Leopold's ban by Trippy

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Varda, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Lets ask about this here, before Gustav pops an aneurism.

    And lets try to avoid the very unproductive discussion of how Leopold phrased his inquiry. It's a waste of time.

    In response to my question:

    In other words, you told me that there isn't a specific bannable infraction to the site rules involved. You banned him because you lost your patience.

    Do we want mods losing their patience and banning people?
    Couldn't this be better approached by trippy taking a coffee break?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Actually, I'm fairly sure this is the first time you've directly asked me where.

    The penultimate post in the thread (that means second to last) of which I had this to say:
    "And on that concisely worded summary - thread closed."

    In that thread, you (or appeared to) advocated the position that the American Government has some form of advanced weather control, above and beyond primative techniques such as cloud seeding, but is concealing it and using it as a weapon.

    You advocated the position that because the astronaut in the video was an astronaut, he clearly had some kind of inside knowledge as to the existence of (advanced) weather control, why else would he make these statements. You offere this in proof of the first position you advocated.

    I queried whether or not you were familiar with the individual astronauts credentials, and you replied that you weren't and asked me what the credentials of astronauts were.

    This alone is sufficient to prove intellectual dishonesty according to one of the definitions in the link you provided us with.

    IE: the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position.

    You advocated the position that the astronaut was in a position to know if the US Government had some form of advanced weather control or not, but you, by your own ommission did not know that to be true, and had not performed anything approaching rigorous due dilligence to ensure the truthfulness of your position - if you had, you would have discovered (seriously, it took less then ten minutes with wikipedia) that none of the astronauts involved in the skylab program had any expertise in meteorology, and only one of the astronauts involved in the program actually had anything to do with atmospheric research (but in a field that is typically associated with earthquake manipulation).

    However, your opening point hinged on this second point, and so also meets the definition of intellectual dishonesty above - you advocated a position that you do not, and by your own admission can not know to be true, and did not do any thing that approached rigorous due dilligence.

    Therefore, your OP meets the criteria of intellectual dishonesty, for which it was infracted, and you were banned.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No, in other words there was a single, specific infraction, however the evidence illustrating it requires consideration of multiple posts.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member


    Is that the yardstick that all posts should be measured by for "intellectual dishonesty"?

    the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position.

    Consider this recent statement by James R:

    Which I pointed out to him was false.

    Which he conceeded.

    But based on the Definition used for Intellectual Dishonesty, he should be banned because he did not know it was true and for a lack of "rigorous due diligence".

    Trippy, I think that's a bar set way too high for a DISCUSSION forum.

    While I agree with you that Leo is wrong about the nature of any weather modification, I don't think that he was being dishonest as much as he was mistaken about our abilities.

  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i don't see where i said the US government, or any other government, had advanced weather control capabilities
    i don't see how you got this except by my following quote:
    the military would love to get their hands around something like this.

    no trippy, i used the astronaut because they are intelligent and highly trained.
    you can't easily call these types morons, stupid, drug addicts, or a host of other ad homs.
    the only proof i offered was an astronaut making a statement and a link to the research the US authorized for this endevour.
    are you now calling the astronaut a liar?
    the research the US is funding is a reality trippy
    how in the fucking hell did you get "advanced weather control" from what the astronaut said?
    except of course the the video i offered along with the research the US is funding, no i didn't offer anything.
    the truthfulness of my position?
    it was a statement made by an astronaut, i am not in a position to call them liars.
    so, i guess we can now add the rule that statements made by astronauts in and of themselves will not be tolerated.

    it's all good, surely sciforums won't have to put up with this type of horseshit forever.
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Including in a science subforum?

    Remember, that's where the conversation started, the Earth Science subforum.
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you reckon?
    now, you want to talk intellectual dishonesty?
    how in the hell can you KNOW the US or some other entity DOESN'T have this capability?
    don't forget, people have been actively pursuing weather modification/control FOR DECADES.
    to claim they haven't made any progress is ridiculous.
    the only mistake i made was uncovering an issue of "science" and everybody has their panties all up the crack of their ass about it.
    i will bet a million to one that shortly after the "incident" my name was right at the very top of the "soon to be permabanned" list.
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    And this is why I was disinterested in getting into this with you.

    This is the sort of thing that I was referring to when I moved the thread out of Earth Science in the first place.

    It's also implicit - it's implicit in your assertion that the US government is keeping it a secret. We know about cloud seeding, and things like that, therefore if you're talking about something that the US government is keeping a secret, you must be talking about some advanced technology.

    They're also not trained in meterology.

    Yes, things like cloud seeding

    No, I'm calling you a liar.

    I don't doubt that it is.

    Not from what the astronaut said, from what you said.

    You didn't offer the video, I did. The first time I pointed this out to you, you stated that you didn't know that you had to.

    Your representation of what the astronaut has to say, and your exaggeration of his authority on the subject are the lies.

    Once again, I'm not calling the astronaut a liar, I'm calling you one - if you want to use that language.

    You do know what the sci in nsciforums is an abbreviation for, right?
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, correct.
    you moved it to the cesspool.
    THEN you gave the infractions and the ban.
    to claim the thread was in the science forums when the infractions/ ban occurred is a lie.
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I also feel compelled to point out that the infraction was for Trolling/ Meaningless Post content, and I'm fairly sure that the text of the ban was Intellectual Dishonesty (among other things).
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    However, the post that I infracted you for was made in Earthscience, which is the only claim I actually made - that the conversation started in Earth Science.
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you actually made?
    you were just up there assuming all kinds of crap, inferring this and that about my posts.
    care to spread a little of this "i actually made" stuff around?
    oh yeah, that's right, leo needs to have his wings clipped a little so like all good scientists we'll fudge the data a little.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    You made this post:
    In response to this post:
    This statement:
    "to claim the thread was in the science forums when the infractions/ ban occurred is a lie."
    Made by you, suggests that I claimed that the ban and infraction occured in the Earth Science subforum. I did not make that claim. I only claimed that the conversation started in the Earth Science subforum.

    Do you disagree with the claim that the conversation started in the earth science forum?

    This is precisely why I was initially reluctant to get involved in this discussion with you in the first place. It has degenerated in precisely the way I expected it to, based on my experience with you in the chemistry forum when I questioned the legality of some of your statements, and in the Earth Science subforum when it was suggested you were behaving like a creationist troll.
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I suppose the other point that needs to be made, at least from my perspective is that I don't neccessarilly expect rigorous due diligence, in fact, in most cases any level of due diligence would be a welcome change.

    But there in lies the thing for me, there is no evidence of any diligence, period (at least not to me anyway). No evidence of even modest facts checking, or background checking - I mean, I spent 5 minutes with wikipedia and was able to trackd own the backgrounds of all 9 astronauts involved with skylab. It took me longer to type that response then it did to research it.

    Extraordinary claims, which his assertions qualify as, require extraordinary proof, and he didn't even provide questionable proof.
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    my post and the thread it was in has been linked to.
    trippys reason for the ban has been posted here in this thread.
    anyone with a brain will instantly see how my post has been twisted to mean whatever satisfied trippys reasoning.

    advanced weather control my ass, i never even hinted at such a thing.

    actually for the record the thread was started to show weather control IS NOT the hoax some, (trippy maybe?), would like you to believe.
    as far as the astronaut not being a "meterologist", i guarantee you that astronaut knows the difference between a nimbus and a cumulus cloud cover.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This and That

    And that is sufficient.

    But I would beg you to consider that at present, the mere repetition of that point here requires people to actually go look up that penultimate post. Even if you gave them a link right there, they would still have to click on it.

    Oh, wait. You have considered that the mere repetition of the point here is insufficient, and spent a few words of your own trying to make it clear. If you would accept some unsolicited advice, I would suggest that the easier thing, in this sort of policy discussion, is to save yourself the words and leave them to question the explicit expression.

    That is, not only have you pointed to the penultimate post, but in this case it is short enough to go ahead and reproduce here:

    "By attempting to claim that there is technology in place that can affect the weather (outside of simple cloud seeding etc.), you are in fact, refuting the current scientific stance on the subject. For example; if I suggest that time travel is possible and being exercised currently, I am refuting the current stand point in the scientific community which states it isn't.

    "The sinister aspect to your posts is that you are not forthright in the origin of your claims. Having a general contempt for the status quo is one thing, but when you go out of your way to suggest that the general establishment is in league to conspire against the civilians, it is, sinister.

    "Being dishonest is applying one system of logic to select variables in this instance."

    (Ellis, #2802657/20)

    That way they can question the actual standard instead of a distillation, evolution, or watering down, one of which inevitably happens with summaries that are necessarily longer than the original.

    Or so says my two cents.

    • • •​

    No. It is a yardstick by which all posts can be measured.

    This is one of those things where you'll have to go straight to the administration, perhaps Plazma Inferno himself.

    The rest of the staff has two choices, either to support James R, or make no comment.

    This, of course, creates a blatant appearance of unreliability about any answers the staff might offer.

    On the basis of that blatant appearance of unreliability, then, I can offer you no specific consideration of James R's statements.

    Inquire directly with Plazma Inferno. That is the only advice I can give you regarding the possibility of ever getting an applicable answer to your comparative inquiry.
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    well, i don't know whether to be honored or not.

    trippy and tiassa are apparently seeing something i am blind to.
    i cannot see how i am being dishonest here.
    i created the thread because i was watching this video while crunching my corn flakes.
    all of a sudden i hear the words "first steps to weather control".
    like everyone else i thought "weather control" was, well, maybe possible.
    i've heard of such things as HAARP and it sounds at least reasonable they could heat the atomosphere, but you just don't know right?
    okay, i post what i heard (video title ) with he intention of expressing this "hoax" might not be a hoax at all and i also provided a link to US weather control research enactment.

    i made a post that pointed to the possibility not the actuality.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I wouldn't worry about it

    I wouldn't worry about it.

    To the one, yes, I'm aware of HAARP and its alleged potential, but like any number of fascinating potentials that may well be real, I cannot offer you affirmative proof. Certes, we can draw certain implications that make something like HAARP a possibility in this aspect. To wit, one of the implications I heard was that it could build an electrical charge in a given geographical region and then disperse it as an EMP, essentially an offensive weapon. Naturally, this risks exploding people's pacemakers. Well, not really, but you can see how it could be catastrophic. Still, in Bosnia, NATO took out some power stations, and there were whispers about HAARP until, for some reason, the generals admitted to using some sort of material dispersement to take down the power grid, which in itself seems a dangerous tiptoe along the human rights line. I'm quite certain we've agreed to not do that sort of thing.

    So of course one could ask, "Why would they boast of a war crime?" And certes, an answer could be that they used HAARP.

    But I couldn't offer you a shred of objective, affirmative proof.

    Neither scrap nor whit.

    I would also note that the topic post was exceptionally low-effort. We used to strike those as a kind of spam, though not one we banned people for. It just seemed intellectually lazy to present some tidbit and tell people to discuss it.

    In stoner circles, sure, that sort of thing flies. But no matter how many of us torch, it shouldn't fly here. The rule isn't generally enforced as a democratic-anarchic result. We don't want to ban people for this, as they seem to insist. But we don't look well upon that sort of presentation. If, as in this case, there are additional complications to consider, that sort of topic post tends to count against a member.

    These are often compelling, even entertaining theories. If they end up in Pseudoscience, so what? But if you take the time to explain your outlook, you can cover yourself against the uncertainties. It's easy enough, I promise.

    I saw a Chaco Canyon consipracy enterprise a few years ago. It was intricate, and absolutely cool. Would have made a good movie, the three-hour kind. But there was nothing to it. Still, I should have made some noise about it because it has since disappeared. At least, I never found it again. It's kind of sad. I liked that one.

    But these things can be discussed in their proper context. It just demands that we accept their proper context. Sciforums was once Exosci, something that tried to tread the boundaries 'twixt the scientific and the imaginative. The only thing we ask is that people put some scholarly effort into it.

    I know, I know. That scholarly effort isn't particularly apparent in Politics or Religion, but for heaven's sake, Earth Science?

    C'mon, man. You know you have a history that includes turbulence. You know there is a difference between worthwhile and stupid. You've been around long enough to know we go through this cyclically, coming back to rip on low-effort bullshit. If this is a useful conspiracy theory, please take the time to enjoy it. There are so few pieces of affirmative evidence for the most compelling conspiracy theories; that's what makes them fun. They're puzzles. Can someone find or develop some sort of objective conclusion? Is that even possible? These sorts of things are best enjoyed like video games. They're best enjoyed when one is wholly immersed. And giving low-effort bunko just doesn't cut it.

    You know how it goes, man. You've been around; there's no point in pretending this is unusual.
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yeah, i can be adamant.
    well, yeah, i guess. i know what is worthwhile and stupid for me.
    i have no idea what you or anyone else considers worthwhile and/or stupid.
    it would be totally stupid of me to embark on a mission to land a man on the moon.
    yeah. the annual spring cleaning, more often under dusty conditions.
    i never thought of conspiracy, more along the lines of this isn't the hoax people believe it is. weather modification is a reality. weather control is being funded by the US government. it's foolish to think we, or someone else, hasn't made any progress in this area.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Progress has been made, it's just not neccessarily the progress people were expecting.

Share This Page