Rends
I have noticed you have put Thomas Clarkes details back on, is this an error or did you replace his link to his personal home page from a moderation standpoint?
Best regards
Frank
Dear moderators,
It looks like some users here feel I should not post. That is fair enough, I guess. I will not do so till all personal references are removed: obviously people who feel strongly can go on posting such so if that is the case I will not be able to remain.
The Playground
Thomas
It looks like some users here feel I should not post.
No one has said that, that is your assumption. come on, get a grip. This is the rough and tumble you always ignore. So ignore it now.
Rends is and I have to say you in the past have championed 'free speech'
You have taken a fall, now get back on.
Best regards
Frank
Rends
I have noticed you have put Thomas Clarkes details back on, is this an error or did you replace his link to his personal home page from a moderation standpoint?
Best regards
Frank
@frankwtu Thomas Clarke is posting here with his real name and his real photo, his professional website as scientist is online and public, he claims here to post as a 'professional' and Master of Arts and he claims the recognition of his professionalism for his statements, so he must accept them for himself as a person! So could you give me any reason, why Thomas Clarke, should not be named as Thomas Clarke?
I've been guilty of posting personal information myself, in the case of the real identity behind the avatar that randombit0 was previously using.
I remember this ...
I think if someone comes with a concrete (professional) mission to this forum, for example defending the Lugano test and gives in this forum or in another some indications of one's own identity, writes about professional background, writes terms like "as any of our student knows" etc. uses sometimes "we" and clarifies that a team cooperating with this person is evaluating the questions, then it should be ok to draw conclusions and to give a clue to others.
If I maybe know the real name of this person, I would not publish the name here.
Rends
I would prefer it if the moderators would respect reasonable requests from contributors but I suppose on that we may disagree.
On the whole I support what you do but perhaps it would have been best in this case to leave the link to Thomas's professional details deleted. Having put them 'back on' appears retributional.
Best regards
Frank
You've been amazingly patient with trolls like Thomas Clarke, Mary Yugo etc
You should create a private section of your forum to have real scientific conversations, with hard facts and equations, and close it off from people who don't have the theoretical/practical requirements to discuss the LENR phenomena
Then you could have worthwhile and productive threads where no Mary Yugo, Dewey Weaver, Stephenrezz or Keieueue would come trolling, counter-trolling, obfuscating etc
I myself am no scientist but I've spent a lot of time on the internet seeing shills, paid or not, drive conversations into the ground and undermine communities
Be assured there are quite a few on your forum, and their pride and joy is making sure no new technology emerges, either because they're nasty, angry people in love with the status quo and being miserable -atm both are tied: oil and fission energetic production: wars, pollution, catastrophes, make people happy who have no love in themselves-, or because it's part of their job
I have deleted the offending post. But to a certain extent if Thomas feels that his position at work has been compromised by events in this forum he has to take some responsibility for that himself. If he were my employee so obviously spending hours every day posting on web forums I would not be happy about it. Since he posted under his real name with a photo-avatar of his younger self Thomas could hardly claim his cover was blown solely by Sifferkol.
I will certainly delete any more posts by Sifferkol that step across the line. And maybe those of a few others too. They know who they are.
The relationship between any poster and his/her employer is none of anyone else's business.
@ frankwtu
I would prefer it if the moderators would respect reasonable requests from contributors but I suppose on that we may disagree.
It is not reasonable to post in your own name and than force others to prevent someone calls your name.
On the whole I support what you do but perhaps it would have been best in this case to leave the link to Thomas's professional details deleted. Having put them 'back on' appears retributional.
Thomas Clarke is trying to reverse censor siffercoll's post by claiming that siffercoll is threatened his privacy.
Display MoreSo there is one more post from Sifferkoll that breaks normal courtesies here:
The Playground
plus a recent repeat of original from rends here
The Playground
I've got no problem with insults, etc, but mixing up personal identity and the discussion here is not called for and never normally done. Personally, I would not post if that happened simply because I'm not comfortable with it.
No need to remove anything else.
Thanks for the courtesy, Tom
But he is here under his real name (now one forced him to do this) so: The Playground
Best regards
Felix
Okay Rends
I am Frank Johnson, I live in England and I am a 'professional' as Barty knows (I sent him my CV) but you have me as an 'intermediate, why is that?
Will you be publishing my CV?
Best regards
Frank
@frankwtu Thomas Clarke is posting here with his real name and his real photo, his professional website as scientist is online and public, he claims here to post as a 'professional' and Master of Arts and he claims the recognition of his professionalism for his statements, so he must accept them for himself as a person! So could you give me any reason, why Thomas Clarke, should not be named as Thomas Clarke?
Okay Rends
I am Frank Johnson, I live in England and I am a 'professional' as Barty knows but you have me as an 'intermediate, why is that?
Best regards
Frank
It is not about what is written under the Avatar this is an automatic feature, it is about what I have written above, Thomas Clarke is here writing his posts and claiming he is a Master of Arts, and that's true! He himself did not hide it by using real name and photo, why should any other user 'hide' it, Thomas reveals his privacy on his own ?
Best regards
Felix
@Rends,
It has always been unacceptable behaviour to post personal details of other posters ( with real or pseudonymous names ) on blogs and forums.
Anything that would not be said in person, in a semi- formal setting with strangers, should be reconsidered whether it is acceptable in a post online. Nobody in this situation would run around with a few pages of some other persons' personal details and hand them out to other people, for example.
@Rends,
It has always been unacceptable behaviour to post personal details of other posters ( with real or pseudonymous names ) on blogs and forums.
Anything that would not be said in person, in a semi- formal setting with strangers, should be reconsidered whether it is acceptable in a post online. Nobody in this situation would run around with a few pages of some other persons' personal details and hand them out to other people, for example.
When Thomas is so worried about his privacy, he should not have to write in his own name! Afterwards demanding to delete post of other users, just because they use his name and make a link to a website to his publicly known scientific background is simply nonsense. I can not read any personal information on this website, so Thomas privacy is not in any danger!
I had a post of mine deleted a couple of months ago for mentioning the country where Bob G lives, which was common knowledge among many of us, since Bob had made this known himself on a few occasions.
I had a post of mine deleted a couple of months ago for mentioning the country where Bob G lives, which was common knowledge among many of us, since Bob had made this known himself on a few occasions.
@Paradigmnoia
I do not welcome if someone has problems with netiquette, but there is a huge difference in whether something is contrary to good taste, or a serious offense, that justifies censorship, and I see no serious offense.
I took offense with Siffer's comment about Tom's using his universities internet. That sounded like a veiled threat to me. Other than that, if I had Tom's looks, and CV I would be advertising too! 
Tom, any trouble with posting your qualifications in the future? While most of us already know, the many newbies now -with more sure to come, might find it handy when judging your input?
homas Clarke is posting here with his real name and his real photo, his professional website as scientist is online and public, he claims here to post as a 'professional' and Master of Arts and he claims the recognition of his professionalism for his statements, so he must accept them for himself as a person! So could you give me any reason, why Thomas Clarke, should not be named as Thomas Clarke?
Even this is tricky and unfortunate question, I have to say that this is important point by @Rends. Please read it again. If someone is using scientific and technical argumentation directly, or indirectly emphasized by his name and profile. He must have it then both ways. Maybe forum readers should not give too much weight on peoples titles or profiles when this technology have so big ambition in both sides that clear plain truth has vanished long ago. Unfortunately it is not possible for Thomas to re do profile selection anymore at this point.
Having said that I don't see any benefit anyone using direct slander here. Personally I would not mind if someone would clean up some comments that are clearly outside of thread topic. As long as we have this playground-thread.
PS. One more thing. Since playground thread has good amount of important discussion (even nonscientific), I would propose it be called more respectfully to 'Open speech', 'Open thread' or whatever you come up with.
Rends
I do not welcome if someone has problems with netiquette, but there is a huge difference in whether something is contrary to good taste, or a serious offense, that justifies censorship, and I see no serious offense.
But was it in 'good taste' to re instate personal information about Thomas, deleted by a moderator at the request of other contributors and supported by many on this forum and still are? Do you moderators talk to each other when making important decisions to avoid corporate public disagreements?
Best regards
Frank
But was it in 'good taste' to re instate personal information about Thomas,
It is a link to a public website, on a public server of an public university, that contains no personal data, this does not justify censorship.
