[IMPORTANT] Trolling and insulting users / Forum rules

For Thomas,

In my opinion, 25 years are not a long time for science. As an example, you could see the case of Ignace Sommelweis, a surgeon who discovered in 1845 that desinfecting the hands before doing a childbirth largely reduce the death of mothers (from 27 % to 0,23%). Even if this man saved so many lifes, nobody trusts him and he died 20 years later without recognition of his discoveries including desinfection and germs transportation.
I found this example particularly interesting because even if you save with evidence so many lifes, acceptation process can last for a very long period.
Einstein said also, people have to hit the reality before they accept.

Quote

In my opinion, 25 years are not a long time for science. As an example, you could see the case of Ignace Sommelweis, a surgeon who discovered in 1845 that desinfecting the hands before doing a childbirth largely reduce the death of mothers (from 27 % to 0,23%). Even if this man saved so many lifes, nobody trusts him and he died 20 years later without recognition of his discoveries including desinfection and germs transportation.
I found this example particularly interesting because even if you save with evidence so many lifes, acceptation process can last for a very long period.
Einstein said also, people have to hit the reality before they accept.

Many would argue that medicine at that time was not science, and did not have the tools we now expect that allow good ideas to be evaluated and spread.

In fact, some would argue that still medicine is not science, because the underlying mechanisms are too diverse and underdetermined to be well understood. Genetic mapping and modern developments in epigenetics are changing that but you can see why it was so difficult to apply scientific method in that area - even if it had been properly developed in 1845 which I think it was not.

Yes Thomas, I had not considered things with your vision. When I was doing experiments in fluid mechanics, sometimes, I obtained results I was not able to explain. Then, I tryed to ensure that these experimental results were as sure as possible. When they were sure, my job was trying to explain using existing physics or by creating new physics. I found the work of Sommelweis comparable.
Kind regards

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Many would argue that medicine at that time was not science, and did not have the tools we now expect that allow good ideas to be evaluated and spread.

I suspect history will look back at our thinking and make similar judgements. In fact if you allow for the progress of 'discovery' this is inevitable. The only question is how do we accommodate the future without professing dogma? it is already evident that 'troll like' criticism has lead to the premature death of some.

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille mentions Semmelweis as the hero of false anchoring in science.

Because of false anchoring, this video put forth a theory that the cosmic background is nonsense.

Trolling and insulting users.

So what does this forum think of them?

1. Should we do nothing?
2. Should they be tolerated and ignored?
3. Should they be advised and requested to make respectful contributions by the administrators?
3. Should they be banned?
4. If they should be banned, should this be incremental based on seriousness and repeated transgressions?

Best regards
Frank

So my view:

Insults demean the insulter but censoring them is more an evil than a good, because it can be difficult to define what is an insult, and what is fair comment.

Repeated flagrant insults or offensive language etc should result in banning, that gets rid of the "loathsome" end of the trolls that no site wants.

Tyy I agree was repetitive and did not contribute any argument - no loss though I feel is is being banned (if this is the case) for his views not his lack of content.

Banning should be clearly stated and publicly declared - this hidden banning of MY gives the wrong impression. I've argued elsewhere she should not be banned, but regardless of that the banning should be publicly declared both to avoid others thinking a lack of reply is intentional (fairness) and in order to make site rules more explicit and prevent future transgressions.

Banning is a blunt tool, and this site will lose credibility to the extent that it bans people who have the "wrong" views.

I would like to see banning be done in stages: first banishment, say a week, publicly announced with reasons. Second maybe a month again announced, and with cause.
After that a final banishment, announced and with cause.

Thomas, this site is about LENR (etc.) It is NOT about frauds. MY should create such a site.

If there was a club about making wine, and a temperance zealot constantly interrupted to tell how bad spirits were for health and society would they have to be wrong to be unwelcome?
If someone critiqued a method of making wine that didn't work, I'll bet that would be OK. Or even argued that a particular member made crappy wine.

Quote

Thomas, this site is about LENR (etc.) It is NOT about frauds. MY should create such a site.

I'm sure you realise I cannot let the logical lapse here pass.

It is possible that LENR companies (one or more) are fraudulent - they operate in a broad area (free energy) known for its high number of frauds. So unless the site restricts comments to academic stuff (fine by me) it must include possible frauds.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I'm sure you realise I cannot let the logical lapse here pass.

It is possible that LENR companies (one or more) are fraudulent - they operate in a broad area (free energy) known for its high number of frauds. So unless the site restricts comments to academic stuff (fine by me) it must include possible frauds.

Hedge funds are prone to ponzi schemes. These frauds destroy far more people that has LENR frauds. Just consider how much damage to people that Bernard Madoff caused. By your logic, fraud detection is the goal of this site rather than the advancement of LENR. Could it be that the strategy of the LENR enemy is destroy through massive distraction and disinformtion?

Quote

Hedge funds are prone to ponzi schemes. These frauds destroy far more people that has LENR frauds. Just consider how much damage to people that Bernard Madoff caused. By your logic, fraud detection is the goal of this site rather than the advancement of LENR. Could it be that the strategy of the LENR enemy is destroy through massive distraction and disinformtion?

If you will read above you will see that is not my logic, and it is false for you to say this. Perhaps you did not read the context carefully?

Gomp was arguing that LENR and fraud were mutually exclusive topics. I pointed out this was not the case.

I'm not saying the "goal" of a site such as this should be fraud detection, merely that the possibility of fraud exists and to ignore it is unwise.

Thomas, I'd say your logic was off. By and large all MY went on about was frauds. Fraud this, fraud that.

The Gomp - I agree, but that does not affect my logic. I was not saying that MY had a wide range of interests. Are you saying that every contributor here has to have the same range of interests taht the site has as a whole?

This site can have a broad range of interests but still be interested in MY's special focus on frauds. She has, for example, helped to expose Sniffex and thereby saved lives for real. Her views on some LENR companies tend to be extreme but they are (as many others here will agree) accompanied by often thought-provoking facts.

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Her views on some LENR companies tend to be extreme but they are (as many others here will agree) accompanied by often thought-provoking facts.

Her (MY) delivery is unacceptable to a reasonable person in my opinion and I have no doubt in Law.