Climate chief, recent warming not statisticaly significant.
-
See? Flames coming out of everyone's erm... arses...
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
-
Firstly, I'm not 1-voting you repeatedly. Not that I think you worry about it, but still!
fat_boy wrote:
This is clearly silly since it is a matter of sciene and not faith and as intelligent people software engineers, such as make up the majority of CPians, ought to be able to discuss GW rationally without resorting to emotion and censorship.
The point, I think, is that you keep repeating the same thing, and the topic has been beaten to death already! I'd personally 'move on' as you said though. :)
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
the topic has been beaten to death already!
I guess you havent seen the stuff in the UK news recently about the corruption and fraud uncovered at the heart of the IPCC and CRU?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
It doesn't matter what you think I've made out of myself.
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I took only the majority into account, and the fact that his post was removed proves it
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
your very important opinion into consideration?
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
So, go ahead and discuss it with him
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
digital man wrote:
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Bad guess.
digital man wrote:
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
digital man wrote:
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Struck a nerve? Respect is a mutual thing, you see. If you're being disrespectful, I'll give it back to you.
digital man wrote:
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
What do you mean I don't like it?! By arguing it against his favour, do not think that I'm wanting to remove his posts! I only am making a point that it is either that the majority doesn't like it, or that the threshold to remove a post is lower than what's acceptable (in your opinion?). If it were the latter case, it must be taken up with Chris. But I do remember similar things happened in the past and the threshold to remove abusive/spam/unwanted posts were increased multiple times (from 3 to 12 if I remember it correct). However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good when I look the number of votes applied to remove it. If it's increased further, I still wonder if it's going to help. Because all it would take would be some more votes to remove it, which I think will most probably be cast by more people. Or that you could advocate against the 'vote for removal' system at all, which only Chris can take a call on. Oh, and that's not my vote on your post. :rolleyes:
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
the topic has been beaten to death already!
I guess you havent seen the stuff in the UK news recently about the corruption and fraud uncovered at the heart of the IPCC and CRU?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I did read about it (one of your earlier threads, linking to the content). But thanks, I don't want to talk about it now and here. My point is - if you feel that your posts are being removed in an unjustified manner, take it up with Chris.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
There's a thingy in the posting guidelines, which are right on top of the page : Posting Guidelines: The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads. GW is a topic that invites flame wars (no pun intended here), and thus is no topic for the lounge.
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
S. Brozius wrote:
GW is a topic that invites flame wars (no pun intended here), and thus is no topic for the lounge.
It can do if people get all evangelical but sometimes we'd just like to see some other information without getting into a shitstorm. The real point here is that I'm not being given a chance to see what has been posted because a few people (hardly a majority) have deemed it unfit for public consumption. I may hate what he has said and wish to downvote it myself but becuase of the actions of a few childish people who have decided that they control the Lounge I don't get a chance. Further, when they are pulled up on it they get all hissy and childish. What on earth is that all about?
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Wow, this is getting hectic. I think you'd have been better received if you didn't have such a reputation for relentlessly swamping message boards with such posts.
Well, swamping is relative to the general posting frequency. WHat might seem swampiong is just a total lack of other posts for days while some particular piece if AGW hysteria falls apart. In the lounge, with its higher post rate, it wold be impossible to swamp.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
digital man wrote:
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Bad guess.
digital man wrote:
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
digital man wrote:
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Struck a nerve? Respect is a mutual thing, you see. If you're being disrespectful, I'll give it back to you.
digital man wrote:
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
What do you mean I don't like it?! By arguing it against his favour, do not think that I'm wanting to remove his posts! I only am making a point that it is either that the majority doesn't like it, or that the threshold to remove a post is lower than what's acceptable (in your opinion?). If it were the latter case, it must be taken up with Chris. But I do remember similar things happened in the past and the threshold to remove abusive/spam/unwanted posts were increased multiple times (from 3 to 12 if I remember it correct). However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good when I look the number of votes applied to remove it. If it's increased further, I still wonder if it's going to help. Because all it would take would be some more votes to remove it, which I think will most probably be cast by more people. Or that you could advocate against the 'vote for removal' system at all, which only Chris can take a call on. Oh, and that's not my vote on your post. :rolleyes:
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Bad guess.
Doesn't sound that way or you would have ignored it.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
I would agree with that but I suspect it won't happen.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
What do you mean I don't like it
In a general sense, not you specifically.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good
Again, I would agree but I can't see how a post on GW could be considered abusive. It strikes me that to donwvote these posts is a knee jerk reaction against fat_boy rather than the content. I feel that he should be allowed to post what are usually just pointers to news articles or other information which might be useful. It's not like he is posting links to porn.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Well, swamping is relative to the general posting frequency. WHat might seem swampiong is just a total lack of other posts for days while some particular piece if AGW hysteria falls apart. In the lounge, with its higher post rate, it wold be impossible to swamp.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Your peak frequency was, like, several new threads a day. I'm surprised that you're surprised at this, if indeed you are.
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Bad guess.
Doesn't sound that way or you would have ignored it.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
I would agree with that but I suspect it won't happen.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
What do you mean I don't like it
In a general sense, not you specifically.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good
Again, I would agree but I can't see how a post on GW could be considered abusive. It strikes me that to donwvote these posts is a knee jerk reaction against fat_boy rather than the content. I feel that he should be allowed to post what are usually just pointers to news articles or other information which might be useful. It's not like he is posting links to porn.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
digital man wrote:
Doesn't sound that way or you would have ignored it.
Bah, same with you too!
digital man wrote:
Again, I would agree but I can't see how a post on GW could be considered abusive.
I think that he's upset the majority of people (or enough number of people to remove his GW posts off), so there's an immediate knee-jerk reaction when there's a post about GW and is from fatboy, within no time it gets trashed. While I would agree with the fact that he isn't posting something abusive, the fact remains that what is 'abusive' is subjective to the opinion of the majority. I think that his repeated posts on GW is taken as an abuse of the board, because he was asked not to start threads on this, many many times. But again, that's not my personal opinion, I'm just stating what I have observed. He also behaved like a child, creating threads multiple times on the same day, while the crowd went after removing his threads one after the other! This could have added to the temper.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
And how much universal interest is there in any thread? It depends. If you are interested you read and respond. If not you move on. Yet GW posts get the hackkles up of a few people on CP who thus turn the topic into one similar to religion or politics, and thus not lounge safe. However, since the world is spending millions of our tax dolars, punds, euros, rupees etc on GW research, I think it is actually very inrteresting given current developement such as the one I linked to. If others feel so emotional about GW that they cant just move on, but have to delete it as a topic of dicsuccionthen I can only assume they are such staunch believers that they cannot bear to see what has to them become a religion criticised. This is clearly silly since it is a matter of sciene and not faith and as intelligent people software engineers, such as make up the majority of CPians, ought to be able to discuss GW rationally without resorting to emotion and censorship.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
The problem is that this is pretty much ALL you want to talk about. Aren't there any climate-related blogs/forums that you can participate in. You haven't seemed to get the hint that this is an unpopular topic (least when you keep trying to start a thread on it in the lounge). Get a clue, dude.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Ohhh, so tetchy! I would guess that you either like the lounge to be sanitised, in which case your insult is, in your own judgement, 'illegal', or that you are a true believer in the socialist scam that is AGW and are unprepared to countenance any criticism of it. In which case you are a self deluded fool. So in both cases you do yourself a diservice by responding in such a way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, you are a boring fanatic.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
No, you are a boring fanatic.
You've hit on the only adjective that should ever be used to modify the word "fanatic".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
The problem is that this is pretty much ALL you want to talk about. Aren't there any climate-related blogs/forums that you can participate in. You haven't seemed to get the hint that this is an unpopular topic (least when you keep trying to start a thread on it in the lounge). Get a clue, dude.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The problem is that this is pretty much ALL you want to talk about.
Yeah, I am a bit obsessed with it. I think it is because I like criticising, especially government bodies, or organisations that purport to 'lead' us. And yes, there are GW groups, and I use them a lot. But I feel like I know people on CP at a more personal level, since we do discuss so much, and so discussing it here is kind of more like a good discussion down the pub with my mates if ou know what I mean.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You haven't seemed to get the hint that this is an unpopular topic
Well, I am think skinned and stubborn, and there are some who are interested in GW and want to discuss it in the lounge. It is just that a few are deciding for the rest by deleting my posts. Instead they shold justy ignore them if they arent interested.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I did read about it (one of your earlier threads, linking to the content). But thanks, I don't want to talk about it now and here. My point is - if you feel that your posts are being removed in an unjustified manner, take it up with Chris.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
If you want to pick up on what is happening in the GW world then alt.global_warming is a good forum. There are a lot of developments right now, and it looks like AGW is coming under a lot of criticism. So much in fact that it looks like it might die soon.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
digital man wrote:
Doesn't sound that way or you would have ignored it.
Bah, same with you too!
digital man wrote:
Again, I would agree but I can't see how a post on GW could be considered abusive.
I think that he's upset the majority of people (or enough number of people to remove his GW posts off), so there's an immediate knee-jerk reaction when there's a post about GW and is from fatboy, within no time it gets trashed. While I would agree with the fact that he isn't posting something abusive, the fact remains that what is 'abusive' is subjective to the opinion of the majority. I think that his repeated posts on GW is taken as an abuse of the board, because he was asked not to start threads on this, many many times. But again, that's not my personal opinion, I'm just stating what I have observed. He also behaved like a child, creating threads multiple times on the same day, while the crowd went after removing his threads one after the other! This could have added to the temper.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
He also behaved like a child, creating threads multiple times on the same day, while the crowd went after removing his threads one after the other! This could have added to the temper
Well, it wasnt childish but it was ammusing taunting the 'abuse voters'! In fact I havent posted much about AGW in the lounge. In total only a few posts. Most have been in the SB, untill it died. The fact is that some people have formed an opinion about me due to my pseudonym, actually chosen to generate strong responses (no one likes to argue more than with what they assume to be a fat 13 year old!). Combine that with attacking a belief held strongly by many on CP and and you can see why I am generate strong responses. The fact that I am now effectively censored in the Lounge only says to me that my attacks on AGW have been effective. Otherwise I would either be argued with, or ignored. The fact I raise so much passion merely tells me I am onto something and should continue with renewed vigour! :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Your peak frequency was, like, several new threads a day. I'm surprised that you're surprised at this, if indeed you are.
Yes but that peak frequency ojnly matched the speed at which AGW is falling apart. It only looks extreme in the SB for example where no one posts for days. In the lounge three a day would hardly be noticed. They would certainly not be on the same page. And in any case, we are actually talking about one or two posts a week. Is that really too much for the Lounge to bear? I think not. The reason AGW posts are tolerated by ME in the lounge, others get away with it, is because I criticise it more effectively than others and so cause those who hold AGW as a belief such pain they resort to censorship. The pain being, inability to argue with the truth when its presented even when it goes against theior belief system. DemiDego did this. It got so bad for him he put a filter on any of my posts. Imagine how threatened and weak he must be to have to do this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, you are a boring fanatic.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
I can see that Mentor status being revoked.
-
No, you are a boring fanatic.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
If what I write is of so little interest please feel free to move along and look at something more interesting! In the mean time leave those who want to discuss a topic of interest to them alone without polluting their thread with personal insults and abuse votes.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
If you want to pick up on what is happening in the GW world then alt.global_warming is a good forum. There are a lot of developments right now, and it looks like AGW is coming under a lot of criticism. So much in fact that it looks like it might die soon.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
He also behaved like a child, creating threads multiple times on the same day, while the crowd went after removing his threads one after the other! This could have added to the temper
Well, it wasnt childish but it was ammusing taunting the 'abuse voters'! In fact I havent posted much about AGW in the lounge. In total only a few posts. Most have been in the SB, untill it died. The fact is that some people have formed an opinion about me due to my pseudonym, actually chosen to generate strong responses (no one likes to argue more than with what they assume to be a fat 13 year old!). Combine that with attacking a belief held strongly by many on CP and and you can see why I am generate strong responses. The fact that I am now effectively censored in the Lounge only says to me that my attacks on AGW have been effective. Otherwise I would either be argued with, or ignored. The fact I raise so much passion merely tells me I am onto something and should continue with renewed vigour! :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The fact is that some people have formed an opinion about me due to my pseudonym, actually chosen to generate strong responses (no one likes to argue more than with what they assume to be a fat 13 year old!). Combine that with attacking a belief held strongly by many on CP and and you can see why I am generate strong responses.
Have you considered the fact that this thought of yours is just a delusion and that people are just completely bored with this topic and that therefore they don't want to participate in it?
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
