Lunatic Fringe taking over?

[Stryder]

Online forums merge cranks, con-person's and people with psychological disorders with "normal" people. On these forums there are a lot of people with "crankish" views either because they are deluded or because they are pulling a troll-like con, however there is also people that appear to suffer from Bipolar disorder in regards to how they go about dealing with such behaviour, so you end up with trolling occurring from both "Camps". (Incidentally neither camp are necessarily correct, since pure science is the basis that Empirical Evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't need one or other camp to be righteous.)

 

[exchemist]

Online forums merge cranks, con-person's and people with psychological disorders with "normal" people. On these forums there are a lot of people with "crankish" views either because they are deluded or because they are pulling a troll-like con, however there is also people that appear to suffer from Bipolar disorder in regards to how they go about dealing with such behaviour, so you end up with trolling occurring from both "Camps". (Incidentally neither camp are necessarily correct, since pure science is the basis that Empirical Evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't need one or other camp to be righteous.)

Fair observations and I'm all for tolerating people who have one or two eccentric views, provide they respond constructively to arguments made by people they debate with. It is those who fail to engage in this and just carry on reiterating previous positions, or those who are too incoherent to follow at all, that I object to. The worst are those who appear to be deliberately obtuse, for the sake of causing annoyance. Of course it's a judgement as to who is doing this, but GaiaGirl was one for sure. And there are some others.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@ - Stryder,
@ - exchemist,

Grok'd!

 

[Aqueous Id]

May I ask, Aqueous Id, if "one of the tenets of crankdom: disparagement of the innocent" -- may be preceded by or prefaced by this "praise" you speak of?

Yes you may.

May I also ask how you are so aware of these "tenets of crankdom"?

Yes you may.

Do you you have any Links to these "tenets of crankdom", or any other evidence to support your assertions?

You forget to say "may I".


Not sure what has your shorts wrapped around the axle. Welcome to the thread on lunatic posters. Enjoy the irony.

 

[Trippy]

John Baez Crackpot Index

 

[paddoboy]

Online forums merge cranks, con-person's and people with psychological disorders with "normal" people. On these forums there are a lot of people with "crankish" views either because they are deluded or because they are pulling a troll-like con, however there is also people that appear to suffer from Bipolar disorder in regards to how they go about dealing with such behaviour, so you end up with trolling occurring from both "Camps". (Incidentally neither camp are necessarily correct, since pure science is the basis that Empirical Evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't need one or other camp to be righteous.)

Considering this is in the main, and primarily a science forum, I put it to you that the mainstream camp, have every right to be righteous.
It is in actual fact only out of the goodness of the administrators heart, that we have outlets for pseudo rubbish, conspiracy pushers and such.

If I go into a YEC church service next Sunday and start on about the BB, I will expect that I am not going to be welcome.

I see "Alternative Theories" as necessary, although additional rules need apply and which I have mentioned before.

 

[paddoboy]

Sadly only temporary, however, if people continue reporting posts as they come across them...

We have an Alternative theory now being proposed in the Physics and Maths section, in the " Possibility of star formation around black holes" thread.
No I have not reported it, but you can take this if you like as that report.

 

[Trippy]

Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[Trapped]

Very pleased to note roscoe's departure. Well merited and a good call by whichever mod was responsible. One or two more need excretion I think to raise the tone. But give it time…...

What a negative horrible response.

Why do you take pleasure in other peoples misfortunes? If it satisfies you so much, find a corner in which you can gloat in. Not in public, because it is beyond ugly.

 

[Trippy]

We have an Alternative theory now being proposed in the Physics and Maths section, in the " Possibility of star formation around black holes" thread.
No I have not reported it, but you can take this if you like as that report.

Sadly, I (currently) have no jurisdiction in Physics & Math.

You'd need to raise it with Stryder, Tiassa, or James R to get it moved to the alternative theories section.

 

[paddoboy]

What a negative horrible response.

Why do you take pleasure in other peoples misfortunes? If it satisfies you so much, find a corner in which you can gloat in. Not in public, because it is beyond ugly.

Check out his first post a week or so ago, in the 9/11 conspiracy thread......You'll find it is roscoe who is gloating about his suspensions from other forums......

 

[Trapped]

Check out his first post a week or so ago, in the 9/11 conspiracy thread......You'll find it is roscoe who is gloating about his suspensions from other forums......

I have...




.... absolutely no reservations about who qualifies in this case. The fact such a thing is gloated about, is sad regardless. What kind of mind, does it take for someone to openly talk about someone who is banned, knowing fine well they have not a word back to say?

Coward comes to mind.

 

[Trapped]

Online forums merge cranks, con-person's and people with psychological disorders with "normal" people. On these forums there are a lot of people with "crankish" views either because they are deluded or because they are pulling a troll-like con, however there is also people that appear to suffer from Bipolar disorder in regards to how they go about dealing with such behaviour, so you end up with trolling occurring from both "Camps". (Incidentally neither camp are necessarily correct, since pure science is the basis that Empirical Evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't need one or other camp to be righteous.)

The ego here... is amazing.




...Stryder, do you actually have a PhD in psychology?

 

[Trippy]

I have...




.... absolutely no reservations about who qualifies in this case. The fact such a thing is gloated about, is sad regardless. What kind of mind, does it take for someone to openly talk about someone who is banned, knowing fine well they have not a word back to say?

Coward comes to mind.

At this stage that Roscoe hasn't replied is, as far as I know, hiw own choice.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and indulge in a little fact checking before indulging in invective rhetoric.

 

[Trapped]

At this stage that Roscoe hasn't replied is, as far as I know, hiw own choice.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and indulge in a little fact checking before indulging in invective rhetoric.

Probably not wise to take the moral high ground.


the one who casts the first stone and all...

 

[billvon]

Why do you take pleasure in other peoples misfortunes?

I take no pleasure in his departure; it's of no real consequence. I do take a small amount of pleasure that other people here will be able to read more about science and less about crackpot conspiracy theories.

What kind of mind, does it take for someone to openly talk about someone who is banned, knowing fine well they have not a word back to say? Coward comes to mind.

What kind of mind doesn't have the cojones to call people cowards in person, so instead calls them cowards on the Internet?

A hypocrite.

 

[Trapped]

What kind of mind doesn't have the cojones to call people cowards in person, so instead calls them cowards on the Internet?

A hypocrite.

What is cojones?

Conjoins maybe? I have no idea, either way, the mind set is sick and you think other people have the mental issues? It's sad that stryder can even get away with calling people... ''mentally sick'' without any reference to their realities, it's even sadder to see you all join in on it, like the lives of anyone else is something for you to laugh about.

 

[Trippy]

Probably not wise to take the moral high ground.

Hmmm?

So let's examine the facts shall we?

Very pleased to note roscoe's departure. Well merited and a good call by whichever mod was responsible. One or two more need excretion I think to raise the tone. But give it time…...

Sadly only temporary, however, if people continue reporting posts as they come across them...

So... The ban was temporary, however, this:

What kind of mind, does it take for someone to openly talk about someone who is banned, knowing fine well they have not a word back to say?

Implies the expectation that he was permanently banned, which simply isn't true. It's implied because only someone who is permanently banned is in the position of "hav[ing] not a word back to say". Someone who has been temporarly banned has the option of replying to this thread, or, having something to say.

This:

Shows us that Roscoe is no longer on the ban list. So, Roscoe was temporarily banned, the temporary ban was not made permanent, and so there is currently no forum generated impediment to his return to post on this forum or in reply to this thread.

So that confirms the first part of my post:

At this stage that Roscoe hasn't replied is, as far as I know, hiw own choice.

I don't know if some real world issue, or time zone related issue has prevented Roscoe from posting, the ban had expire by the time I made the post, this has not changed, therefore the statement is correct.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and indulge in a little fact checking before indulging in invective rhetoric.

I've detailed the evidence supporting the hypothesis that you failed to check your facts, do I need to fo into the detail on how comments such as these:

The ego here... is amazing.

I have... ... absolutely no reservations about who qualifies in this case. The fact such a thing is gloated about, is sad regardless. What kind of mind, does it take for someone to openly talk about someone who is banned, knowing fine well they have not a word back to say?

Constitute "Insulting, abusive, or highly critical language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable", IE, Invective Rhetoric.

Are you saying you aren't being highly critical, even insulting, of Stryder and Exchemist? Are you not trying to communicate or persuade us of something?

 

[Read-Only]

Hmmm?

So let's examine the facts shall we?



So... The ban was temporary, however, this:

Implies the expectation that he was permanently banned, which simply isn't true. It's implied because only someone who is permanently banned is in the position of "hav[ing] not a word back to say". Someone who has been temporarly banned has the option of replying to this thread, or, having something to say.

This:

Shows us that Roscoe is no longer on the ban list. So, Roscoe was temporarily banned, the temporary ban was not made permanent, and so there is currently no forum generated impediment to his return to post on this forum or in reply to this thread.

So that confirms the first part of my post:


I don't know if some real world issue, or time zone related issue has prevented Roscoe from posting, the ban had expire by the time I made the post, this has not changed, therefore the statement is correct.


I've detailed the evidence supporting the hypothesis that you failed to check your facts, do I need to fo into the detail on how comments such as these:




Constitute "Insulting, abusive, or highly critical language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable", IE, Invective Rhetoric.

Are you saying you aren't being highly critical, even insulting, of Stryder and Exchemist? Are you not trying to communicate or persuade us of something?

In addition to Trapped *very* smug self-righteous attitude, it's doubtful he's ever put ANY effort into finding how this site works - like looking at the ban list. Maybe he should be put on it for a couple of days, Hmmm?

 

[Aqueous Id]

What is cojones?

Seriously: you've never heard that term?

Conjoins maybe? I have no idea, either way, the mind set is sick and you think other people have the mental issues?

The mindset that speaks of people lacking the strength of character to confront issues directly rather than the cowardly act of sniping on the Web? I thought you had no idea what cojones meant.

It's sad that stryder can even get away with calling people... ''mentally sick'' without any reference to their realities,

He pretty well laid the groundwork that some trolls are actual mental cases. He's certainly put up with his share of them to speak with authority on that.

it's even sadder to see you all join in on it,

You're disheartened by the good posters reacting to a change in the trolling behavior here?

like the lives of anyone else is something for you to laugh about.

Who is laughing? And their lives are not the issue, just their willful intent to act badly. You seem to be raising the insanity defense in behalf of the perps.