To our Administrator James, and rpenner

[Yazata]

I've certainly been in my share of heated arguments with Paddoboy.

But having said that, I have to say that I kind of like him and hope that he sticks around. He's passionate and provocative and I enjoy arguing with him.

And I found many of his science news items were very interesting. I'll miss those too.

Hey Paddoboy: When you calm down and start missing this place, I hope you come back.

 

[Ophiolite]

Definitely Paddoboy's last post was unacceptable on any forum, just to be clear about that.

If - big if - everything paddoboy wrote in the OP had been wholly correct, would you still consider the post unacceptable? And if so, why?

 

[Seattle]

If - big if - everything paddoboy wrote in the OP had been wholly correct, would you still consider the post unacceptable? And if so, why?

Name calling.

 

[Ophiolite]

Name calling.

If the epithets had been rephrased? With no reference to the present targets, if someone is a liar I think you would find it acceptable to call them such. Your objection is to calling someone a damned liar, or a bloody liar, etc. Have I understood you correctly?

 

[The God]

If - big if - everything paddoboy wrote in the OP had been wholly correct, would you still consider the post unacceptable? And if so, why?

Who decides that it was wholly correct?

And bigger question, Does the accused/convict has the right to publicly abuse the judges?

And even if accused feels aggrieved and he attempts to approach the larger audience, should he use the expletives for judges?

To me it appears that you wish to support Paddoboy, I do not think he deserves any sympathy for the kind of abuses he throws and he has thrown in the OP. You seem to be a flaming kind of person, creating issues where none exists


I am not equating judges with moderators...but some sort of reference can be drawn.

 

[The God]

If - big if - everything paddoboy wrote in the OP had been wholly correct, would you still consider the post unacceptable? And if so, why?

Who decides that it was wholly correct?

And bigger question, Does the accused/convict has the right to publicly abuse the judges?

And even if accused feels aggrieved and he attempts to approach the larger audience, should he use the expletives for judges?

To me it appears that you wish to support Paddoboy, I do not think he deserves any sympathy for the kind of abuses he throws and he has thrown in the OP. You seem to be a flaming kind of person, creating issues where none exists


I am not equating judges with moderators...but some sort of reference can be drawn.

 

[Ophiolite]

Who decides that it was wholly correct?.

Whomever you wish. I simply stipulate that in this hypothetical scenario it is wholly correct. Do you find that problematic? If so, why?

And bigger question, Does the accused/convict has the right to publicly abuse the judges?

Clearly, in some circumstances, they have the opportunity.

Also, is a wholly correct statement of fact necessarily abuse? If I could prove that President Trump was a narcissistic liar would it be abusive to say so?

And even if accused feels aggrieved and he attempts to approach the larger audience, should he use the expletives for judges?

Expletives are a powerful linguistic device. If the accusations were wholly correct - the scenario I was dealing with - for what reason would you object to the use of rhetorical devices to make a point?

To me it appears that you wish to support Paddoboy,

I have very little responsibility for your perceptions. My intention was to better understand Seattle's objection to the OP.

I do not think he deserves any sympathy for the kind of abuses he throws and he has thrown in the OP.

I was, and remain, interested as to whether these should be considered abuses if the assertions are true. Do you believe that calling someone a scurrilous bastard is an abuse if they are a scurrilous bastard? If so, what is your rationale for that belief?

You seem to be a flaming kind of person, creating issues where none exists

What issue do you think I am creating here? I simply wished to find out, with more precision, what aspects of the OP Seattle found objectionable.

I am not equating judges with moderators...but some sort of reference can be drawn.

You appear to be.

 

[Seattle]

If the epithets had been rephrased? With no reference to the present targets, if someone is a liar I think you would find it acceptable to call them such. Your objection is to calling someone a damned liar, or a bloody liar, etc. Have I understood you correctly?

I don't think posting a public message with "gutless and pompous" in the title was called for.

 

[The God]

Whomever you wish. I simply stipulate that in this hypothetical scenario it is wholly correct. Do you find that problematic? If so, why?

Clearly, in some circumstances, they have the opportunity.

Also, is a wholly correct statement of fact necessarily abuse? If I could prove that President Trump was a narcissistic liar would it be abusive to say so?

Expletives are a powerful linguistic device. If the accusations were wholly correct - the scenario I was dealing with - for what reason would you object to the use of rhetorical devices to make a point?


I have very little responsibility for your perceptions. My intention was to better understand Seattle's objection to the OP.

I was, and remain, interested as to whether these should be considered abuses if the assertions are true. Do you believe that calling someone a scurrilous bastard is an abuse if they are a scurrilous bastard? If so, what is your rationale for that belief?

What issue do you think I am creating here? I simply wished to find out, with more precision, what aspects of the OP Seattle found objectionable.

You appear to be.

There is a hint of anarchy in your post. There are rules and there are procedures. The procedure is that a decision of moderator can be taken up through PM only, however aggrieved one may be. Here not only the poster confronted mod and superior mod actions publicly, but used unacceptable language too.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't think posting a public message with "gutless and pompous" in the title was called for.

As a generic situation I can see there could be times it is appropriate. You disagree. Fair enough.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is a hint of anarchy in your post.

I thought it was quite well organised. I think you may be investing too much effort in reading sub-text that is not present.

There are rules and there are procedures. The procedure is that a decision of moderator can be taken up through PM only, however aggrieved one may be. Here not only the poster confronted mod and superior mod actions publicly, but used unacceptable language too.

I wasn't discussing that. I was focused on ensuring a clear understanding of Seattle's views on the matter. Thanks to his responses I have been able to do so.

You of course are free to interpret rules and procedures as you wish and to form whatever opinions about those you choose to.

 

[The God]

Your pointed post and follow up post were quite clear and were kind of justifying pushing aggression and name calling to Mods, if one is aggrieved.

 

[DaveC426913]

Adjectives such as pompous, gutless (or narcissistic or scurrilous) are not objective; they cannot be proven to be true. They can serve no purpose but as a vehicle for emotional outlet.

Not that that's a problem, Paddoboy is certainly expressing frustration at several members; I'm simply addressing Ophie's query of whether the post can be objectively analyzed.

 

[rpenner]

Who decides that it was wholly correct?

Paddoboy would have the burden of supporting his own factual claims. In the opinion of James R, Bells, and myself he fell far short in many respects.

 

[rpenner]

Adjectives such as pompous, gutless (or narcissistic or scurrilous) are not objective; they cannot be proven to be true.

Also, on the Internet, hyperbole seems like the rule rather than the exception. Also, sometimes one has to consider the source:

Here is an official New York [Court] opinion on [Donald Trump], saying that DJT is not guilty of defamation since his critical messages are so habitually unreliable as fact, that no one should take them seriously:

Moreover, the immediate context of [DJT's] statements is the familiar back and forth between a political commentator and the subject of her criticism, and the larger context is the Republican presidential primary and Trump's regular use of Twitter to circulate his positions and skewer his opponents and others who criticize him, including journalists and media organizations whose coverage he finds objectionable. His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as "loser" or "total loser" or "totally biased loser," "dummy" or "dope" or "dumb," "zero/no credibility," "crazy" or "wacko," and "disaster," all deflecting serious consideration.
And yet, the context of a national presidential primary and a candidate's strategic and almost exclusive use of Twitter to advance his views arguably distinguish this case from those where heated rhetoric, with or without the use of social media, was held to constitute communications that cannot be taken seriously. These circumstances raise some concern that some may avoid liability by conveying positions in small Twitter parcels, as opposed to by doing so in a more formal and presumably actionable manner, bringing to mind the acknowledgment ofthe Court of Appeals that "[t]he publisher of a libel may not, of course, escape liability by veiling a calumny under artful or ambiguous phrases ...."

Source: Jacobus v Trump, 2017 NY Slip Op 30028(U) [*17-*18] (citations omitted)
Judge Barbara Jaffe in Cheryl Jacobus vs DJT et. al., New York Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 153252/16, January 9, 2017
pages 18-19 of http://cases.justia.com/new-york/other-courts/2017-2017-ny-slip-op-30028-u.pdf

That's a judge saying the then-president-elect was habitually full of it.

 

[The God]

Paddoboy would have the burden of supporting his own factual claims. In the opinion of James R, Bells, and myself he fell far short in many respects.

This was a pointer to Ophiolite...

 

[DaveC426913]

In my opinion, I suspect (with no evidence) that Paddoboy's frustration comes from a crushing disillusionment.

(Note: I am simply reporting what I have observed, and guessing at perceptions. I neither defend, nor cast fault, nor take any side.)


I observed Pad doing two things:

1] Suiting up to purge SciFo of what he saw as cranks, wooers and trolls. He felt that some members were hurting the quality of the forum, and took it upon himself to remedy the situation, ideally by driving them away.

2] Supplementing SciFo's science content with PlasmaInferno-type science content posts.


I think it's safe to say that Pad felt he was manifestly improving the quality of the site with these two personal initiatives, and that he thought he had the implicit backing and support of the forum officials.


When he ran afoul of the mods, he realized that he was not afforded special privileges to treat perceived cranks/trolls with less adherence to the rules than others (special privileges that he thought some officials *were* afforded). Where he was expecting praise, what he got was 'you are overstepping your bounds'.

I think his animosity is due to the disillusionment that he spent a lot of time doing what he thought would be appreciated, but in fact, was not asked for, and was not appreciated (by not only the officials, but by some of the plain ol' members as well).

That probably hurt him lot.


I have no business speaking for Paddoboy, nor have I ever had any discussion with him about it, I speak only from reading that which is available to all.
Nor do I have any judgement either way on the right or wrong of any of it. (If any of my words suggest I do, then I've expressed myself wrong.)

 

[Kittamaru]

Having had a limited conversation with him outside the public eye, I can say, Dave, that you are partially on-target. He was disillusioned with the apparent free-reign given to cranks and trolls and what he saw as an unequal application of the rules - in large part the rules regarding substantiating claims and providing compelling evidence. Case in point - we have certain members that will demand extraordinary evidence for even the smallest claim (and often then refused to acknowledge said evidence when it is provided), but when asked to present evidence for THEIR claims, will whine and moan and generally refuse to provide it (or, in even more aggravating cases, tell you to go find it yourself or demand you provide even more evidence for your counter claim instead of even attempting to support their claim).

This tactic is, in my humble opinion, in very poor taste and in violation of the rules governing standards of evidence, vexatious posting, trolling, and others...

 

[Ophiolite]

If it's not yours, then whose is it? And if it's not yours then it is unsurprising when generally solid members say "screw this for joke" and leave. And that is certainly my business as a member of this forum.

 

[Schmelzer]

Of course, paddoboy had weak points, he liked to argue ad hominem a lot, and clearly simply because he, as a layman, was unable to argue about the scientific content.

Nonetheless, he posted from time to time quite interesting links to some articles. So, for the forum this will be a sort of loss. Maybe the standards of discussion in the scientific parts of the forum will increase, with more discussion about content and less ad hominem. But, on the other hand, there will be much less traffic.