who forced you? Who forced you to retaliate? Nobody.

Then who forces somebody who is going to be killed by someone to defend themselves? Same logic.

Not exactly. Unless his words physically harm you that example of yours is moot.

[Undecided]

The logic is the same, I was being attacked and I have a right to defend myself. That is what is contention here not the specifics of the analogy.

[guthrie]

My opinion is that this is a pointless thread.
Hey, Undecided, are you actually nico or not? I want to know for sure.

[Undecided]

My opinion is that this is a pointless thread.


How so? Do you not see the mass of ad homs? Do you reject the obvious? He has broken forum rules, he has disregarded mod., warnings, and my own, and he is by definition a troll. Do you think that someone who does that should be allowed to stay, or at least not be punished? I thought in a society no one was above the law correct? So what exactly makes this thread pointless?

[guthrie]

But he also makes useful and pointed posts.
Do you?

And are you Nico or not? a simple yes or no would suffice.

[Undecided]

But he also makes useful and pointed posts.

So? It's paramount to say a convicted killer was also a food kitchen volunteer we should spare him punishment. It's irrelevant what posts he has done, he has proven that his posts are full of inane comments, and full of ad homs against various posters. It is only logical to follow the rules of the forum, which he has not done. Holistically you wouldn't accept a criminal to get away scot free, even though he was warned not to do something many times. Simple common law, simple social contract which stokes has broken countless times.

Do you?


You answer that question for me, do I?

[guthrie]

No No, I asked the question first. It might be mildly rhetorical, but the purpose also is to try and get you to question how and what you post. Obviously it didnt work.
And if you arent carefull, ill start a thread asking "is Undecided Nico?".

[Undecided]

And if you arent carefull, ill start a thread asking "is Undecided Nico?".

Are you threatening me?

You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.

I will not subdue myself to such tactics.

[guthrie]

Hehehe, you just did.
Tell you what, I'll let up, and say youve done some reasonable posting yourself. And you have. If your Nico, youve improved a bit, which is good.

[Undecided]

Guthrie:

Posts that interrupt a serious thread with ANY inane comments that in no way, shape, or form relate to the original topic, will be deleted. Threads that repeat a previously posted theme may be merged or deleted in its entirety.

Read it please, and don't sow seeds of discontent please.

[guthrie]

Blahhh. Ok then, ive had my tuppenorth on this question. Lets see what everyone else says. Oh look, so far they dont agree with you. Oh well, democracy in action.

[Tiassa]

Regardless of your case or the months that Stokes has been a pain in your ass, two issues speak against the proposal:

(1) People generally, when asked, won't vote to ban. There hasn't been a successful banning yet.
(2) People like big, bloody arguments. No matter how much they murmur and complain, they actually like it because it's easier to watch the entertaiment than think and understand.

People want to be provocative. People want to be insulted and insulting. People want to be bombastic and abusive and abused.

Now, I know that history indicates that dealing with petty provocateurs is a dangerous endeavor around here. People aim for what they think is cool as compared to anything more substantive or reflective of character. Honesty, forthrightness, integrity--these are anathema among many Sciforums posters.

And yes, we have to tolerate them.

Look, there have been occasions in the past that I would have liked to see certain people gone, but as a recent discussion of an inflammatory post shows, people aren't ready to have a substantial discussion because they look forward to Ban Wars. I haven't voted for a ban proposal yet. This I will likely abstain unless it becomes absolutely necessary to vote.

I oppose this ban proposal for the same reason I oppose any. There are no ground rules. Site Rules? Who cares? We're all pretty much guilty. But at present, people seem to want to be able to go around being offensive and provocative, yet would like to be protected from a response in kind. Apparently being an "-ist" is less provocative than being called one.

And that's the way it works. No, I haven't a favorable opinion of the Stokes I've come to know around here; I consider his positions dominated by an irrational degree of self-interest; he relies on ad-hom abusive to a degree that suggests underlying bigotries, not the least of which is misogyny.

But some people around Sciforums--a considerable enough number to bear influence--reserve the freedom to be completely offensive. Some are fine with tumbling, bloody arguments; some appeal hypocritically to decency.

And without some sense of ground rules, those who seek anarchy in order to corrupt and reduce the intellectual profit potential at a site like Sciforums will continue to have the basis to do so.

I disapprove of this banning also because I reserve the right to respond as I see fit to such posters until either the users of Sciforums see fit to establish conventional guidelines for the kinds of discussions they don't wish to have littering this board, or until the administration sees fit to instruct the moderators to a more authoritarian and uniform enforcement of the Site Rules (which condition would probably result in a bunch of bannings to re-establish administrative and moderator authority.)

Admittedly, under either condition, the posting rates would slow in several major fora, and perhaps also in the less argumentative.

In the meantime, I would suggest that you simply take the pleasure of trying new theories of human conduct. At present, I'm being indirectly deferential to a rhetorical terrorist on the one hand, and conflicting considerations of the role of private messaging in discussions. It's not that the poster I'm looking at has actually done anything wrong, but rather a nod to the assertion that telling him what is quite obviously wrong with the issue is, according to some, inflammatory and offensive. So I just have a grin on my face, and it turns out the poster doesn't really know what's going on, but it's entertaining trying to figure out how to explain the obvious without pointing out the obvious.

Every once in a while we have to give some consideration to the demands of lower passions voiced by other people. Since saying, "Um ... dude ... you've got it absolutely wrong," could be considered inflammatory and offensive, the challenge is to figure out if there's a way to communicate with people without simply walking in the door and telling them straight up. Even if I don't succeed, there is still a consideration of whether I failed because I chose to fail or failed because it actually is impossible. Regardless, that's an odd thing for me, since I choose to work with ineffable ideas and attempt to give them form it would seem that the last thing I should be doing is just coming right out with it, but many of us are familiar with what happens when I don't simply come right out with it.

So, Undecided, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just hold people at arm's length; nine times out of ten, it is reading comprehension, and of those nine times, eight and a half are comprehension issues arising from the choices of the other, and not any actual lack of what could reasonably be construed as literacy. It pisses people off to be told that they have problems with their reading comprehension, but when they're so cynical they can't see straight or express themselves coherently, I think the comprehension issue is only strengthened.

And in the end, we vilify in others what we fear in ourselves. This is often shown in general by the GOP's fear of big government and the Democrats' fear of government infringement of Constitutional rights (both ideas, of course, being betrayed in the Age of Terror.) But it works on a personal level, as well. Many anti-gun folks dislike guns because they, themselves, would be too quick to use them; Tipper Gore hated Prince's Purple Rain and founded the PMRC because the album was enough to make her hot and bothered, and she feared such base reactions in others. Certain posters infuriate me because it would be so easy and comfortable to simply surrender to their way, sink into the mire, and become an emptyheaded provocateur.

My strategy is to treat people as if they're legit. I go by what they write, and figure that if they meant something else, they would have said it. There are occasions when a gray zone arises, but something that amuses me is when, faced with a quotation of their own words, people will say, "I didn't say that."

More often than not, they're backing away from the bitter fruits of their hotheaded pursuits. What they sow, they do not wish to reap, but rather wish to curse upon others.

Something we forget sometimes, Undecided, is that the audience is paying attention, even if they're not saying much. And perhaps it's time to start relying on those folks; treat the offensive posters as if they have an illness--you may not be able to alleviate the disease, but you can work against inflaming the symptoms. I think there's a core of posters who, if they chose consciously to ignore the rhetorical terrorists, curmudgeons, provocateurs, and simple prigs, the audience, per se will eventually remind us when those miscreants actually have a point worth responding to. If there's any substance in there, someone else will eventually pick it out.

We're upset because we're trying to farm signal from noise, and those who choose to broadcast garbage seem to enjoy ridiculing the effort. It's almost comic-bookish in its villainy. And it's fair to treat those people like the two-dimensional hack jobs they are.

It's kind of like taking a shit in your neighbor's yard every morning in order to protest the fact that some company somewhere else pollutes the environment. Whatever it is people like this are actually upset about, they're simply willing to take it out on whatever suits their fancy. It doesn't help their problem, and seems to feed what I refer to as Ren Höek Syndrome. RHS comes when someone derives genuine spiritual pleasure from being angry. Some people just seem deterimined to be angry at any price. In that sense, being a two-dollar whore has never been so damned expensive. But we're all whores at some point, it's just a matter of cost efficiency in terms of the benefits we seek to attain.

Simply hold him to his words, Undecided. Sometimes letting a person's broad anger and hatred represent them is the best gift a political issue could possibly ask for. Think of gun folks; part of the reason Americans favor certain forms of gun control is that the NRA's line would be all well and dandy if life were so simple, but there is a certain callousness, a certain political arrogance to the debate that stains the generalization of "gun owners."

When people read uber-violence, misogyny, racism--essential calls to division--in the undertones of an argument on behalf of gun ownership, there is a connection formed between the message and the attitude. The concept can be easily turned in general, but is tougher to do in specific. It is easier to hold guns as a social necessity if we maintain a paranoid, frightened populace. Guns are a necessity of division, and seeing divisive politics correlated with a personal interest based in the necessary response to those divisions over and over and over again resonates with people. It has a slow effect of reminding people that there are easier ways to reduce violence than killing everything violent and threatening everything that might possibly be violent; that there are easier ways to reduce violence than depending on violence.

It's harder to turn the concept in specific when the message seeks social union; after all, people are imperfect, but if they're legitimately working toward a better and more cooperative human experience, they'll figure it out someday. It's the difference between the connections defining a necessary division by presuming, constructing, and supporting divisions, and the connections defining an idea that is in fact counterproductive according to the individual's larger goals. One seeking division requires division; one seeking union stumbles into division by accident.

This is a level of discussion that frightens people; some would like to keep it as superficial as possible, and that's where ideas like "the presumption of the worst" come in. Some posters are so beyond cynicism that they seek to have nasty arguments with people and choose absolutely obscure interpretations--which they never justify substantially--in order to presume an offense. It's a lot easier to argue vehemently about superficial issues; once substantial discussion is in play it doesn't become totally dispassionate, but the passions are more refined, and that takes effort. Thus, while our failures are equal to theirs, they would rather focus on failures instead of goals sought. The conditions of triumph speak much about whether any particular failure is relevant to anything.

There was a curious phenomenon in the 1980s in which people rejected words like "paradigm" (classic) or "worldview" (contemporary) while sitting there and giving you theirs. I understand that "lifestyle" and "worldview" are empty words; the former is a mask in concession to prudery and the latter a dumbing-down of a perfectly suitable term. But it was always frustratingly fun to listen to someone talk about stupid nonsense words like "worldview," and how there's no such thing as a "worldview" while expaining their own paradigm. The worldview according to 1980s American mutt capitalism, for instance, saw a rank-and-file denial of the larger perspective largely because the results of such introspection hinted after the horrific. That's part of what the misguided 1990s were about; our American consciences woke up, but nobody knew what to do with them. Hence, "Woodstock."

There's always a sense of denial about the goal. Let's face it, nobody knows what the meaning of life is. So few choose to compare their goals against it. But if we add up all of the moralizing virtues that make society work, we see that the reason is that many would find their goals to be discordant with the virtues they propose. So it's easier to rest on the virtues and stay superficial.

And that's the challenge. Perhaps we should view it as an opportunity. And perhaps that's ridiculously optimistic.

Everybody needs a place where they can be themselves. Perhaps after some time, they'll notice changing patterns in their work, and realize that "break but never bend" doesn't mean you can't grow.

True, I wish some of them in general, and Stokes in particular--as the topic has it--would bring a more substantial purpose to the table. But it's their choice, and we choose whether or not to pay attention to the sinister garden gnomes salting the earth and then complaining that there's nothing to eat.

[Undecided]

Guthrie if you knew your comments were erroneous then why post them? The only reason why you posted here was to merely post on my position nothing else. That's provocateurism, this thread is about a serious subject and you hijacked it. And yes I am losing by two, thanks to you. I would like to know what is the reasoning behind this decision in total and complete disregard of the facts?

[Undecided]

Tiassa

I would totally agree with you as usual I don't have a problem with your analysis. But the problem is that this is not some random event, or some comical event. This is premeditated provocateurism on the side of Stokes. I can tolerate the occasional pun, look at Spyke for instance he can take a jab but for the most part he does add something substantive to a conversation. Stokes simply does not, and this is not something that a person in society should tolerate. It is one thing to do something stupid once and get warned and not do it again. This is a case of incessant, and obsessive attacks. Why should I as a serious poster be subjected to this ad hom attacks for no verifiable reason. The only reason being is because I don't conform to his American exceptionalist ethics. I have given the man countless chances, admin. has given him countless chances. Do you honestly expect us as a mini-society to tolerate this? I don't deny that sometimes he does bring something but it merely is not enough to outweigh the opportunist attacks that this man engages in. No one can deny this man engages in ad homs, that deal with everything from sexuality, to intelligence, to comprehension. Where does it stop? Are we just supposed to accept this like lackeys?

[Shmoo]

I voted no; I like to keep things interesting.
If Stokes ever goes overboard, I'm sure the mods will know how to deal with him.

[Undecided]

Stokes has already gone overboard, it's been this way since his first day here. I find your reasoning to be awfully disgusting mind you.

[Mr. Chips]

That's just it. Any one can participate in an online forum. There's no peer matching going on. You will get those who want strife and ill feelings just to keep things "interesting." That's just the nature of the beast. The irrational are more interesting for short term thrills but in the long term, it means those with perhaps the most valuable information go elsewhere.

I don't think there is any way around it. I saw a forum where banning was avoided vehemently and it was great but the owner lost interest and let it slip into the hands of a real psycho individual who immediately started banning people and editing other people's posts (including yours truly) to make people look bad, it went from great to worst quickly. If this place has no moderate moderation it will degrade fast. Maybe an even larger number of people will participate over time but they will be the crass, the slip-shod who hardly care for anything or see any purpose to anything. Dysfunction wins. Those with some real heart and mind will go elsewhere maybe only after having their feelings hurt.

I was just wondering if this forum might be an exception to the rule and could exhibit some careful, infrequent but necessary moderation such as get rid of those who are obviously not into sharing information but instead speak from a position of self-righteous arrogance and intolerance. I don't think SciForums can escape the nature of online forums and will basically become another one of the many worthless and wasteful refuse heaps that litter the internet as just so many more tons of spam, spam, spam, spam, spam.

[goofyfish]

So what do you expect me to do?Ignore it, as so many of us already do.

:m: Peace.

[Mr. Chips]

Yeah, maybe that will make it go away :D

[guthrie]

Undecided, I never said my comments were erroneus. You might claim so, but I never intended anything to be read that way. So, if youd just like to ignore me instead, itll save hassle and argument.

[Undecided]

I think this thread is indicative of the self-interest and the lack of community that this place has. We are not doing this an.droid for character assinations if anything that's been my story:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=534441#post534441

That thread is a perfect example of why I am even doing this. We as a community have descended into a trash heap that mocks at any form of intellectuality, or discussion. Sure I could ignore, I do some ppl. But the vile attacks continue, and it does affect a person's character here on the site. Now I personally am dead in terms of my personality on this site. I've been vilified and glorified; I've been spit on and cleansed. I have gone through it all. I take that in stride actually, the only reason I really included a poll into the thread was to gauge reaction, and to see if ppl actually cared about intellectualism, and the site, or anti-intellectualism, and crass selfishness. Many ppl have said that they wouldn't vote not because they believe Stokes is right (I don't think any reasonable person does after the sheer amount of evidence) but b/c their ethics dictate as such. My question to those inactive members, what ethics? Consider we blast Chamberlain for signing Munich agreement with Hitler promising not to go further but the Sudetenland . Same thing here, this thread set's a very dangerous precedent indeed. It shows ad hom-ers like Stokes, that they can get away with it, unscathed, like Hitler in 1938. I knew ppl would vote No, I've been in a ban war myself and I have won. But at least I was honorable enough to apologize to the person I ad homed. This is a measure of society at large, and why we shouldn't be surprised that Munich 1938 has been signed for sci. The dictatorial ad homers have taken over. Do enjoy, don’t listen to the warnings but the wars have begun.

[Tiassa]

But the problem is that this is not some random event, or some comical event. This is premeditated provocateurism on the side of StokesIndeed, Undecided, I agree.

But inasmuch as I can tell from observing and discussing issues with my Sciforums neighbors, this is the way it goes--

(1) People like premeditated provocateurism, but ....
(2) They don't like it when someone's really, really good at it.
(2a) Think of it like wars or American football. If it's really quick, if it's an absolute rout, if someone "creams" their opponent (you know, that used to have a different meaning before sexuality became the meaning of life for my generation), nobody wants to watch.
(2b) People will watch a trouncing if their team is doing the trouncing.
(2c) A trouncing is "unfair" if their team is getting smashed.

The thing is that most don't think of it in any sinister term. They're thinking, "What a zinger," and not, "My God, I'm being delightfully hurtful." So to them, degrading women in order to insult another poster, slamming entire religions in order to insult one person, hating entire cultures in order to sling the arrow--these things aren't all that problematic to them. It's a lot like the notion that very few people in my childhood ever used the phrase, "He jewed me." But it's only been about the last eight or so years of my life that I've stopped hearing the phrase, "He gypped me." The phrase still slams an entire people, but nobody stopped to think of it that way.

For some, provocateurism is the only manner of communication they know. In this sense, we owe them pity; life is so much richer than that, and there's no reason to toss away our pleasures in order to accommodate their need for schoolyard fights.I can tolerate the occasional pun, look at Spyke for instance he can take a jab but for the most part he does add something substantive to a conversation. Stokes simply does not, and this is not something that a person in society should tolerate.Agreed. But there is a line between principle and practicality. Good, sharp, witty discussion is an art form, and we ought to consider what passes for art these days. The reality appears to be, though, that good, sharp, witty discussion is so rare that one can become totally isolated while waiting for or seeking out more appropriate intellectual stimulation.

What should be and what is are two different things, and while this isn't news, I'm still unsure from which direction to tackle the problem. Do we start with the large or the small? To start with the person, how to overcome the larger paradigmatic issues that override common sense? (How to convince a Republican, for instance, that certain socialist ideas will actually profit them directly, in order to create a more organized transition into the eventual communitarian necessity instead of stumbling blindly into faux-communism with a whipped frosting of denial?) To start with the paradigm, how does one overcome the vast diversity within a given paradigm that allows for constant denial of the paradigm by its adherents. (Try to argue "Christianity" with a "Christian"--I'm encouraged by a recent lack of hair-splitting along these lines, but many Christians simply back away from a challenging issue by noting the impropriety of the challenge. Yet how often do, say, Catholics and Seventh-Day Adventists square off and resolve once and for all whether or not the Pope is the Devil?)

This is the challenge. To lock out the shallow and undereducated merely locks them out; they still vote, they still reproduce, they still raise future generations of themselves for us and our children to cope with.It is one thing to do something stupid once and get warned and not do it again. This is a case of incessant, and obsessive attacks.Agreed and agreed. I will turn now, hopefully, to a closing point so I don't wind up droning on forever.- Why should I as a serious poster be subjected to this ad hom attacks for no verifiable reason.
- Do you honestly expect us as a mini-society to tolerate this?
- Where does it stop?
- Are we just supposed to accept this like lackeys?This is all part of my recent push for convention. Specifically:

(1) You shouldn't.
(2) While there are many words indicating collectives, society is not one of them. We have no rules of social order, we have no cooperative spirit. Aside from splitting that hair, I agree with you.
(3) When this community decides it should. (I know, this is an obscure response.)
(4) For the time being, yes. In part.

I recognize that the first issue is one that other people whom I disagree with can also voice. But in the context of this discussion, what is frustrating and useless to me is when people feel offended as such and cannot tell me why. They'll summarize--You said blah-blah-blah--but it's never quite clear what they're referring to if they don't quote it and lay it out. I understand that it's entirely possible for me to upset someone without trying, but if someone's going to come in just ripping holes in the Universe while refusing to make it at least somewhat clear why they're doing so, there's nothing anyone can do to help solve the issue. Right now, though, lacking any sense of conventional rules, the superficial whiners have a ten-mile clearance to sail their bitter fleet through.

Which is why I push for convention. We, the posters of Sciforums, can close a number of those gaps without tarnishing profitable discussion. In fact, the discussions would shine more brightly if we manage to address these issues. In the meantime, though, look around. There is always a posting corps willing to oppose anything just to maintain the chaos. And they're influential; they can argue with nothing but unsubstantiated attitude and they still carry influence with some readers.

So right now, we, the posters of Sciforums, apparently want the kind of two-bit fluff that trashes up so many topics. Until the community decides otherwise, there's not much the moderators can do aside from handle the overtly-inappropriate material.

So that, in the end, yes, we must accommodate the rude, childish, and downright stupid. They're part of our world, and we cannot ignore them altogether.

If people want to establish convention, and those rules are reasonable, then I'm perfectly willing to play ball. But barring those rules, we must reserve for ourselves the right to snap back when we feel it appropriate. And if the democratic spirit of Sciforums suggests anything at all, I would urge you to consider that we don't merely accommodate the lowest common denominator, but celebrate it here.

I guarantee you, Undecided--if you are to win out this ban discussion, the foundations will be laid to escort the most part of Sciforums' prolific posters--you and me included--out the door.

To the other, though--think first of "humanity." Despite our penchant for war, for greed, for hatred and lust, we hold up peace, sharing, compassion, and love as virtuous. Look at the criteria for the Iraqi Bush Adventure; at present, if we applied those criteria evenly, the UN should be occupying Florida, D.C., and New York at least. Now, I don't like the Bush junta, but no ... I refuse the Baby Blues at this point; I'd rather wait to call for them until we actually need them.

To scale it down a little: One of the shocking things I learned, entering adulthood, is that not only was "everything I was taught wrong," but deliberately so. To wit: U.S. tax money goes to PBS, whose shows include Clifford ("Clifford's big idea for today is ..." sharing, helping people, &c.) and Arthur ("Hey! What a wonderful kind of day for us to learn to work and play and get along with each other.") Children in Sunday school are taught to give and be compassionate and not hate or envy. Siblings are taught to share and "get along." But this is all for the convenience of the caretakers, apparently, as adulthood demands that you be willing to lie, cheat, and steal just to keep up.

To hopefully bring it to a relevant level: Whether it's me or you, Wesmorris, Spuriousmonkey, our old friend Brad Rules ... many people appeal to decency and indecency. Some seek conflict, some ignore what's already written, some don't understand why calling for genocide is considered a negative thing.

But in the end, it seems to come down to whether we wish to consider a person "stupid" (e.g. illiterate, uneducated, impulsive) or "stupid" (e.g. greedy, malicious, sinister). Pity is often considered an offensive notion, but whether it's Christ or conventional society, compassion is one of the things that makes our human endeavor move forward.

So go ahead and pity them. If that pity must become disgust--and often this is the case--bear in mind first that the boundaries of disgust are our own limitations drawn by our own wills, and then proceed with a response.

Remember that many people, in their disgust, will choose to invest that frustration in creating a straw man to tackle. This isn't even cheap sorcery, and though it often looks like laziness, we must at some point pause to consider that some folks may be simply unable to transcend the mire according to their present condition. A nation must raise itself to liberty, but that nation is composed of many individuals, and before one can be asked to transcend the shortcomings of their own existence, those shortcomings must be explained to them in a manner that doesn't threaten them at their very core.

Overcoming such a paranoia presents challenges. Had I a reasonable answer, I would offer it here, but obviously I'm no more successful in dealing with Antoinette cake philosophers than others around here.

There is a dichotomy between what people want and what they are. Most look right past the abyss; they take it for granted and call the scenery pleasant. If you're not happy in the sprawling shadows, light a fire. But then again, if you're not happy, remember that you're part of a ship of state and don't rock the boat ....

None of it makes being human any easier, and if we really want these folks to calm down and act like human beings, and not proudly proclaim their servitude to fate in the form of asserted natural law, the challenge may be to show people that there's nothing about being human that they should be afraid of.

As to that, I'll get back to you when I have a better idea of how to pull it off.

But it stops when people are smart enough to stop. When they know when to say when.

In the meantime, if they want to act like children, treat them like children. Just ... just remember to treat them as you wanted to be treated as a child, not the way people treated you just because they were the adult. ("Because I say so," just never sufficed for me, so why should it for anyone else?)

Take comfort in your wisdom. Don't let small minds draw narrow boundaries. Take insidious pleasure in the fact that someone so bent would be so obsessed with you. As long as you keep your balance and comfort around you, the answers will eventually present themselves; the only catch is that none of them are ever the specific answer you're looking or hoping for, but hey--humans adapt, right?

I hear you on this one. Had we some sense of convention upon which to base my judgment appropriately and fairly, and against which others might expect judgments to be based appropriately and fairly, I could easily support a call for sanctions in any number of cases, as I cannot imagine that certain people's actions would fall within our conventional boundaries. Lacking these, though, I can only offer my sympathies, my hopes, and my promise that I'll let you know if I ever figure out a viable answer to this or any other vital human mystery.

[Mr. Chips]

Seen the little turds Stokey's been laying around here and there the last couple of days? I think he believes the result of this thread is a ticket to ride. Ah, another forum bites the dust.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Aw nico, I'm flattered. <sniff>

What's a ban around here anyway? I could always re-register under a new name, post the same nonsense 10 times a day, and act like nobody knows who I am even though I haven't changed my lexicon one iota.

Wouldn't be the first time somebody did that....

[Lemming3k]

I quite agree, if it wasnt for that fact im sure certain people would have been banned already as part of a religious fight that seems to be taking place in sciforums, there are many anti religion posts, and if you class a religion as a race of people then the posts are racist.

[spuriousmonkey]

I quite agree, if it wasnt for that fact im sure certain people would have been banned already as part of a religious fight that seems to be taking place in sciforums, there are many anti religion posts, and if you class a religion as a race of people then the posts are racist.

Religion is not a race, otherwise idiot and moron would be a race too.

(I could say that there are no races, but that is not allowed)

[phlogistician]

if you class a religion as a race of people then the posts are racist.

Race and religions are not equivalent, unless religions are themselves racist and deny people of other ethnic backgrounds membership. Plus, race is a defnite, you can't deny it. Religion is just opinion.

[Mr. Chips]

Go ahead spuriousmonkey. I will back you up.

There was a Nova PBS TV show not too long past about how the practices of Judaism has made for a lineage of a priest-hood. Appears some factions of the Jews may have had a very small group of ancestors at one time and with close marriage to the main genetic material that has kept the strain discernible, but this is the closest I've ever come to knowing anything about a specific genetic commonality within a religion. There was another program that tied all of humanity to two common ancestors in Africa. No, we are one race so, Lemming3k's post becomes erroneous.

Now Stokey, He's stated why he feels there is no reason to obey any suggestions or restrictions on behavior here thusly, "What's a ban around here anyway? I could always re-register under a new name, post the same nonsense 10 times a day, and act like nobody knows who I am even though I haven't changed my lexicon one iota."

He doesn't care about anything any moderator or administration might suggest as policy. He even goes about taunting the situation while giving his reasons not to consider any of that binding on himself. So he is simply allowed to continue, no, there may have been a forum here at one time but I think it's quite possible it is a romper room for various degrees of ineptness and arrogance.

[Spyke]

Putting aside Chips rather obvious personal vendetta against Stokes, and his even more obvious displeasure that the voting is almost 70% against a ban, Stokes comment...

"What's a ban around here anyway? I could always re-register under a new name, post the same nonsense 10 times a day, and act like nobody knows who I am even though I haven't changed my lexicon one iota."

...for anyone who has been around here for a while, that was an obvious wink and a nod towards the modus operandi of at least one other poster.

[Undecided]

So you are saying he is ad homing in a banning thread about his ad homs? ;) :p :D

[Spyke]

I see this thread you created as simply an ad hom directed against one particular poster. :p So I suppose he should fight fire with fire. Yes? ;)

[DeeCee]

Ban Stokes?
He may be a pain in the arse sometimes but what the hell. If I was to vote for a ban on the basis of ad-homs then I be a turkey voting for christmas.
And as much as I hate to admit it, he has opened a door or two for me. **Spits**
Gotta go with the no.
Sorry nico

Dee Cee

[Mr. Chips]

Personal vendetta? Spykeeee, if there is a chance that I speak more to principle than person, then by all means, throw it all out with one fell excuse. Maybe that is easier than thinking.

If a poll in a forum is to be considered reflective of truth, it is but another piece of evidence that something is wrong. If it has any value at all it is to disclose and bring to moderators and administrators a possible message such as, perhaps, as much as half of those who would care to vote here are not happy with the subject under consideration, pretty high vote of nonconfidence as far as I can tell and it is not just of this one individual any more. Now we are reflecting on the ability of sciforums to be worthwhile as the subject has levied a direct threat against it that it couldn't stop his transgressions with no response. Opportunists take heed. Sciforums admin appears to take sides with the bullies.

What you are seeing here is a vote of confidence in this area where it may only attract a few who have experienced Stokes' general anti-communication stance and maybe more who cater to the opportunistic in general. The numbers of proponents who seem to agree with what is definitely a drastic idea, a banning of another individual, appears alarmingly high. Couple that to the let stand challenge of sciforums authority by Stokes and it appears obvious.

"Planet of the Apes," here we come!

though actually that is just fantasy. More like, why waste time here?

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Yes, Spyke, thank you for clarifying. As far as Mr. Chips goes, I'm suspicious that he's frustrated with me as a result of this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32882&page=1&pp=20). Draw your own conclusions if you're interested.

[Undecided]

I see this thread you created as simply an ad hom directed against one particular poster. :p So I suppose he should fight fire with fire. Yes? ;)

This is not a ad hom, because I did not attack the poster. What I did was show the ppl what the poster did. Where have I ad hom-ed the poster? Of course the purpose of the thread was to discuss Stokes but in no way was it an ad hom attack. Also I think he proved himself that he should be banned, he has ad hom-ed here. It's like the accused killing the prosecutor in court!

[Mr. Chips]

Hmmm, that is the thread where we have been in conversation more than anywhere else, Stokey. You don't need to tax your powers of reasoning to have such suspicions.

But it's all moot, this forum is showing its colors, its not worth the time of any one who wants to get some practical knowledge. Much more efficient means exist without the risk of being subject to this bogus field of dreams...

[Spyke]

Personal vendetta? Spykeeee, if there is a chance that I speak more to principle than person, then by all means, throw it all out with one fell excuse. Maybe that is easier than thinking.

Well, you do have no less than 9 posts already in this Ban Stokes thread. How many different ways do you need to get your point across? Looks personal to me.

Now we are reflecting on the ability of sciforums to be worthwhile as the subject has levied a direct threat against it that it couldn't stop his transgressions with no response.

Stokes simply pointed out that other banned posters have returned to the board as new life forms, which is the real irony of this particular thread.

Sciforums admin appears to take sides with the bullies

I'd say that the mods recognize thin skin for what it is.

[Undecided]

Well, you do have no less than 9 posts already in this Ban Stokes thread. How many different ways do you need to get your point across? Looks personal to me.

This has relevance to ad homs how Spyke? If I posted once or 3 million times it's irrelevant. This thread included no ad hom attacks (at least from me) against Stokes.

Stokes simply pointed out that other banned posters have returned to the board as new life forms, which is the real irony of this particular thread.

Which is an ad hom, he attacked posters credibility, without supporting evidence nothing.

[Mr. Chips]

I count six for you, Spyke. Careful, according to your statistics you are coming close to the point where we should just glibley ignore anything that may have any real weight to it that you might dump in here and chock it all up to a personality defect, a thin skin, an inability to face the truth, some generalized, me good, you bad grunting of some such scope.

Why is ad hominem behavior considered bad? Because it is a shut down of communication, a prejudging of the information based on the character of the proponents and antagonists rather than the merits of the data itself. There is a real polarization in society going on right now, those who believe in forcing decisions and those who seek the greatest mutual consent. I myself believe we will gain more with less risk of loss if we go the way of science.

Appears to be very little logic or reason to your vomiting in here Spyke.

Is what Stokes said true? Has it stuck for anyone? Are there prolific posters who have been banned from here who returned under an alias and are now prolific posters again with no change in their methods? I doubt it. Give me some evidence and I will be on my way quit quick and will further understand why obstinancy has become more pronounced within this forum than communication.

[Spyke]

Well, you do have no less than 9 posts already in this Ban Stokes thread. How many different ways do you need to get your point across? Looks personal to me.

This has relevance to ad homs how Spyke? If I posted once or 3 million times it's irrelevant. This thread included no ad hom attacks (at least from me) against Stokes.

Umm, look again. I wasn't talking to you there. But since you brought it up, I fail to see how Stokes noting that it is rather pointless to ban someone, if the poster can simply chameleon into another identity, is somehow an ad hom. You must be pretty certain that it was directed at you. ;) :p

Stokes simply pointed out that other banned posters have returned to the board as new life forms, which is the real irony of this particular thread.

Which is an ad hom, he attacked posters credibility, without supporting evidence nothing.

How did he attack credibility? And who's credibility was he attacking? Anybody in particular you have in mind?

[Undecided]

How did he attack credibility? And who's credibility was he attacking? Anybody in particular you have in mind?

A poster, who knows whom. You said it as such, and no doubt Stokes as surely done it. I didn't even realize it until you brought it up. So you explain to me, who is this person that Stokes and you speak of?

[Mr. Chips]

Spinning Spyke, your interpretation of what Stokes said IS ONLY THAT. You then go about repeating that spin and quoting yourself saying it so it is repeated again and as if from a third party. How pathetic. I hear tell the more you repeat something the more true it is. You seem to be of that school of purposeful miscommunication. Then again, if you truly believe that Stokes said that to mean what you claim ad nauseum, then you are stating he said something that is quite extreme and unfounded, so far, in probably most people's eyes, their experiences here. No, what he said interprets closer to a "Fuck you sciforums, Na Na Na Na Na."

If not I'm waiting to hear of at least one example of someone who was banned from sciforums, got another alias and then came back and continued with what they were doing with no repercussions. If it is true that this happens then, I can see why Spyke and Stokes are here because the real world has too many checks and balances. Here at sciforums the rules are more relaxed as to what is acceptable and what isn't including all of the dirty tricks of spin, lies, misinformation, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks and straw men parading (as well as presiding) over the whole affair. Sciforums is made to appear as a total joke and another common bad one at that.

[15ofthe19]

Posted by Mr. Chips and nico:

"MY PUSSY HURTS! WAHHHH, WAHHHH, WAHHHH, WAHHHH. BAN STOKEY DAMMIT. HE SCARES ME WITH HIS REASON AND LOGIC. WAHHHHHHHH

Posted by everyone else:

For god's sakes, grow a pair of balls. If you make an asshat argument, somebody is going to call you on it, and rightly so.

[Ozymandias]

So you explain to me, who is this person that Stokes and you speak of?
Haven't you given up? :rolleyes:

If you make an asshat argument...
What's an asshat? :confused:

[DeeCee]

What's an asshat?
It's a hat for your ass.
Dee Cee

[Spyke]

count six for you, Spyke. Careful, according to your statistics you are coming close to the point where we should just glibley ignore anything that may have any real weight to it that you might dump in here and chock it all up to a personality defect, a thin skin, an inability to face the truth, some generalized, me good, you bad grunting of some such scope.

Yes, and if it ever gets to the point where I'm about to run out of digits on my two hands on which to count the number of posts I've made in a single thread whining at the mods for not removing the guy that has annoyed me no end for punking me in a thread I like to consider myself an expert in, then somebody slap my ass and call me vain.

Why is ad hominem behavior considered bad? Because it is a shut down of communication, a prejudging of the information based on the character of the proponents and antagonists rather than the merits of the data itself. There is a real polarization in society going on right now, those who believe in forcing decisions and those who seek the greatest mutual consent. I myself believe we will gain more with less risk of loss if we go the way of science.

It's funny, as I look thorugh the thread in question between you and Stokes, and I read all of your complaining here about personal attacks and low quality of the board, when I read through that thread I can't help but notice that it is you that is throwing at least as much, if not more, trash than anyone else over there. All I see is you becoming increasingly annoyed as more and more people joined the thread and either agreed with Stokes' position, and/or disagreed with yours. Your vitriol got decidedly worse as the thread progressed. And if you really believed in all that you claimed here about quality and principle, at some point I would have expected you to try and maintain the high road, but I never saw that. I merely saw instead you eagerly get down in the mud and slinging it.

Appears to be very little logic or reason to your vomiting in here Spyke.

Further demonstrates my point.

Is what Stokes said true? Has it stuck for anyone? Are there prolific posters who have been banned from here who returned under an alias and are now prolific posters again with no change in their methods? I doubt it.

I'm not mentioning anyone by name, and it's not really important to me if you doubt it. But the way I understand it with most forums, mods can ban a username, meaning a poster can simply delete their cookie and reregister with a new name. I've seen users return to boards with new aliases on almost immediately on many occasions and even admit it. I think admins can permanently block an ip address, but for someone in secondary schools or universities with computer labs or banks, switching computers and reregistering is not a difficulty.

Give me some evidence and I will be on my way quit quick and will further understand why obstinancy has become more pronounced within this forum than communication.

You're not going anywhere and you know it. You like getting dirty as much as the next person.

Spinning Spyke, your interpretation of what Stokes said IS ONLY THAT.

Umm, uncover your eyes, chips. Stokes confirmed it himself.

You then go about repeating that spin and quoting yourself saying it so it is repeated again and as if from a third party. How pathetic.

And you can show me where I did so, I'm sure? No?

U I hear tell the more you repeat something the more true it is. You seem to be of that school of purposeful miscommunication.

I only have to look at the number of times you've repeated in this thread why Stokes should be banned to know that beating a dead horse won't make something come true.

Then again, if you truly believe that Stokes said that to mean what you claim ad nauseum, then you are stating he said something that is quite extreme and unfounded, so far, in probably most people's eyes, their experiences here. No, what he said interprets closer to a "Fuck you sciforums, Na Na Na Na Na."

Ad nauseum? I mentioned it 3 times, and the last 2 only because you and undecided questioned it. Ad nauseum would be more than 9 unprovoked calls for a certain poster to be banned simply because they've pissed me off in another thread.

If not I'm waiting to hear of at least one example of someone who was banned from sciforums, got another alias and then came back and continued with what they were doing with no repercussions.

I've not said that a banned poster came back and continued what they were doing to get themselves banned. I have no idea what the poster(s) did to get themselves banned in the first place, how exactly they crossed the line. I just know that it was stated that they had been banned. But when new posters appear on the board shortly after, with the same style of debate, using the exact same source sites, same mispellings of the same words, etc., it is rather obvious. But that isn't saying they crossed the same line again.

If it is true that this happens then, I can see why Spyke and Stokes are here because the real world has too many checks and balances.

This is simply an Internet forum. No more. No less. Don't try to make a forum, or your place in it, into something lofty. I come here simply to kill some time, because it is cheap entertainment, and debating here is fun. But I don't let what happens here either elevate or ruin my day. Obviously it is more personal to you, which in itself is rather sad.

Here at sciforums the rules are more relaxed as to what is acceptable and what isn't including all of the dirty tricks of spin, lies, misinformation, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks and straw men parading (as well as presiding) over the whole affair. Sciforums is made to appear as a total joke and another common bad one at that.

You can always start your own, you know, with your standards of what a proper forum should be. But I've seen those starched forums before. And they die from boredom.

[CounslerCoffee]

This has relevance to ad homs how Spyke? If I posted once or 3 million times it's irrelevant. This thread included no ad hom attacks (at least from me) against Stokes.

Do you really believe what you just said? Undecided, you are the king of ad hom attacks.

[CounslerCoffee]

Okay, let me restate what I just said:

I've had more PMs and complaints about Undecided then anyone on this board. I've not had one complaint in my time, as Mod of WE&P, concerning Stokes. Not one. But Undecided, you get at least two a week (And this is just me, Imagine what Goofy gets).

Truly, and honestly, Undecided, you are very rude. Your debating style is that of a sixth grader, crying about everything and attacking everyone around you. I'm surprised that this board hasn't had twenty "Ban Undecided" threads. But the fact that there are about three, should tell you something.

[Undecided]

You already told me and it's just as unconvincing now as it was before. I would ask you Mr. Coffee to show where I have ad hom-ed in this thread.

[shrubby pegasus]

i prolly disagree with stokes 99% of the time on these forums, but i dont really find banning as an issue. in general if i think someone is an idiot or is making an absurd argument i either ignore it totally or try to point what i see as absurd and then try to move on. insults on an anonymous board really dont get under my skin.

(im not implying that stokes arguments are absurd or that he is an idiot here, im just speaking generally. for the most part i think he makes sound arguments, we just have fundamentally different out looks on the world, so tend to oppose each other)

[CounslerCoffee]

Undecided, your very first post in this thread:

I think we who have dealt with Stokes are sick and tired of his extreme arrogance, and this inability to be a poster who adds’s value to a conversation. I think we all understand that he needs to get out because he is not going to change.

I have problem with this:

He has broken forum rules, he has disregarded mod., warnings, and my own, and he is by definition a troll. Do you think that someone who does that should be allowed to stay, or at least not be punished? I thought in a society no one was above the law correct? So what exactly makes this thread pointless?

You do not warn members, mods do. If Stokes doesn't like you, then that is your own fault. Plus, these boards are very lax. If we followed every rule here by the book, no one would be posting here. We'd be nazi mods! And, Undecided, I remember a while back you over-rode one of my edits. I said nothing because it's stupid and all you did was change a sentence, no big deal. But, looking back over-riding a mod edit is grounds for banning.

Like I said before, Undecided, the fact that so many people do not like you, might tell you something.

[Roman]

I am strongly in favor.
Vote yes!

[Bells]

Ooohhh...

This is a blast from the past..:bugeye:

And this is still makes me laugh.. even after all this time..

It's a hat for your ass.
Dee Cee

Hehehee

[vslayer]

lets ban roman for necromancy of a ban thread!!!!

[invert_nexus]

What's odd is that Undecided invited Stokes to the forum to begin with. Or perhaps it was Hypewaders? Pretty sure it was Undecided...
Maybe this thread was a bit of planned drama?