If MY were acting exactly the same, but from a believer's perspective, he would not have been banned. Apparently there are plenty of "pathoskeptics" but not a single "pathobeliever"...
Censorship, FOIA, and Mary Yugo
-
-
Pierre
Can you give us examples that support your claim?
Best regards
Frank -
there is an interesting article in french about Forum/Blog moderation in Liberal ideology valuaing Free Speech.
Conclusion is that moderation is acceptable, provided there is place, somewhere else, where speech is free.
https://www.contrepoints.org/2…tion-est-elle-une-censureQuote
Comment moderation on private sites is not censorship: censorship prohibits an opinion in any place, while moderation does preclude only on its territory.Reading ECN site is very interesting.
Some comments are ironically very interesting as they perfectly applies to true nay-believers.
Those comments also are to be kept for later as evidence of how a community of very competent people can fall into denial of reality, spreading metadisinformation (saying other are disinforming, to defend its disinformation).
Anyway if something real develop in the skeptic sphere it will be there, not here where it is constantly under fire.
Similarly if scientist and experimented are constantly shelled by skeptics , they cannot develop rationally skeptical discourse on their own experiments, but start to circle the wagon, like it happened in some scientific domain with terrible results. one of this domain being nuclear physics with Cold Fusion, after continuous attack by perpetuum mobile crackpots and free energy fan.Ideas like species need some time on a quiet island to evolve , before facing carnivorous attack.
-
Thomas
This is my solution:
Everyone and I mean 'everyone' who indulges in defamation, vilification or slander of any kind should be censured regardless of the quality of their contribution, bad behaviour is not an option.
After a period of censure, the transgressor should be given an opportunity to re-join the forum when reasonable standards of behaviour will be expected. Should it transpire these standards are infringed once again further punitive action should be taken.
The standard expected should be that expected in law i.e.
The law, defamation, vilification, slander, or libel is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual which in turn may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.
False light laws are “intended primarily to protect the plaintiff’s mental or emotional well-being” If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred. Best regards Frank
-
That Rossi may be a fraud is many orders of magnitude more probable than that thousands of scientists all over the world engaged in a conspiracy to sink cold fusion after F&P's announcement, yet those that posit the latter are not called "pathobelievers" while those that posit the former are banned.
-
@Pierre Ordinaire
It seems you are not aware of how groupthink work, and how calorimetry works.the same argument works to explain that the international conspiracy of calorimeters, and isotopic analysis, with no money or pride to gain, is less probable than yet another academic groupthink defending established ego , academic hierarchy and big science budgets, as history of Science is full.
There is really a problem in epistemology courses, because this is a very common phenomenon.
-
In case some of you missed it, Alain is politely hinting to the skeps here that they have their own site (ECNs), at their disposal to vent. To put it bluntly...GO! It is THE place for skeps of like mind to go. Too funny.
Just as a reminder...I am truly neutral on this. I've dealt with MY (this really is all about poor Mary at the moment) over 4 years, and found my peace with him.
Guess it is a barometer of the vitality of a talk forum when the owner tries to get rid of people! Can't blame him. This place really has taken off. IMO, because it offers a balanced view from both sides. ECW I think goes too far one way, ECNs the other. This place is just right.
One MY won't change that, but two will start the downward spiral as happened to ECNs. ECNs was once the premier LENR forum populated mostly with believers. Now only one masochistic believer participates.I think Alain and the mods are trying to keep the balance, which is not easy. It is worth protecting, as L-F is becoming THE place where the players, pioneers, researchers, garage replicators, fans and future leaders, can come to shape the future direction of LENR. It would be a blow for the movement to lose it to the dark side (skeps).
-
When the level of discussion drops to name-calling and generally abusive language by one person, the remaining persons tend to lower their level of response to the same level. This degrades the entire [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon], and derails the [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] from the subject. It is a very effective way to end meaningful [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon]. It disengages the analytical portion of the brains of the participants, and engages a simpler, more emotional portion that does not make rational, disinterested decisions as effectively. Advertising companies use a version of this "lowest common denominator" thought process by using child-like language to engage a child-like response to their claims, rather than using logical arguments as to why someone should buy something. Logic does not lead to quick decision making. But emotional thoughts lead to quicker, action-oriented decisions. Politicians use this method quite a bit as well. Decisions made emotionally tend to be held longer, and are more likely to be retained, even against contradicting facts, compared to logical decisions, that might be changed as soon as better information comes along. When conversations degrade to emotional attacks and appeals, then the discussions are not as meaningful, and progress towards the truth is greatly stifled.
-
Thomas
I can remember coming back to this forum after a long break and entering into a [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] with you about Huw Price and his 'reputation trap'. Once I said something to you which was a little 'disrespectful' and you very properly reminded me that 'ad homs' do your case no good, and you were right.
That left a very powerful and lasting impression on me and the content of my contributions which I am genuinely very grateful to you for. Ever since then I have always endeavoured to be polite and I know for the most part you steer clear of 'ad homs'.
What I cannot understand for the life of me is why someone like you (a defender of the onus of proof) will stoop to defend a contributor who's use of 'ad homs' is a central characteristic in her battle for LENR sceptic's hearts and minds; as Dr Spock would say 'its not logical'.
Surely the best way forward is to invite everyone to communicate in a respectful manor. Much of what you say Thomas is of value in the pursuit of discovery; a necessary check and balance, but your current position with regard to MY devalues almost everything you say and have said in my mind since it devalues much of what you say to the realms of 'politics' not discovery.
Best regards
Frank -
Thomas,
I could be wrong, but I don't think he is trying to run you off? There are skeps and then are SKEPS . MY is one those SKEPS. He is rude, crude, insulting, denigrating. and once in a blue moon has something novel to say. You are none of that. I'm pretty sure you understand that, so I don't understand why you are making a fuss about this?
Maybe it would be better to just skip using the word "skep", as each has their own definition, and instead talk about "disruptive behavior". I've even seen believers on ECNs when they dominated, that were moderated, then banned because they were downright foul mouthed. More interested in attracting attention, shocking others, than having an hones't discussion. Plenty of skeps like that too.
Again, I don't mind MY being allowed back on, but in defense of the mods decision, they very clearly gave everyone fair warning, as to what was, and was not, allowed. MY behaved for about 1/2 day...a record for him.
Then he slipped in something rude here, backed off a little. No backlash from the mods, so he said a little more, a little more and bam...they booted him. He was testing the waters, they saw that, let him keep making their case, and when obvious this guy isn't going to ever change they took action. He has no one to blame but himself.Now stop making yourself out a victim will you? You are not...yet.
You are wearing that one a little thin. -
A: Mr X seems to have an interesting new invention. It is said that it may use some unknown power source. Does anyone have any information on this device? How might it work?
B: Mr X is a scumbag. A liar, a cheat, and a thief. All he wants is your money. If you are so stupid as to believe him, then you will be broke in no time. You will have to prostitute your self and your children in order to pay your bills. You will end up homeless and penniless if you believe his lies. Only a complete loser would believe his claims.
A: I am not a loser or an idiot.
B: You will be if you believe that liar. Do you want to die hungry and homeless? I am trying to prevent that. I am a concerned citizen.
A: But what about the invention?
B: The invention is the invention of the imagination of a liar and cheat. A scumbag liar.
Nothing he says can be true. You are an idiot if you think he has anything.A: I am not an idiot. How do I know that you are not a liar?
B: I am an expert. You are idiot If you don't listen to me
A: I don't think I am an idiot. Stop insulting me.
B: I never called you an idiot. You might be an idiot, though. You are annoying me anyway.
A: I AM NOT AN IDIOT! You are an idiot!
B: Well so much for [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon]. I am wasting my time with you.
A: We agree there.
..............A: What was I thinking about earlier? Oh yeah, that crook. It makes me angry every time I think about him.
-
Paradigmnoia
Who would support a contributor like Mr/Mrs/Ms 'B'????
Best regards
Frank -
And almost as likely, A will be the one banned for using insults.
-
Paradigmnoia
This might sound strange but if 'A' did indulge in insults, he/she should be censured.
Best regards
Frank -
I assume the mods have banned MY. I have no source for this information apart from Tom and this thread in general. (And references to "ECNs" -- I haven't heard of this before; can someone link to it?) It would be nice if the mods would communicate a ban together the reasons for it so that it does not take people by surprise.
I have seen MY in action since 2011, when I started watching this field. She has always been abrasive. She has also been a source of interesting information, irretrievably mixed with her own personal opinions concerning the fraudulent behavior of this or that person. Her contributions have been simultaneously irritating and interesting in the following ways:
- she has insisted on accusations of fraud where other explanations might have applied;
- she can be insulting to people who do not share her views;
- she can be repetitive and insistent, without incorporating new information into her participation in forum threads in response to the contributions of other people;
- she has provided interesting information that has disrupted a simpler assessment of various situations.
A few years back she was banned from Vortex, where I first encountered her, almost solely for reasons (2) and (3), above. But I also agree with Tom that reason (4) for being irritated with someone is an indication that you're getting information that is useful to obtain, even if you might not want to hear it. Separating that information out from the other stuff can be difficult, but it can be done. Eventually, as one becomes familiar with MY's discourse, one can ignore (1), (2) and (3) for the most part and just listen for (4). I myself am no longer irritated by MY.
MY's behavior is to be contrasted with that of some other negative participants on this forum, who have provided little to nothing in the way of useful information. Those people can be summarily banned without looking back. Keeping the tone civil, and not allowing the mood to become heavy, are important for productive discussion. But I do think people should keep in mind the value that the kind of information pertaining to (4), above, brings.
-
Tom
MY does not like - BLP, STEORN etc have been claiming world-changing tech which in fact is vapourware for a long time. That is not a good thing for them to do and I've never thought politeness should prevent fair comment.
Now you are beginning to sound like MY, what is going on?? Why should politeness prevent fair comment? What is wrong with asking Mary to be 'polite' and why does she refuse to be so, perhaps its the 'Trump' effect that is important to her.
Best regards
Frank
