Proposal ban Stokes Pennwalt.

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Undecided, Mar 11, 2004.

?

Ban Stokes Pennwalt for his use of ad hom attacks against me and other posters.

  1. Yes

    16 vote(s)
    34.0%
  2. No

    31 vote(s)
    66.0%
  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    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:

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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2004
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    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:

    .

    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.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Toughen up, nico.
     
  8. Rappaccini Redoubtable Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,192
    Yeah, seriously, man.
     
  9. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    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.
     
  10. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    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.
     
  11. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    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.
     
  12. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    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.
     
  13. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    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.
     
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    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?

    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

    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.
     
  15. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    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.
     
  16. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    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.
     
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    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.
     
  18. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    Well, here's one option.

    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.
     
  19. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    This is from the official rule book from WE&P:

    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.
     
  20. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    Not exactly. Unless his words physically harm you that example of yours is moot.
     
  21. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    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.
     
  22. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    My opinion is that this is a pointless thread.
    Hey, Undecided, are you actually nico or not? I want to know for sure.
     
  23. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    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?
     

Share This Page