07 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyI think this is the best you are going to get. You have to step back and question the wisdom of bashing a nail like RJ with the sledge hammer of censorship. There will be collateral damage. Once we put the idea in a mod's head that a poster should be censored entirely because their point of view is too odd, then they will do it with others and the expression of interesting, but controversial, ideas could be squelched.
No offense meant -the script you have suggested and I have now installed is effective and is good (for me personally ) 🙂
I was not referring to effective alternatives for dealing with just my PERSONAL announce of trolling but rather effective alternatives to prevent the parental problem of trolling to ALL uses (so that means OTHER uses ) of the Science ...[text shortened]... ly but, the wider problem still remains. The proposals I made are mainly for OTHER uses, not me!
07 Nov 13
10 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think this is the best you are going to get. You have to step back and question the wisdom of bashing a nail like RJ with the sledge hammer of censorship. There will be collateral damage. Once we put the idea in a mod's head that a poster should be censored entirely because their point of view is too odd, then they will do it with others and the expression of interesting, but controversial, ideas could be squelched.
... because their point of view is too odd, ...
“too odd”? What on earth are you talking about? Being “odd” has nothing to do with it! Nor has "controversial ideas" (as you also said ) . TROLLING is everything to do with it! -and NOT being “odd”, whatever that is supposed to mean!
And RJ does NOT present "controversial ideas"! he just presents EXTREMELY STUPID moronic religious rhetoric like "Evilution is EVIL!". That "Evilution is EVIL!" is NOT really even a real "idea" let alone a scientific idea and let alone a "controversial idea" in science!!! -that is just a TOTALLY STUPID COMMENT! I don't know where the hell you got that "too odd" or "controversial ideas" from! I completely fail to see how on earth you equate the idea that someone who has NO interest in science and who trolls in the science forum should be stopped from trolling there equates with the nonsense idea of stopping anyone that suggests seeming “odd” should be stopped from posting there! -and it is clearly OBVIOUS that the mods will not equate the two either (unless they are all totally stupid! which they clearly are no! ) so any new rules to stop such trolling clearly would NOT put the idea into the mods to stop anyone posting anything that is “too odd”, whatever that is supposed to mean!
I personally don't have an issue with someone posting something "odd" -just trolling.
And my proposals would not involve ANY censorship (unlike what you said ) because, with my proposals, people can say EXACTLY the same things as they are ALLOWED to say NOW! The ONLY difference is that if it is just religious rhetoric like "Evilution is EVIL!" etc. they would have to take it to the "Science VS Religion" public forum (which I can then happily ignore ) . That is NOT "censorship" (as you said ) . That is just stopping trolling.
Originally posted by humyI think we should kick humy out of the Site Ideas forum. He is not interested in improving the site - he just wants to get his debate opponents from other forums banned!! 😲... because their point of view is too odd, ...
“too odd”? What on earth are you talking about? Being “odd” has nothing to do with it! Nor has "controversial ideas" (as you also said ) . TROLLING is everything to do with it! -and NOT being “odd”, whatever that is supposed to mean!
And RJ does NOT present "controversial ideas"! he just pre ...[text shortened]... hen happily ignore ) . That is NOT "censorship" (as you said ) . That is just stopping trolling.
I tried reasoning with him and it DID NOT work!
That's not suppressing or censoring him; that's just keeping trolls out of this forum.
08 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI am not angry with you but rather with your misunderstanding.
I think we should kick humy out of the Site Ideas forum. He is not interested in improving the site - he just wants to get his debate opponents from other forums banned!! 😲
I tried reasoning with him and it DID NOT work!
That's not suppressing or censoring him; that's just keeping trolls out of this forum.
I sincerely apologize for being so abrasive 🙂.
I will try not to let that happen again (And the script you suggested is good ) .
P.S. have you ever heard RJ apologize? -I hope you see what I am getting at (an 'apologetic troll'? ) .
08 Nov 13
Maybe it's time for a rational rethink of this problem.
RJH is clearly incapable of rational thought. Think of him as a mentally disabled teenager who wanders into a science lecture. You can call security to have him thrown out, but the freedom thing says he has a right to be there and to say his piece, however moronic it is.
If he can't be fixed, and he can't be removed, and he can't be silenced, it is up to the grownups in the forum to deal with him. The grownups who are capable of rational thought should be capable of ignoring his rantings. The GBaway script was invented with this person in mind, and use of it makes it much easier to tune him out.
I must admit I've fallen into the trap of arguing with him, ticking him off, and all the other processes by which we hope to keep the threads making some kind of sense, so I'm no better than he is. Here's my proposal: everyone who wants to read and post in the Science Forum should take a vow to (1) use the GBaway script (2) NEVER post a single word in any thread started by RJH (3) NEVER post a single word in response to any post (this one's inevitable if we all use the script, after all). Eventually, if he NEVER receives a response, he'll either give up or die of old age. I'd prefer that he gave up, of course.
08 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieI think am coming slowly around to your way of thinking here.
Maybe it's time for a rational rethink of this problem.
RJH is clearly incapable of rational thought. Think of him as a mentally disabled teenager who wanders into a science lecture. You can call security to have him thrown out, but the freedom thing says he has a right to be there and to say his piece, however moronic it is.
If he can't be fixed, and ...[text shortened]... ives a response, he'll either give up or die of old age. I'd prefer that he gave up, of course.
I must admit I've fallen into the trap of arguing with him,
I have been guilty of exactly the same thing I admit. When someone says such a load of falsehoods and nonsense, the temptation to put the record straight is so strong isn't it! Even when you know you really shouldn't respond!
Here's my proposal: everyone who wants to read and post in the Science Forum should take a vow to (1) use the GBaway script (2) NEVER post a single word in any thread started by RJH (3) NEVER post a single word in response to any post (this one's inevitable if we all use the script, after all). Eventually, if he NEVER receives a response, he'll either give up or die of old age. I'd prefer that he gave up, of course.
I agree with all of that. I for one make such a vow. I will see what little I can do to encourage others there to make the same vow.
08 Nov 13
3 edits
Originally posted by humyIt's OK - no hard feelings.
I am not angry with you but rather with your misunderstanding.
I sincerely apologize for being so abrasive 🙂.
I will try not to let that happen again (And the script you suggested is good ) .
P.S. have you ever heard RJ apologize? -I hope you see what I am getting at (an 'apologetic troll'? ) .
I am not sure if RJ is a troll or just someone who really thinks like that. I have known several people that think like him, and I believe them to be sincere. Usually a 'troll' only cares about the reaction and will say stuff they don't actually believe to get it. I think RJ, while enjoying pissing people off, actually does believe all that YEC crap.
Is it still a form of trolling if you post stuff you believe to get a reaction? Maybe. But even if it is, I am leery of kicking this kind of 'troll' out of a forum. I am argumentative myself, and I've been in some debates where it was basically me vs. everyone, and I wouldn't want people to get banned or kicked off a forum merely for holding a minority viewpoint.
However, I understand your frustration. Some people just cannot be reasoned with. They won't listen, no matter how brilliant your presentation may be.
08 Nov 13
10 edits
Originally posted by KewpieI tried to do a dubious consumer chemical thread in the science forum, this is important chemistry right under your nose, it gets into the papers every week, but it was like tumbleweed, it was just me driving it after a while, and I felt let down by other posters, not for 'conduct' or anything but for parroting scientific press but not wanting discuss where science meets everyday life, where its right in front of you.
Maybe it's time for a rational rethink of this problem.
RJH is clearly incapable of rational thought. Think of him as a mentally disabled teenager who wanders into a science lecture. You can call security to have him thrown out, but the freedom thing says he has a right to be there and to say his piece, however moronic it is.
If he can't be fixed, and ...[text shortened]... ives a response, he'll either give up or die of old age. I'd prefer that he gave up, of course.
The creationist are we monkeys are we human is as old as gods dog (to steal a quote from another user) its a good debate. The science forums are full of parrot posts where an article is published and there's very little discussion. Creationist threads erupt into discussions, arguments - just what you want in a forum, and they are approachable for those who take an interest but don't have a phd. So saying they should be ignored etc sorry more likely to ignore you, I don't like academic types trying to cut down such discussions. If they were really talking Phd science, if we non phds were interrupting their lecture maybe. But that doesn't happen much here . The new science gets posted as a link then the thread dies, so why reject a good discussion?
09 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
I tried to do a dubious consumer chemical thread in the science forum, this is important chemistry right under your nose, it gets into the papers every week, but it was like tumbleweed, it was just me driving it after a while, and I felt let down by other posters, not for 'conduct' or anything but for parroting scientific press but not wanting discuss where ...[text shortened]... e . The new science gets posted as a link then the thread dies, so why reject a good discussion?
Creationist threads erupt into discussions, arguments - just what you want in a forum
No, not in the science forum. They “erupt” into discussions about religion and generally, for religious reasons, just say science is wrong without offering any kind of scientific alternative hypotheses and often demonstrating through their posts they don't even understand the very science that they say is all wrong -that is not what we want in the science forum!
Can you give a single occasion of a post made by a creationist where he has given an alternative scientific alternative hypotheses to the one presented in the OP in the science forum? In all these years I have been going to the science forum, not ONCE have I ever seen this! (And note; Bible stories don't count as scientific hypothesis. Sorry, but that is just simply true, period! )
, so why reject a good discussion?
because usually it isn't really about science but rather it is really just about religion (often thinly disguised as being about 'science' ) when it is from a creationist and so is not a 'good' discussion to have in the science forum. Worse, it is often just moronic insults against science and atheists and other none-creationists such as “EVIL-lution is EVIL!” (I see those words often there. No prizes for guessing who that comes from! ) -how on earth can THAT be a “good discussion” to have in the science forum when, at best, it simply degrades the threads into a mudslinging match!?
09 Nov 13
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterThat is nothing compared to the opinionated religious nuts around here (well, at least in the Science forum ) that never come around to the way of thinking of people that have a different way of thinking from them!
Way too slowly. For a science oriented person you seem to take an extremely long time to observe the blatantly obvious.
Better late than never, right? 😉
24 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyWell, I'm of the opinion that RJH does indeed think the way he posts. His idea of God is so tiny and small that he refuses to believe hardly any science is real at all. This despite receiving an engineering degree (if he is to be believed). This kind of fundamentalist thinking is what is endangering the education of children in Texas because the public state school board members there think Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution; it's only the first step in getting Evolution removed from the science books. I've had many a forum battle with him over the idea that Science and Religion are two sides of the same coin, but the man is not to be convinced by reason. I'm sorry he's in the Science forum causing trouble for so many, mainly by just standing in the way of more productive conversation. I've advised him to stay out of it if his idea of God is so narrow that science does not have a place.
That is nothing compared to the opinionated religious nuts around here (well, at least in the Science forum ) that never come around to the way of thinking of people that have a different way of thinking from them!
Better late than never, right? 😉
The problem as I see it is that he really does think like he posts. He's not trolling, he does believe what he says. He simply needs to be convinced that his opinions are not welcome there, and the best way to do that is to ignore him.
I'd be careful though, of your labeling people as "opinionated religious nuts" who believe that Science has nothing to offer. Because there are just as many "opinionated atheist nuts" who believe that Religion has nothing to offer. You might even be one of them, I don't know. The problem that BOTH sides share is that they "never come around to the way of thinking of people that have a different way of thinking from them". Neither side can even contemplate the real truth that both sides are only half correct. Only those who can embrace both sides of this issue (science AND religion) are the ones capable of glimpsing the entire truth of the matter.
tl;dr : I agree that just ignoring him is probably the best option. He'll eventually go away, problem solved without the accompanying increase in blood pressure.