We’ve got a few new trolls/poes babbling in some of the threads, and it’s getting out of a hand. I think it’s time to remind you that the list of bannable offenses does include godbotting — and it doesn’t matter if you are sincere or if you’re clowning around, once I get tired of the games I will start adding your user info to the blacklist. It would be a shame to get your IP address locked out of commenting because you thought it would be funny to run a fake creationist under an alias.
We do have word that there will be a major update to the scienceblogs software in the next month. You shouldn’t see any difference (except, I hope, better performance), but there is the possibility of implementing changes to the commenting system after that, and I may have to go to some kind of registration system to limit some of the insincere distractions that have been going on.
Crackergate is nothing compared to this
I made a lame joke earlier today about the Bible being written by Satan. Hope that didn’t cross the line, but if it did, I apologize.
is clitbotting also bannable?
That’s just mean!
As if Catholic boys aren’t fucked up enough over the church’s sexual oppression. Now they’re going to have to explain to god that erection they’re sporting over the “virgin” Mary!
Ben, it was an obvious joke. No worries.
Re #1’s “this”
Let’s hope Blowhard Bill sees it and explodes.
Don’t apologize… it’s refreshing to get a gnostic Poe for a change!
Whatever you do, please do not use the dysfunctional ‘typekey’ system you tried last time.
Hi PZ,
A registration system probably makes sense. While it can be entertaining to listen to the remarkably smart folks around here tear apart the fundamentalists that wander in, it can be a bit tedious. Especially this “poeing” business. It gets old and tiresome if it isn’t the real deal.
All of which is, I believe, your point with this thread.
To exhaust a tired cliche, keep fighting the good fight!
Coturnix, the chaos about to ensue is at least going to be entertaining.
Coturnix
I don’t know what to feel about that.
Well, I know what to feel, I just don’t know if I should admit that I’m feeling it right now.
What is the sound of one hand typing?
Holy Mother!!
What! Not allowed ?! How can those girls make a livi — oh, wait. Proselytization.
Never mind.
Censorship! Censorship! This is just like when you threw the Creationists out of the Zoo. Or was it the money changers out of the temple. I always get those two confused.
I’m in support of a registration system. While it doesn’t eliminate the problems of an open comment system like we have now, it does make things like sock puppetry less pervasive.
It’d probably make it a little quieter around here as a trade off; but is that a good or a bad thing?
I read this is running a Poe. After spending maybe 30 seconds being slightly amused, I tend to find it rather dull. But the biggest problem with it is that it can tie up a thread with folks either attempting to engage the Poe, or with folks calling “Poe”, even after the Poe has revealed him/herself.
Maybe this wouldn’t be such a problem if more people would simply read previous comments before posting.
Maybe?
I agree with most everything you write on this blog. But you can’t preach against censorship and then censor people who have differing opinions than your own because they upset you. I don’t even want a reply, because you’re wrong. Anyway, let the flaming commence.
“Children children, if you don’t behave, I’m going to punish every single one of you, even the majority who haven’t done anything”
OK, now that I’ve shaken off those traumatic 2nd grade moments, let’s focus on the importance of the freedom we have here. It would be sad to see our liberty silences because a few choose to purposely cause some mischief. The constant threats of imposing some kind of registration may or may not work, but it will almost certainly make the comments far less interesting. Who will we be able to impolitely eviscerate?
It’s not their opinion that is irritating, it’s their unwillingness to engage in an intelligent discussion. People who have differing opinions are great. People who just try to shout nonsense over everyone else deserve to be shown the door.
Coturnix, oh please please please email that to the two Bills (Donohue and O’Reilly). I haven’t seen a good conniption fit in a while. And I’ve got a bet with someone on how red BD’s face can get before he busts a vessel.
I still can’t decide if GIL is a Poe or not, but deserves the dungeon either way.
The thread where someone was posting using other peoples names, that kind of problem would warrant registration.
Mark #16 wrote:
If you read the link above, PZ is very specific on what gets people banned — it’s not for ‘disagreement’ — it’s for shennanigans. In fact, he writes:
If we’re holding a vote…
Registration: Yes.
Poe: Maybe. If you can make a point (sarcasm, negative evidence, etc.) then you Poe under your registered name. And you risk the wrath of Dr. Myers so make it worthwhile and brief.
Azdak at #18
You beat me to it. What you said is especially true when the “evidence” used for a creationist argument is the exact same debunked pap that has surfaced dozens, if not hundreds of times already.
I’m guessing that a legitimate, scientific argument about a religious based belief would be more than welcome, and that scientific ignorance and unscientific personal beliefs presented as fact would be dismissed.
This site has convinced me to worship the one true God, Yahweh. My circumcision is on Monday.
– naw, just pullin’ ya leg… it’s crucifixion really.
My votes:
– Registration, yes. (Loyalty oaths or the equivalent, no.)
– Sarcasm should be indicated as such, otherwise risk being taken as sincere.
– OMs should be given moderation powers (if they want them).
Refusing people a platform on a private site when countless similar platforms exist elsewhere online != censorship.
kamaka:
I think GIL may be the drunk Dutch kids that were here a week ago. No evidence, just a hunch. Whoever it is, it’s gotten old.
Negentropyeater’s Oath of disgodbottingication
O Pharyngula,
I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee,
and I detest any godbotting
because I fear the loss of Molly
and the pains of the Dungeon,
but most of all because they offend Thee, Pharyngula,
Who art all good and deserving of all my esteem.
I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace
not to partake in any godbotting,
and to amend my blogging.
Peezaid
Newfie: Line on the left, one cross each.
I am all in for registration.
Yipes!! Wanking is a bannable offense! But PZ, how do you even know? Is it the hairs touching the keyboard?
**hopes he doesn’t get smited for “Stupidity”**
Now that is a good idea.
I think registration is a great idea. But as for the suggestion at # 25 about “mods”…. That is a terrible idea. I have never seen a situation like that turn into anything but a giant circle jerk. People get it in their head PZ does a fine job of taking care of his own business and doesn’t seem to need help.
First one to go is that jackass Brownian. Plonk! douchebag.
Well, after like 200 comments who even bothers posting? Do people sit and read all 200-300 comments? Registration is a nuisance that won’t solve your problem. Ban the worst offenders and we can ignore the rest.
I think registration sounds like a good idea, too.
I’m really gonna miss some of the pastalytization…
A comment from the link Coturnix provided:
Now I hope that was a Poe.
:-/
A welcome reminder — thanks, PZ.
A lot of things would be less of a problem if people read other people’s comments. So perhaps registration will help; if you can’t be bothered to read comments, then perhaps you can’t be bothered to register either.
And I agree that the magic “OM” shouldn’t mean moderatorship. That should be reserved for people PZ personally know and trust. (The skill set isn’t necessarily the same, if you will.)
speedwell #25 wrote:
Ack, don’t want.
Plus, this opens up a can of worms. There are a lot of OMs, with more each month, and we come with many different perspectives and styles. This invariably leads to disagreements — and people who frequent blogs/internet often enough to get noticed for it tend to be people with high principles (translation: trouble). I’ve helped op chatrooms. Op wars are ugly.
PZ hasn’t really had trouble noticing real problems and taking care of them, sooner or later. Few situations are emergencies. Allowing Mollies to make decisions — and then disagree with each others decisions — would be one more thing for him to monitor. I’d vote no.
Registration is a good idea IMHO.
If you implement a registration system, will that enable us to be lazy and not type in our name, email, and URL every post?
Poe
“Do people sit and read all 200-300 comments?”
Ummm, yeah, sometimes, if the thread is good.
I don’t post unless I’ve read the thread.
“Ignore the rest” is a fine idea, but these be shark infested waters.
regarding the issue that Kobra just mentioned, will there be an option for us to spam the thread with our links? :P
I know a lot of the people on here have a standard link they use for their name, and I know that few people check these frequently, but I like being able to put a new(ish) or unique(ish) link in all my posts = Often just a youtube video or article that I think might be amusing to others.
Nvattorney: I obviously can’t speak for anyone else but I do read as many comments here as time allows – certainly on any thread on which I post I will probably have read all previous posts first. I don’t post much here but I do read Pharyngula daily, and have done for a couple of years now.
I don’t see the point. Can’t we just continue to ban when the need arises?
Yay! I’m glad PZ is taking notice, the whole thing was becoming tedious.
—
Nvattorney,
[1] I, for one. Some threads liven up after a few hundred posts, and not a few on this site exceed 1 Kilocomments.
[2] Yes (or at the very least, I skim them before posting).
No one will get banned for having differing opinions. It’s constant off topic white noise that will get you banned. If it was me I would ban people who continually bring up debunked creationist points over and over and over and over again, I’m so sick and tired of hearing the same crap, I’m all for letting creationists blather on here if they have something new and interesting to say/debunk.
p.s. it’s not the ideas that are upsetting it’s the continual lack of understanding on behalf of creotards.
Moderation: Not in the standard sense.
Without knowing what ScienceBlogs has in mind for the upgrade I’m pissing in the wind here but how about a ranking or thumbs up/thumbs down type of ‘moderation’? Allow people to comment without registering but their post is marked to indicate that.
To avoid rigging the system, only registered and signed in people can vote up/down on other peoples’ comments. If your comments end up with too many low votes then your ‘rank’ decreases. And visa-versa. I’m not sure what would happen to low ranked or high ranked individuals. It might possibly automate the Mollys. Somehow.
It might also make it easier for our overlord (All praise be unto Dr. Myers) to review the list of low-ranked folks for possible plonking.
If only they had contacted us for requirements sooner! ;)
Can we have a secret handshake too?
I mean, registration is nice and all, but a handshake would ROCK!
If the secret handshake involves consuming beer I’m all for it.
I was a moderator at a popular game website for several years. One of the most interesting sections was the Mods Only threads. At least once a month some mod would get into a pissing contest with another mod, resulting in a wank-fest that would have both of them banned if it happened in the open sections.
The problem with having a bunch of mods is that behavior that one mod allows will get another mod in extreme punishment mode. This was generally the cause of the mod on mod battles described above. One mod’s “snarky remark” is another mod’s “trolling.”
The next time I’m shaking hands with someone and they pour beer all over our hands, I’ll know it’s one of us!
Feature request: Be able to mark how far down you you got in the comments (cf Fark, where a red line is drawn and you can do a “jump to new comments”)
What’s the policy on sexual innuendo?
If you ban that, I’ll have nothing to offer.
Instead of a handshake can we do the “terrorist fist bump”?
Does this mean I have to stop trying to turn you all gay?
I have a banned Pharyngula commenter at it over on my blog. I left my last comment to him there just now, but if anyone would like to chime in, I’d appreciate it.
“I hope the Catholics in Mexico get violent over this.”
Sex = bad, violence = good. That’s one of those religious memes, isn’t it?
RE “reading all the comments:” who has the time? I usually try to skim them, but not always successfully…and I’ve pretty much given up commenting since there’s no way to return to the discussion where you left off, get notified of new posts, easily multi-quote posts, etc.–i.e., all the conveniences found on forum sites…I must be alone amongst consummate speedreaders…
I think registration is perfectly fine. What it does is makes life easier on the blogowner by automating some of the process, makes it easier to track and ban trolls, and discourages some would-be trolls who won’t bother themselves with either making a new trolly email account or risking their own account to trollbans. It requires no effort on the part of commenters other than using a *gasp* real email address when commenting and being consistent in username. A trifle, compared with the benefits to the blogger in charge.
GodIsLove is boring. At this point I don’t care if it’s serious or a poe. If poe, it’s preaching to the choir. If serious, it’s got the mental capacity of an 8 year old. Either way, useless to argue with and best ignored.
Yeah, but we should wait until truth machine comes ba
OK, I can’t even finish that. Laughing too hard.
speedwell’s suggestion made my day. The HORROR.
(Sorry, speedwell. I’m not making fun of you. It was very flattering of you to suggest it – I just haven’t been able to keep a straight face since I read it.)
Negentropyeater @28: disgodbottingication
Wow! Thought that could be a Bushism, but then realized it had too many syllables.
I’m all for the secret hand shake — but shouldn’t that be a secret tentacle shake?
Just been reading the Dungeon page. I was laughing until I came across the nasty little something unrepeatables who were attacking PZ daughter. It doesn’t matter how much someone annoys me I would not have a go at thier kids. It really goes to show just how disgusting some people are. Normally I feel sorry for the ranting idiot fraternity, but there are exceptions.
as a long-time, daily reader and very rare poster:
Please think twice (or more) before requiring registration. I’ve seen some great blogs dry up because they went to a required registration to post (I’m talking about you, TBOGG). It would be a shame to let the godbots cause that to happen here. While not strictly a form of censorship, it has the effect of causing a lot of people to go silent, thus effectively stifling the conversation. And the conversation is very much needed in the current environment.
Just my worthless opinion.
could someone explain to me why requiring registration is not preferred?
i would think it nice to only have to type my username and info once then be able to post whenever i return to the site.
is not your IP address already visible to the site owner whenever you make a post? how would being required to register be any different? is it that the cookie would then eliminate your ability to have multiple identities through which to make comments?
i belong to a number of forums. they require registration in order to post. many people merely read but not comment, hence they are not registered and anonymously lurk.
if having multiple identities is important, either use multiple browsers to separate the cookies, or simply be yourself as one commenter.
i truly don’t see the issue with registration and sincerely ask for another viewpoint in order to understand.
I wouldn’t mind at all if I didn’t have to re-enter my info every time I posted. Thank Konqi for autofill.
A few points:
– I think giving all the Molly winners the right to moderate would cause more problems than it would solve. Maybe just have 2 or 3 additional moderators to lighten PZ’s load.
– I’m not really sure a rating system would be great. Comments would be judged by their ratings and not by the points made.
– The Poeing is annoying and has got to stop. Everyone has been warned.
– Another nuisance(albeit a small one), is people commenting under someone else’s name.
– One problem I see with registration is that it may encourage less view points to be heard. I know I sometimes don’t bother posting comments at sites because I don’t want to register.
If people could just read the comments before posting,and we cut this bullshit with the fake Poes,then we shouldnt need registration.
I agree,it tends to dry up a blog.
As far as the software updating is concerned, it would be nice if ScienceBlogs used slashcode. There’s no real threading with this current system.
-jcr
I’m all for putting the smackdown on vapid Poesters. Hard. Obvious parodies that illustrate a particular Creationist hypocrisy or fallacy are fine, or morphing to post as “God” or “Satan” can be funny, but these “genuine” Poes, where someone derails a thread pretending to be a godbot have gotten totally out of hand. Meticulously picking apart the religiots will soon stop if there’s an 80% chance that some gobshite is going to say “Ha ha, only me” after 500 posts because s/he gets some cheap thrill out of making others feel foolish. Maybe it was actually funny the first time, maybe it would be funny very occasionally, but at the current level, it just makes the Poester look like a pathetic unoriginal fuckwad who can only feel good by jerking other people around. So please: stop it. Please.
I always like people WHO JUST DON’T GET IT. Freedom of speech is not an absolute. You can’t libel. You can’t slander. You can’t incite. You can’t perjure. You can’t disturb the peace. There is a whole list of things you can’t do.
And making strawmen arguments about people who are being intentionally abusive, and attempting to stifle free-expression in a passive-aggressive manner, as being contrary to the ideals free speech doesn’t make you point any more valid.
No censorship means you’re free to say anything you’d like. You may or may not be free to say it in my living room, but as long as you can say it somewhere, it ain’t censorship.
I do have a question about this item. Does this mean I can’t tell people about my personal relationship with FSM? Because I was lost in a relative-morality midnight of the soul until He touched me with His noodly appendage. Then I was found. He told me He wants me to spread the word. Yar.
I’d probably post more (I think this may be #2 – or maybe #3) if you had a registration system. I don’t know what it is, but this ad hoc setup just squicks me out. I’m a regular reader, but not a regular poster.
ggab – If PZ banned naughty innuendo, foul language and slutty remarks his blog would only have Walton and Scott from Oregon as posters. *shudder*
Thank you for including Godbotting on your “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” list. Such people may be honestly trying to express valid points. However, any valid points wind up buried under tortured rhetoric that usually is illogical and reminds me of a spoiled six year old who is whining because he isn’t getting his way.
Thank you for including Godbotting on your “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” list. Such people may be honestly trying to express valid points. However, any valid points wind up buried under tortured rhetoric that usually is illogical and reminds me of a spoiled six year old who is whining because he isn’t getting his way.
Forums generally do that, yes. However, this is a blog. Blogs generally do not require registration in order to post.
No, I’m not just being a smartass, that’s just the way things (generally…) work. That’s really all there’s to it. And the blog format works – most of the time – so why change it?
Now that would be interesting.
I read the list of offenses and have to say they are all pretty reasonable. Top notch common sense, if the offenders are even capable of thinking before posting.
As a side note: Thanks, PZ, for putting the links to other killfiles up. I didn’t even know such a thing existed until today. Much appreciated.
That Playboy cover is not offensive.
You know what’s offensive?
Taking a book which treats women as property, demands their submission to men, gives enthusiastic approval to petty tyrants who enslave women as the spoils of war, suggests multiple times that the duty of a host is to offer up his virgin daughters if it’s necessary to placate the rowdy crowd outside, and describes with relish the division of a concubine into twelve pieces, and calling it holy.
Just speaking my personal opinion, here.
Thus spake Patricia, OM:
Hehe… she said in-you-end-o, hehe…
</beavis>
If any of my previous posts crossed the line, I apologize. I was making an attempt at sarcasm not trying for a POE or a Loki.
As far as nym shifting is a concern, all I have done is shorten my real name from Gary Bohn to GaryB. I did try Gary a couple of times until I remembered there is a poster using the name Gary and didn’t feel he should be blamed for my terrible posts.
@#80
And telling everyone that the only good man in a certain city is the same one who later goes on to impregnate both his own daughters and then comes up with some weedling excuse to justify it.
Or how about the great founder of the sematic faiths? A patent looney who drags his son to the top of a mountain and ties him to an alter and them only just chickens out of murdering him at the last moment and slaughters a goat instead.
And I’m not even going to start on Mosses.
With these examples of morality is it any surprise that they act in the way they do?
WRMartin#50
That’s something like the system at perlmonks, and it works pretty nicely there. When your rank increases you get new titles (which are kind of religiously themed, but not meant seriously).
At each rank you get a certain number of votes for the day. If your posts get upvoted you get “experience” to go to advance. At level 5 you get the ability to post a picture to your profile page. At level six I think you get the ability to moderate. At higher levels you get commensurately greater abilities, admission to secret areas of the site, and mystical powers.
perl -e “$CX=’@l658072wq’;print map{reset;;?[]vec (join(keys %_),5,8);} readpipe *CX;2;]??chr:m}l}?chr(ord($_|$/)):chr(length($^T))} unpack ‘a2’x5,$CX;”
It would be nice if the Poes stopped. I thought I was holding my own detecting them, until I went to the Westboro site “godhatesfags” and thought THAT was a Poe.
But what to do with the likes of GodIsLove? Just annoying drunk kids, or some seriously pathetic godbot? Do Pharyngulites actually care, beyond the tedium of it?
The wild-west, rowdy bar feel of this place is why I keep coming back. Well, that, and the humor and hanging with rational, intelligent atheists.
Registration is liable to take the edge off.
Registration would certainly be fine by me.
Something I’d like to see are collapsible, nested comments. This would make conversation type threads much easier to follow.
What Emmet @ #72 said.
As for registration, it seems like a good idea to me, provided that the system is reasonably well implemented.
I would hate that. I would probably stop visiting the site. Really, I like it just as it is, and hope it changes as little as possible.
I don’t have the sweet temper to moderate anyone, so exempt me. Too much Erinyes blood.
Couldn’t you just make a Poe Pit and toss them in, like the Dungeon? You wouldn’t even have to list their sins. Pardon my not understanding this problem. Registering is a big pain to me, and why I don’t comment on Dawkins site, though I read it everyday.
whoville
This is a blog, not a public forum. And it’s pretty much wide open, as long as you actually engage in dialogue. Get a grip.
Nvattorney:
Uh, given that many threads have run to twice that length, and at least 10 have run to five times that length, the idea that people stop posting after 200 comments is ignorant.
There fixed it for ya.
#82 GaryB,
IMHO, you’ve done nothing questionable: changing your nick isn’t morphing unless it’s done to evade a ban or mislead everyone. I’ll probably drop the “Caulfield” sooner or later, since there’s nobody else here posting regularly as “Emmet”, but that’s just changing your nym/nick, not morphing to deceive.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with people changing their nick for humour, like changing it to “God” for one or two posts to say “Where’s my burnt offering?” to wind up a troll, or putting in our “pirate names” as happened the other day; these things are just a bit of fun without any sinister intent.
“FIND me the person who argues for ID/Creationism/Existence of God -consistently, over time- that is not banned.”
You are mistaking correlation for causation. They get banned not because they argue for creationism, but because they engage in other non-tolerated behaviors while doing it.
PZ won’t ban you for your simpering tirade just now. But if you post that same thing 57 more times in a bunch of threads where it isn’t appropriate, then yeah, dungeon.
Also, you are misusing the word ‘argues’. Here, I will fix it for you:
“FIND me the person who repeats the same disproved assertions over and over without ever offering a scrap of evidence for ID/Creationism/Existence of God -consistently, over time- that is not banned.”
See? Now that’s accurate.
Ohhhh, Pirate names… must of missed that one. Arrrrrghhhh.
whoville #88 wrote:
I think most creationists and theists tend to drift off on their own after a while, frustrated or bored. We’ve had a lot, and there really aren’t that many names in the dungeon, especially if you take into account that it’s been compiling for years.
Off the top of my head, I can think of Pete Rooke, Walton, and Intelligent Designer, who are still here, and active. Folks aren’t always particularly nice to them, maybe, but they’re not banned. I’m sure people can think of others. I could probably add in Scott Hatfield, who won the first Molly, though he hasn’t debated the existence of God in a long while.
So I think you’re wrong.
Registration’s a great idea. Just make sure someone doesn’t script a reg-bot and claim-jump some of the well-known identities.
Switching from unbacked identities to constant identities can be tricky.
Why Emmet you naughty, fickle man. Channeling Gomez Addams to me instead of SC, OM.
So Bubala, if you liked innuendo, how about this: interdict.
Anything but that. I’ve never seen an implementation that I didn’t find immensely irritating.
I must agree with Emmet # 72. If every stupid ass comment from a bible puncher carries the strong possibility of being a Poe, then why bother responding at all? I am new at posting here, although I’ve been reading much longer and I have noted a real trend of threads getting derailed. We all bear responsibility here in trying to keep the thread at least in the same zip code as the original post.
I understand that threads can go in any direction and that is a good thing. At the same time, I have seen a long series of intelligent posts end up in what I can only describe as name calling because some dickwad drags it off topic AND refuses to deal with objections/comments.
you know how you train dogs? You reward good behavior and ignore bad ones. We seem to be all too ready to reward these creotards and Poes with our responses.
Just my thoughts…
Just as a side note. I am assuming that the OM extension means Original Member. How did you guys qualify for this? did you post in the first few months of the blogs existence or something?
Or does it have something to do with being awarded a Molly?
Thus spake Patricia, OM:
I thought you knew that I’m an unabashed tart. Why, only the other day, I had a shamelessly suggestive exchange with Diagoras. You should know that I’m nothing but a dirty slut.
OM stands for Order of Molly. You can read about it here .
Doug Little:
“OM” = “Order of the Molly”
Psst, Doug Little, about half of the OM’s don’t have members.
Check out the Commenter’s tab at the top of the page. ;o)
hehe…He said member…hehe
(See the “Commenters” tab at the top of the page.)
whoville @88:
Randy Stimpson, for one. Piltdown Man, for another.
There, that’s two off the top of my head.
PZ bans persistent, egregrious posters that do nothing but disrupt threads. He doesn’t ban dissenters or the likes of you.
—
Doug Little @102, follow the “commenters” link at the very top of the page.
DLittle
Molly
#103 Doug Little,
Yes it is (member of the) “Order of Molly”.
Thanks Emmet.
Could someone put whoville to bed? He’s awfully fussy.
@ Comment 1.
I realize I’m late at this, but everybody should check that out. What a find.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 12, 2008 8:33 PM
-Something I’d like to see are collapsible, nested comments. This would make conversation type threads much easier to follow.
“–Anything but that. I’ve never seen an implementation that I didn’t find immensely irritating.”
I completely agree with EC. It drove me away from Huff Post (along with the increasing woo). But an auto-fill function that remembers who the person is would be good.
Thanks, brain went into neutral there for a moment.
@73
Wah. Play me the worlds smallest violin. Yes, I’m a die hard atheist. But all you PZ wank strokers would be crying if you got banned for similar things.
A lot of those “offenses” are a joke. Quit using creationist strategies. Who cares if someone is “stupid” or “godbotting” or “boring”? You actually expect intelligible debates from most creationists?
Ah, oh. There may be a dual here. Or a cage match.
KoS, King of Sluts is a lofty title Emmet. Better sharpen your antlers.
Should we get into our cheerleader togs, and fluff up our pom-poms?
Oops! Totally OT.
What about the Libertarian proselytizers?
@114
“I realize I’m late at this, but everybody should check that out. What a find.”
Oh, worry not, in a few days, all will know. The pope, who has much experience in such things, will weigh in soon.
mayhempix @115,
I use the much-maligned IE, and that’s pretty much what I get. I type “j” <downarrow> <tab> <enter> in the name field, and similarly for the email field of the comment posting dialog.
Speaking of dirty sluts, how is ‘Operations get Walton
laida hooker’ going? Think we can slip her/him into Walton’s residence at Oxford?Why do you want this blog filled up with the same old tired creotard tactics and attempts to derail? I for one get tired and sick of hearing the same shit over and over again. And yes I actually do expect intelligent debates from creationists who are willing to actually debate the topics at hand, is that too much to ask?
re my #121, that should read <tab> (no need for the <enter>, I was thinking of a different app).
Thus spake SC,OM:
Hehe… my member is 100% original… hehe
Thus spake Patricia, OM:
Hehe… you can fluff my pom-pom anytime… hehe.
Oh, and why do you need to affirm the fact that you are a “die hard” Atheist? Nobody here give a shit what you are.
Dude, I’ve had days long arguments with creationists on this blog who were not banned.
As Sastra points out, Scott Hatfield argued for god and is generally respected as a commenter. He even got a Molly.
You are equating tiresome, time-wasting arguers for religion with all arguers for religion. Also, even when they do get banned, their collective several hundred comments are still there for all to see. (Pretty much the exact opposite of “creationist strategies,” Mark)
You know not of what you speak
PZ cares. It’s his blog. If you don’t like it the way he runs it then you better play your little tiny violin for yourself.
give->gives, sorry where is KoT when you need him.
@123
And it’s ridiculous to ban someone because your ‘tired and sick’, or ‘attempts to derail’. Or they’re ‘st00pid’. Welcome to the internets.
A Poe is only funny when you get the actual people whom you’re mocking taking you seriously.
Creationists agreeing with your Poe –> funny.
Evilutionists calling you stupid –> pointless since there’s no difference between Poe and Real Deal. Just wasting everyone’s time. And this could just be considered trolling.
And to be fair, the other way around:
Creotard pretending to be Evilutionist: “Oh yeah, there’s a lot of evidence for evolution. Fossils, DNA, observed mutation, geographic distribution of species, reinforcement with other scientific disciplines. And god is not needed, and it’s just a freaking beautiful and powerful explanation.”
Evilutionist: “Yeah, you’re pretty much right.”
Creotard: “haha, I said something stupid and you agreed.”
Everyone else: “???”
Mark, you’ve said the same thing thrice. You’re becoming boring and repetitive.
@127
Oh christ. PZ CARES!ONE!11
I do like the way he runs it. But it’s dumb to ban people because you deem something is ‘stupid’. He does have the right, I know. But that doesn’t make it not dumb.
Hey, I just looked at ‘Commenters’ and found out I’m a Pharyngulord. I didn’t know we existed.
Now I’m going to have to start wearing a crown with jewels. And a cape.
@126
When all else fails, insult. But I’ll continue to watch your meltdown, it’s quite amusing.
Enthusiastic reader, seldom poster, but weighing in anyway…
I’ve got this awful feeling that GIL is not a Poe, but an actual Phelps. Judging by the tenor (read: stench) of the posts, and the evidence of self-Googling to ferret out ANY mention in online media and immediately jump in to skank up the place, I’d hazard a wager that it’s Shirley Phelps-Roper, in fact. I’ve had the misfortune to run across that hateful bint’s online comments before, and these are very much of a piece.
Throw that THING in the dungeon, please?
Mark @ #132, #129 and so on…
just out of curiosity, why the fuck are you still posting here? It’s not like there aren’t a gazillion other blogs on which to post comments. I’m sure there must be one somewhere that has a policy to your liking, no?
Uuuuuh! Now just look who’s all high and mighty, a crown AND a cape.
*SNORT*
CSue #135 wrote:
But would an actual Phelps take a moniker like “GodIsLove?” I’d think that would be like an ordinary Christian appearing as “GodSucks.” Not even in jest.
@136
Then don’t respond to my posts. Why is it that when you disagree with me you have to have a internet meltdown and start throwing insults or curse at me?
Excuse me, but I am new on the blog. What is a “POE?”
Mark # 134
Mark # 117
do you read your own posts?
Mark,
Your concern is noted.
Mark @ # 139
you’re the one whining about the banning policy, remember?
Emmet, thank you for being concerned about my concern.
to Ron G @ #140
a “POE” is a reference to Poe’s law, which basically goes like this:
“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”
Wow. Pharyngulord . . . your Highness!
I suggest a bullet and laser-proof cyber suit with sensory augmentation, nanotech camouflage, and leg rockets. With jewels.
And a cape.
Brain,
Eh… hardly. A disagreement. But people don’t handle disagreement well. Come on, throw an insult.
Oh and yes I read them… I lol’d.
Mark:
This is the third time you have said this – do you even know what the definition of repetitive is? This may be why you’re having issues understanding why PZ does what he does.
He doesn’t ban people simply because they say something he disagrees with – he gives them every opportunity to say their piece and back it up if possible. Most times the religious trolls that enter here have nothing to back up their statements and get thoroughly burned for it, and most leave. It’s those few who refuse to offer evidence, who refuse to answer questions, and do nothing more than continue with the inane babble that got them flamed in the first place that eventually leads to them being banned.
Sort of like what you are doing. By the way, THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP! Censorship is the work of a government entity, meant to deny ANY publication/display/whatever of said offending material. PZ’s site is private, and as such he has full control and responsibility for its content. He does not, however, have the means to silent the (mostly ignorant) masses outside of his site: They still have access to the intertoobz and can still broadcast their messages for all to either hear or ignore.
I recommend you exercise your options in this regard if you don’t like what PZ does on his own site.
Sir Craig, over and out…
Here it means a comment (or commenter) that obeys Poe’s Law in that nobody is altogether sure whether the commenter genuinely believes what s/he has written or the comment is a parody/satire of a “true believer”.
RG #140
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
Mark, if you have an actual point, please make it.
Ron Gove #140 wrote:
“Poe’s Law” says something to the effect that it’s impossible to satirize fundamentalism without sounding perilously similar to the real thing — and fundamentalists will often sound like satire. A “poe” is slang for someone pretending to be a fundamentalist, and going over the top — but not by much. It’s a particular kind of troll.
The complaints about “Poes” has to do with the recent influx of atheists or evolutionists coming on the blog and pretending to be creationists with very stupid arguments — and then going “gotcha” when people fall for them. It’s very tiresome.
“Calling a poe” means you think the Christian/Creationist is not for real.
Mark, your posts are indistinguishable from that of a troll.
The first one was perhaps legitimate (though a concern troll would post just like that), but your subsequent ones are hardly so, inasmuch as you’ve added nothing substantive other than indignant posturing and repetition of your initial allegation.
You’ve said your piece, you’ve defended your view (by assertion only), and now you’re just sniping.
Provide something new or be shown to be a true troll™
CSue @135
“I’ve got this awful feeling that GIL is not a Poe, but an actual Phelps.”
Many have called GIL a Poe, but all along I have doubted that. But how to know? I went to the Westboro site “godhatesfags” and truly believed that was a Poe. But no…
Shirly Phelps-Roper? Wife? Daughter? If so, my “You have been taken in by a cult” post to this person is truer than I might have thought. “Run, GIL, run” was my version of a Poe.
RamblinDude #146:
Your suggestion is noted, and will be taken into consideration.
Patricia OM, #137:
your envy is noted, and will be gloated over in private forthwith. Though not, sadly, with chickens.
Since I can, I will chime in.
I am a drive by poster/lurker. Registration didn’t seem to work well before so I would be inclined to say avoid it if possible.
I hope that the coming upgrades to scienceblogs do not break the site to the point where its utility ends. I have had big problems at Panda’s Thumb at times and on other blogs that implemented the latest and greatest. (To the point of crashing the local computer not just trashing the browser.) Some “improvements” like Flashplayers are known vectors for malware and frankly I don’t have the time to defend myself against them all. Let alone the inclination. So if it isn’t broken, then leave it alone.
IMO the level of moderation is about right here. You have to go to some trouble to get banned. This is Pzed’s blog and he can run it however he likes but I think it is fine as it is.
I don’t think adding other moderators would work well. What might have a little utility is giving a few trusted users the capability of parsing logs to find out if a given handle is coming from more than one IP or if several handles are coming from just one IP. That way it would lessen PZ’s burden for winkling out the treacherous. This is a global blog and gets traffic 24 x 7 so he can’t stay on top of it all the time.
It is very difficult to read an entire thread here often times because they tend to be large and because many posters actually write thoughtful and well argued posts. But to the extent possible it is the obligation of one coming into the conversation to know what the conversation is about. There will be about 30 new posts before I finish writing this one.
As to the Poe/troll/loki/godbot problems, well they are not going to go away. Yes they are tedious and boring but my general feeling is that the level of constraint placed on them by PZ is just about right. He has given fair warning, those who do not change their behavior should be treated according to his stipulations.
This is one of the best blogs I have come across and I hope that it can continue to be despite the concerted efforts of a few to be disruptive and counter productive.
One thing I would suggest is this. Since this is a science blog, but PZ is a biologist, he might entertain proposalsfor “guest posts” that would provide more fodder for discussion. Serving as editor for those proposals may be a burden too great to take on but I would hope that he would at least consider the idea. There may be a way to implement it that is not too demanding and I think that there might be some very good contributions to be had from the pharyngulite hordes. Note I said HORDES. ;-0
Just as an aside, Emmet – do you have a brother named Holden?
Zai jian,
I haven’t felt that GIL is a Poe. Can’t describe why, any more than when I first saw Neg’s, Walton’s, and RR’s Poe’s and went “what?”.
I would be happy if GIL drops by and announces the Poe though. Otherwise, that is one messed up person.
Pharyngulord Sastra, the cape is not a good idea.
Mark – Emmet isn’t concerned, he’s flirting.
But now that Sastra is OUT in her cape, you’re history.
Look out Emmet, wait till Janine sees that crown and cape. And if Sastra’s got tights – you’re in for some competition slutster.
Mark,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you complaining about PZ not allowing people to post on his own, personal blog?
From what I’ve seen, PZ rules pretty much by benign neglect. He doesn’t mind foul language, he doesn’t object to people disagreeing with him or other posters, and he doesn’t mind people being obnoxious towards himself or others. He makes initial posts as thread starters and then generally leaves threads alone. He rarely posts and when he does find objectionable behavior he often issues warnings for the violator to knock it off.
I believe that the main reason why people get tossed in the dungeon is that PZ finds them boring. Most intelligent people find stupidity, especially repetitious stupidity, to be boring.
What, so that you can then “claim victory” as per your post #134?
Nerd of Redhead:
He doesn’t. He’s just trolling like a whiny little pisspot.
@ Patricia 157
Should I be flattered? You know, when it comes to sexuality, I don’t discriminate.
…and, of course, there’s this:
@ Emmet
Yeah, I made my point; That some of the reasons for banning are dumb. Then spent a number of posts defending myself from people throwing insults and having meltdowns because they can’t accept a disagreement. Just stop. You keep it going.
“Whoville” is actually “Pharyngufat” — already banned, and will be deleted on sight.
It would be nice to dream of a blog that never needed policing, but it’s never going to happen. I try not to ban people for simply disagreeing (even if their disagreement is royally stupid), but some people demonstrate that they are not interested in conversation, but only in disrupting conversation. They need to go, or threads turn into even greater messes than they are now.
Implementing a registration scheme would not be censorship. It would be requiring some accountability from commenters, which would shut down some of the drive-by inanity. Any scheme I use will still allow anonymity, but will at least require some investment in a pseudonym that you’ll have to stick with…unlike losers like pharynguphat, who blows by with a new username every time he feels like taking a dump on the blog.
2 cents = registration is fine, thanks to autofill. But moderation is all Nisbetty.
Also, I’ve read many threads > 200 comments… sometimes a LOT more.
#163 Mark,
No, Mark, you’ve kept it going with classic troll behaviour: baiting and posturing.
PZ, could you just disemvowel these guys instead of deleting the posts? It’s easier to follow the numbered replies that way. Or maybe just adding a “reply” option to the comments would be a good update suggestion, since you guys are updating the software anyway. Just sayin’
Brain Hertz @162, that was great! I’m gonna have to rent the movie :)
Sastra,OM,PL – Oh right. There you go, gloating. Now I AM doing a high, roiling boil. Stomping my feet’s’s too!
Since MAJeff has faded off into the blah, blah, blah high orbit of Pharyngulords, perhaps PZ could invite Rev. BigDumbChimp to guest host a foodie thread for the great Solstice Feast?
Let’s just see Chimpy type: Rev.BigDumbChimp,KoT,OM,PL
O.K. Mark – please specify why banning someone for attempting to derail a discussion is wrong. Do you feel that because this is on the internet there should be no controls?
As for a definition of stupid, I’d hazard that repeating assertions without formulating an argument based on facts would qualify.
Still say there was some real advantages to the old usenet. One, if someone claimed Poe, then not only is it clearly a sub-thread, with a title, but any posts along the same lines show up “in” that sub thread. And, if some moron posted something, people could ignore the entire sub thread replying to them. Web forums… just don’t manage that. They treat everything linear, or if they do sub thread, they do so in ways that makes it harder to move to the next sub thread, instead of the next thread, or they move to the next message by time, instead of by what you are reading, etc. Worst behavior is, imho, the ones where if you are reading one sub thread, you have to back out all the way to the branch, just to see where the branch was.
Ones that don’t do it, like here, can be a pain in the ass, but, I have also not seen one that does try to make it better and actually “works” right.
You can’t count on comment numbering being consistent. The other thing that screws up the numbering is the fact that some comments get held up for moderation, and when they get approved they get inserted into the thread.
I may do more disemvoweling — it depends on how easy it is with the new software. Sometimes, though, comments deserve to be utterly blown away.
I’m happy for registration here ’cause I know PZ’s not going to pass my details on to spammers; I have no such confidence in the hosts of other sites – one of the reasons why I don’t tend to post very much elsewhere.
What I do want to echo is andyo’s request at #167 – that, if a comment is deleted, it doesn’t renumber the posts following it – since a lot of commentary is responsive to earlier posts and it gets very confusing when the numbers change.
Mark, while PZ’s list of crimes are somewhat repetitive, I’ve seen problems with all of them on other blogs. His list is not harsh, and such a list is necessary for a smooth running blog. Just like traffic laws, speed limits, and stop lights are necessary for cars not to bump into each other.
So Mark, are you a net anarchist, who believes there should be no rules in place?
Fine. No proselytizing. I hope you’re never touched by His Noodly Appendage, more beer and strippers for me!
Now Emmet, stop it with the protests against bait and posture. You know some of us dole out the bait rather heavily, and, come on – you and I have a campaign going to raise funds to loosen up Walton’s posture…
Look up thread, Mark’s flirting back. You naughty men!
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 12, 2008 10:50 PM
Oh, OK it’s just that because of the lack of a reply button everyone finds it easier to just reply by number of post. No big deal, but a reply button would be ideal, I guess it’d have to be applied all across the SB realm though.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! You probably wouldn’t miss my posts but I fucking HATE registering to post!!!!!!!!!!
Is there anyplace on the web having a lively godbots vs. firebreathers discussion as the chartered purpose of the forum anymore?
I miss the talk.politics.religion Usenet newsgroup.
What’s with this thread? Are coded exchanges being made or something?
PZ, I will leave it to you to make it easy for the computer challenged hillbillies to post, or not.
Your blog is a great source of learning, fun and entertainment for me. There are no other atheists that I am aware of in my fundie town, here is the only place I have to go where I can say gawd is bullshit and not get hung for it. Thank you!
Spam
John Morales,
Do those fucking WoW Gold spammers have to ruin everything ?!?
The other blog I infest uses registration, but the info is kept in cookies, so when I click on the site, it opens with me logged in. If the SciBlogs software is similar, there is only one hoop to go through when you first sign in. I do like the reply feature. Very useful on a busy thread.
No “reply” buttons on individual posts, I say. It would just result in noise of everyone posting identical responses to the same dumb comment without reading any other comments. No, everyone should be required to read every comment before posting. And if you have to quit your job to make time to do so, then tough beans.
Dear nonexistant Gob, no. Just no. I despise and hate threaded comments. They’re annoying and end up as little more than eddies of wankery. I enjoy the cross-pollination that results from the unruly mob knocking into one another. I’m not that enthused about registration, either. I’d still read the blog, but I’d be less inclined to comment.
I like having to read every individual comment. I am usually a lurker and only comment very rarely but I have learned quite a bit from reading through all the comments. It would not be as much fun or as interesting to have threads. That’s just my two cents.
Another vote for no nested comment threads, or reply buttons. That must be the worst “solution” forum designers ever came up with. Take a gander at the Richard Dawkins forum, where people routinely, unthinkingly hit “quote” and end up copying *the entire thread, with 8 or more nested replies including photos* just to add one damned sentence. It’s crazymaking. Sometimes you have to scroll through an entire page the size of this one just to get past the quoted, repeated junk to see the new post. Why anyone who runs a website puts up with this – and the enormous strain this will eventually put on their servers – is beyond me.
I’m just wondering why blog commenting hasn’t taken LiveJournal’s tree view comment structure:
Person A
—-> Person B
———>Person C
———>Person A
…is just so much easier to follow, and let’s you avoid the dull conversations, imo.
I came here from something mentioned on slashdot a few years ago and I’ve read the blog pretty much every day since. I comment once or twice a month and have made comments resisting registration in the past. I even registered with that odd service when registration was turned on briefly and hated that. I used to be strongly opposed to registration–but I’ve changed my mind. I’m committed enough to the blog–obviously–that I can register. Enough of the insanity, if registration will slow down the idiots, I’m all for it.
Alan
I don’t like registration either. But, if these posts are becoming unweildy in a boring way, and it keeps happening, then do it. I don’t think there are that many real fuckwits who come here as the ridicule is too hefty.
Someone mentioned no sexual innuendo.
A girl goes into a bar and orders a double entendre.
So the barman gives her one.
less of that sort of thing, now.
Tossing a couple of pennies in:
I’m in favor of registration, and threaded comments. For a case study on how to do it well, look at the User Friendly comment board. (For instance, JoshS’s comment about repeated text doesn’t apply, as the parent post doesn’t get copied into the child. To quote the parent you need to manually insert a blockquote, which effectively prevents runaway replies.)
Patricia (#176) said,
I’m almost scared to ask how.
Registration is definitely a good idea, if it can help reduce the incidence of things that take comments off-track. I have learned a LOT from this blog, most of it biology that I didn’t take in college (too much math…), and it’s easier to do so when godbots and the like don’t sidetrack threads.
The poes have had their day. Let them fade like the bad ideas they were to begin with. If we must have poes, then let us stick to one a thread, and let the poester make at least a half assed attempt at wit. Whoever is the first to poe, let him be the poe; let the rest of us amuse ourselves with the creature’s antics. And he who poes when another has claimed the status of thread poe, let him be housed in the dungeon, in the cells the rats refuse to enter.
(I have no idea why I phrased things that way, sometimes it just happens.)
OT OT OT ****Movie Review**** OT OT OT
The Day the Earth Stood Still
-by scooter
If you’re looking for a good plot, lots of twists, character development, great dialog and a compelling script, save your money. As a story this thing never finds its way.
It sort stumbles awkwardly back and forth between Terminator, and It’s a Wonderful Life
Don’t worry about spoilers, this movie could not be more predictable. In fact it was so predictable, I was sure I was being sucked in for a big plot twist, no such luck, that was the surprise.
This time, Klaatu the alien has cloned himself into human form from DNA collected right after the credits. Keanu Reeves is perfect for this role, the same way Ahnold was perfect for Terminator. Stiffness and dead pan are required, and nobody can play a man as uncomfortable in his own skin as Keanu Reeves, it comes naturally.
As you can tell from the trailer, Klaatu is no Mr. Nice guy this time around, however he’s neither villainous nor virtuous, just sort of….
confused.
Several pieces of the 60’s movie plot are retained, and a special treat is John Cleese, who plays the mathematician/scientist portrayed by Sam Jaffee in the original.
But overall this film suffers from uber cliche, and bad writing. You will say to yourself, “Oh, this is the part where I’m supposed to choke up”, or “I guess I’m supposed to move to the edge of my seat, now”
The part where Klaatu temporarily disables all machinery on earth, the central theme of the movie, and the fucking title for crissakes, is just thrown in like an afterthought toward the end. It just dangles there, completely unexplained.
The poor Earthlings are so frazzled by a series of Mars Attack-like space man inflicted cataclysms, they don’t even notice the lights going out. There are a few establishing shots of power failing, and cars stalling, the drivers get out, shamble around, look up at the sky, and THATs IT!! I thought a zombie movie was going to break out at any second. There’s not even one throwaway line of dialog referring to the fact that the Earth is suddenly….
….Standing STILL!!!
THEN
The movie ends and the power is still off, you don’t know if our machinery ever starts back up or not, which is somewhat significant to the story line, one would assume.
It’s hilarious, it seemed like the movie ended when they ran out of money. I’m glad I didn’t get stoned for this, or I would have been laughing so hard, they’d have carried me out.
I did LOL once for obvious reasons, when this particular line of dialog was spoken:
“Look, inside the globe, cephalopods”
“Huh?'”
“Squids, inside the globe.”
Roger Corman wouldn’t have produced this birdcage bottom liner they called a screenplay, it was that bad.
BUT
It was REALLY well directed, very well-paced, it had a strong direction with which it marched mindlessly and relentlessly with few lulls
As a piece of Cinematography, it actually qualifies as art.
Also state of the art, and generations ahead of ANYTHING I’ve seen in any Batman, Iron Man, Space Movie special effects spectacle. There’s apparently a lot of old fashioned modeling and camera optics that flow seamlessly into CGI, which is never cartoon-ish, this movie is REALLY cool to watch.
It’s shot beautifully , it’s stunning, every live action, close up, or big bang scene is meticulous.
The sound mixing is perfect, the score is great, it’s a technical masterpiece.
This is worth the price of matinée admission. I doubt it is worth renting if you have a regular square Tube TV, it’ll never come off. It’s a theater only flick.
There was one subtle subtext I found amusing, it had to be intentional. Not a president nor vice-president is seen in the entire film, they are all apparently cowering in undisclosed secret underground locations, the entire executive branch is represented by an Adeline Albright type character who is the Secretary of Defense, I think. She and Cleese are the only characters in the film doing any acting, she does some great headpalms.
I suggest you avoid the dialog, eat some mushrooms and load up a really freaky Dark Star on your iPod and settle in at a local matinee, could be fun.
I recommend the original. It’s quite a good movie ;-).
PZ’s nature has shone through so I am going to say a few things
ONE – This is going to be my LAST post. I am going to leave on my own FREE WILL instead of being CENSORED by PZ
TWO – This kind of censorship reminds me of a famous atheist STALIN who used to censor his enemies by the GULAG
THREE – The constitution says FREE SPEACH, therefore your blog is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FOUR – The constitution says SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE – but clearly atheism is a religion and SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL
FIVE – Getting rid of me will not SILENCE me I am on a mission from GOD to stop this godless nonsense which is POINSONING our YOUTH, killing our children
SIX – There is a GOD and you WILL be JUDGED
SEVEN – You WILL lose the “Culture War” – we have GOD on our side
EIGHT – Based on the people PZ wants to CENSOR – evolutionists and atheists are not intersted in CONVERSATION but merely preaching to the DAMNED self flaggelation
NINE – PZ wants to EXPELL ME – a common tactic by those without an argument
TEN – JOHN 3:16
PZ you will have to answer one day to your crimes and there is a special place in hell for you because you are trying to seduce people away from THE LIVING GOD.
To all the CATHOLICS, MORMONS, GAYS, JEWS, “NEW AGERS”, ATHEISTS, PORNOGRAPHERS, HOMOSEXUALS, WORKING WOMEN, MUSLIMS – WATCH OUT – God does not LOVE you – but it is not too late to change your ways and bask in the LOVE OF GOD.
Actually there is nothing in the Constitution about Free Speach.
There is a clause about Freedom of the Press. Contemporary laws regarding Free Speech are all related to gains made in the sixties, however, I do not believe they are amendments.
Oh YEAH, gort klaatu barada nikto It’s a SciFi classic, a must-see.
Here’s a bit of interesting trivia. That Movie was the first appearance of a Flying Saucer in a film. Before the release of that Movie, there had never been a report of a flying saucer UFO.
After that movie, people started seeing flying saucers all over the skies, they still do.
With dog on your side, why is there even a war? Cant he just smite us all and claim victory already?
In the end, the truth always wins.
The current obnoxious troll (probably-)misleadingly claims This is going to be my LAST post.
I doubt it. Please prove me wrong.
On (part of) the subject of this thread: Why and how does this not-yet-explained proposed “registration” solve anything?
It probably does stop something; I’ve noticed that on other blogs where registration is required to post, I’ve stopped posting altogether even if registered. And I usually don’t even bother to register. Those other blogs don’t seem to be infested any more than Pee Zed’s or SciBlogs-as-a-whole. But besides lacking data, another obvious problem with such a comparison is I’ve no idea how the banning policies compare.
NO to threading! People are not uni-subject. (Consider this very post as a example: It has c.3 different subjects, two of which are clearly On-Topic.)
NO to a Reply button? (Seems pointless if there’s no threading?)
NO to automatic quoting in any form.
And YES–please!—to UTF-8 being used consistently on all of SciBlogs.
And YES to some means of feedback/interaction with the SciBlogs technical staff (such as a blog for/about issues with the SciBlog site?).
Finally: I usually try to read all the comments, albeit I do rapidly skim over the (obvious-)Poe’s/trolls/IDiots–unless they happen to make a silly/stupid comment in the first 30 or so posts which I spot and which excessively irritates me.
blf,
Presumably, registration will involve matching a username to a (valid) email address – if someone wishes to morph they will need either to amend their registered username or get a new valid email address and re-register. If that someone is blocked, then only the second option will be available.
As PZ says, it would only ameliorate rather than remedy the situation.
blf, one more thing:
Do those blogs have the traffic Pharyngula has, and are they as controversial to certain (vocal) segments of the population? I don’t care to substantiate this, but I get the feeling that the problem is slowly getting worse, here.
Registration : Yes
Question : would it be implemented for all of Scienceblogs, or just Pharyngula ?
I like the idea of registration. It might make things more peaceful on the threads. I wouldn’t want to see a whole lot more change, though.
And censorship is when government bans speech or expression. Free speech doesn’t mean you’re necessarily free to speak in any way, at any time, and in any place you want, including others’ blogs, free of consequences.
I think it’s only appropriate that a privately run site is controlled to the extent that the content is appropriate to the purpose of the site. That’s just necessary quality control. And I’m sure PZ can do that just fine without moderators. Registration should help.
re my #203, registration would also prevent people from posting using another’s username, and could also be used to prevent duplicate usernames (depending on implementation).
The former is really annoying.
It was a desperation tactic. I wanted to have the arguments destroyed since i could no longer do such a thing (unless i said “hey guys look at this!”- but that historically hasn’t worked well at all), and i haden’t recalled anyone putting that canard through its paces. I put the defacement of an argument above the consideration of all those who bothered to respond. It was rude and trollish to the nth degree. I’m genuinely sorry if i made anyone feel foolish. I’m the worst. It Does warrent banishment.
So… does this mean i can’t make fun of myself? Cus that’s how i’ve done it before- Mr. Asshole. Well, now anyone who doesn’t know is just being dumb. So, if it should show up in the future, you have been warned.
registration is fine. But i guess it’s back to the whole “spell like shit” mode of posting in that case. My mozilla doesn’t autofill. It blows.
Brain Hertz @#162:
E is awesome. I love her.
“After that movie, people started seeing flying saucers all over the skies, they still do.”-Scooter
A case of Stand alone compex? Many people that heve never seen that movie have seen flying saucers. I guess this just goes to show the power of memes at work. Wow.
RickrOll,
Is that the only way you can think of to make fun of yourself? But, (speaking for myself, obviously) probably not – morphing and sockpuppetry are as much a matter of intent as of method. It can be funny when someone posts as God or Joan of Arc or whatever to make a point, but to impersonate a third party (Nance, in your case) and godbotting is just not on. At least you came clean. Also, as I recall, I saw “Mr. Asshole” as nothing but a troll.
Mr. Asshole is nothing more than a pun- he was created thanks to BobC on “Let’s not play this game.” He called me Mr Asshole, a godbot in the closet, and Mr. Assholes response was “Hey, don’t lump me in with this para-christian fucktard!”
All about the luls.
The cue would have been when Neg was talking about his collection of christmas artifacts and i labeled him a “para-christian fucktard” as well. All in the name of irony and self-depreciation. It may even be constued as meta-wanking.
About Nance, i challenged her to spot the difference between what i said and what she believes. If she can legitimately say something, then i will have lost in every sense, in posting as her.
The Voice of Reason was actually an alias i used when i wanted to promote across the aisle behavior on Suddenly Atheist- which makes sense, since i usually give the eveangelicals a run for thier money:
“OK Compass1130, Phillysoul, and all you evengelizing lot, since you keep having these “come to Jesus” spasms, i think i have something here that might shade you from the burning lights of your passion and let you get a look at us athiests, straight in the face, eye to eye.
John Shore everybody, from Suddenly Christian (*cheers*)! http://johnshoreland.com/2007/09/16/what-the-atheists-taught-me/ ”
Shame to be betrayed by one of the few upstanding Christians whom i admired. It seems that at the end of the day, he couldn’t tolerate dissent, just like so many others.
/the whole truth.
I’m sorry, but that’s not the ‘virgin’ Mary. Everyone knows she wears blue.
@John Morales
Thanks for offering the tip on auto-fill. I use NetNewsWire for all of my RSS subscriptions and for that it is a great tool, but it appears it has no auto-fill function. I use Safari and Firefox as my main browsers which do have auto-fill but the RSS features are not near as good. It is a compromise either way.
At the blog that posted the Virgin Mary Playboy link
http://lauramartinez.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/playboy-mexico-decides-to-celebrate-virgin-mary-by-putting-her-on-its-cover/
My moniker and email address automatically appeared in the comment window. That means that somehow it retrieves them or else NetNewsWire does have an auto-fill feature that responds to sites that except it. Either way I love if it would happen here.
GodIsLove – a person who ups the poe ante to a level where parody is simply unobtainable. I still can’t tell if GIL was genuine or a troll.
Registration: Boo. Simply failed last time, discourages people from participating in one thread per year (like scientists whose papers are being discussed — or others like Joe Felsenstein who has made maybe 10 comments so far in total, over several years), and then of course it can fail again. Also, I hate having to log in again every few weeks and/or whenever my dynamic IP address changed.
Moderation powers: If PZ wants to spread his powers of disemvowelment and/or bannination, fine, but he should personally choose those people in that case. As mentioned above, different Members of the Order can have very different ideas of what trolling is and how much trolling is too much — injustice would result.
GodIsLove: I’m for the banhammer.
Time is not something you have, young padawan. Time is something you steal.
Actually, I don’t think truth machine would immediately ban everyone he considers stupid. I think he prefers scolding people over banning them.
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. I hate reading a thread, then coming back an hour or two later, and having to read the whole thing again because the new comments are willy-nilly interspersed! Having all comments in chronological order makes things easier.
Exactly. Registration would make that very difficult.
——————————–
I’ve only read to comment 101 and have to go. See you later. I’ll come back and start reading at comment 102 — something I couldn’t do if the comments were nested.
Nested comments also assume that nobody ever replies to two comments at once. Well, here’s a counterexample.
I’m posting this after reading 58 of the posts…
If someone really is bothering you, install greasemonkey and killfile the boring SOBs.
Nor do I (particularly as he was threatened with a ban himself on more than one occasion, which was supported by another OM the last time). Quite the contrary.
I was really building on Sastra’s comment @ #40 about the potential for conflict by pointing to an extreme local case. The whole idea is still making me laugh.
I’m trying to think of anyone I’ve wanted to see banned who hasn’t been, and I can’t think of any offhand. There are only a few people – not all of them unfriendly, incidentally – whom I would even consider killfiling if I had that option, and I probably wouldn’t even be able to keep that up for long.
Nerd, anarchists don’t believe there should be no rules (understood broadly), and certainly not that a person should not be able to set any limits for his or her own site which people have every option of leaving or ignoring without it affecting their lives. With regard to policy-making more generally, we (and of course I don’t speak for all anarchists :)) believe in democratic, participatory decision-making and reject systems with authority vested formally in individuals and institutions.
Actually, this blog provides a great study in the many mechanisms that allow a “society” to function without a looming coercive authority (I’ll note that even with the bad behavior exhibited by hundreds or perhaps thousands of people over years, only a handful of people have been excluded from the community, and in the cases that I’ve seen of possible banishment – like that of Pete Rooke recently – input and discussion were encouraged.) I don’t think the reason people don’t for the most part act like obnoxious jerks here, aside from their not being obnoxious jerks to begin with, is fear of the hammer (or cyberpistol, as it were). If I say something assholish – as we all do sometimes – I expect to be challenged and taken to task on it by others here. Outside of very extreme cases, it works.
It looks like Buddhists, Animists, Hindus, and railway engineers are safe.
Unless they’re women.
GIL, I’m calling POE. It’s like the “almost” perfect storm.
– Spelling mistakes – check
– UPPERCASE typing – check
– Mention of Stalin – check
– Persecution complex – check
– Imaginary meaning in the constitution – check
– Calling Atheism a Religion – check
We didn’t get Hitler though. I’ll have to give him 9 out of 10.
At this stage, I don’t really care if GIL is a Poe or not. If he/she isn’t a Poe, they should be plonked for godbotting. If they are a Poe, this has gone on for too long and is no longer funny. GIL should either stop posting, or acknowledge the Poe (preferred), or be plonked for being a bore.
SC, I was just trying to draw Mark out. I had a feeling he was hiding something. I’ve seen what web anarchists can do to a nice, polite blog (shudder).
Yikes. I’ve never heard the term “web anarchists” before, and if it’s being used to refer to people like Mark, then I don’t like it one bit. Anarchist principles underlie a lot of the thinking and practices behind democratic approaches to technology and communications, and it’s depressing to see “anarchist” used as a label for these jerkoffs. We have enough image problems already, thank you. :)
(If this were to become a nice, polite blog, it wouldn’t be any fun at all.)
Doug:
This is going to be my last post
HITLER was a ROMAN CATHOLIC
…and railway engineers are safe.
Unless they’re women.
I take it you heard about this murder plot.
why are people still engaging it?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 13, 2008
Yikes. I’ve never heard the term “web anarchists” before, and if it’s being used to refer to people like Mark, then I don’t like it one bit. Anarchist principles underlie a lot of the thinking and practices behind democratic approaches to technology and communications, and it’s depressing to see “anarchist” used as a label for these jerkoffs. We have enough image problems already, thank you. :)
Reminds me of when Fred Wordworth, publisher of The Match started call it a journal of ethical anarchism. He wanted to point out that this was not just mindless “fuck shit up” nihilist anarchism. Can’t say I blame him. I got tired of the wannabe street fighters passing through.
One for the ‘inept criminals’ file (fortunately).
RickOroll: I didn’t ban you off my site because I can’t tolerate “dissent.” I don’t even know what that means. I banned you from my site because your comments were so awesomely, terribly lame. And you’re crazy snarky. Life’s too short.
PZ: I love your blog. Seriously.
So we’re over the whole Poe thing,great,lets move on….
Registration,I guess we’ll survive somehow.
Ban the malignant trolls,all the rest we’ll survive too..
After all,its PZ’s blog hey…
What would make these blogs more readable is an ignore list. Of course, registration is required because your ignore list is your ignore list.
It is sort of a hassle but with cookies, once you’re logged in, you are logged in for a long time. On one website, I’ve been logged in for years automatically.
Forums without ignore lists quickly become useless. It isn’t even all the fundie liar’s fault either. A lot of the trolls are just malicious, mentally ill people with lots of free time and no life wrestling with their inner demons. And usually losing badly.
I’ve lost interest in whole websites when the troll to normal people ratio got too high. Trolls have more time to disrupt threads than I have to bother with them.
raven
Do you use firefox?
If so install the greasemonkey add on and killfile add on.
it’s basically an ignore list
Godis
loveimaginary,Then,
War on Christmas thread,
They never leave. They always say they’re gonna leave, but they never leave.
SC, maybe anarchist isn’t the right word, but these people just trashed our blog for a while. Every third word seemed to be the eff word, they cried free speech if anybody disagreed with them or called them out on their language. Acted like it was now their blog instead of ours. They deliberately lied and engaged in all of PZs crimes except godbotting. Finally the lady that runs the blog banned them and shut down their threads for a while. All the regulars heaved a huge sigh of relief when that happened. If you have a better label for those arrogant SOBs I will be happy to apply it. Anarchist, in the since of expecting not to have to follow rules, seemed the best label for them.
Pharyngula is quite a bit more rowdy than the other one, but it has a different purpose. And is a lot more fun.
I do like the way you think, scooterman. 9/21/72 would be a good choice.
Problem is, that doesn’t really describe anarchists (who don’t object to social norms, and especially not for themselves only, but think all norms should be questioned and arrived at democratically*). Also, there are a number of terms – many of which are quite positive – for people who have contempt for imposed rules or authority in general.
Negative labels for people like you describe (beyond those often used to describe those exhibiting similar behavior here)? I’ll have to think about it. ***ertarians? (I kid – they don’t seem to use profanity :P.) I think someone upthread mentioned “Nisbetty” to describe the opposite tendency, which I liked. Perhaps a similar name-based label…
*Again, though, it’s up to a blogger to decide how to run her or his site. It’s not comparable to a society in that sense.
SC, I never took any polysci or philosophy courses, so I may be off on various political/philosophic labels. Trying to figure out labels from context can be frustrating and wrong. Maybe those idiots weren’t anarchists, but rather nihilists. Could you give me the quick difference between the two?
Shoot. Nerd, I had just composed a response to you with links and all but then had to shut down the computer and lost it. I’ll try to recreate a shorter version. It had this:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html
which I’m aware I’ve linked to a number of times in the past, but that’s because I think it’s a good description. If you feel like reading more, try the Anarchist FAQ “What is Anarchism?” page.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a page on nihilism. As I said in the lost comment, aside from some unfortunate and later-regretted early dealings with some nihilists on the part of Bakunin, anarchist movements in theory and practice haven’t had much to do with nihilism.
The people you describe sound like a particular brand of internet assholes, and I doubt their behavior was based in any developed political or philosophical program. I mean, if they kept whining about free speech it seems you could just as easily label them constitutional extremists, no?
Nerd @232 – Do you remember which thread that was? I must have missed it during Market, I’d like to take a look at it.
I believe that NoR is referencing a different blog altogether.
David Heddle is another creationist/intelligent design proponent who has not been banned, if we’re still keeping track for whoville/pharynguphat, the obsessive loser who we all know is reading this right now.
I feel for the sockpuppet: I don’t think the neighbourhood kids let him play T-ball with them, either.
John Shore – I hopped over to your blog, it’s pretty lame. Rickrolls snark is probably the best thing that ever graced the site. I’m not saying that just to be mean, your design looks 1960’ish.
Oh, I dunno. I skimmed through and chuckled a few times. I didn’t think it was too bad, and John does say he’s a burgeoning writer.
Then again, I think you all know I’m easily amused.
Patricia, I am not referencing a Pharyngula thread, just an experience at another blog-a computer specific one (gotta keep my 7.75 year old beasty going). Our libertarians were very tame by comparison.
SC, I’ll read your links as soon as I get time. Got to finish up addressing envelopes and move some Xmas decoration boxes today, The Redhead’s orders.
At the risk of, I dunno…whatever…I will venture to suggest that this blog might actually benefit from a little “drying up.”
But then, I’m a curmudgeonly old-timer who was hanging around here not only pre-Crackergate, but pre-ScienceBlogs. Fifty-comment threads were long ones back then, and we had to trudge uphill both ways to gather our water from the Ichthyostega-infested river.
Sven, you forgot to add in the snow to your uphill both ways trudge.
In fairness to heddle, I am pretty sure that he is neither a creationist nor an IDiot; however, he does seem to think that cosmology (in particular, fine-tuning) is a good basis to infer that God exists.
How he gets from there to Calvinism is another thing entirely.
I bring you once again the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, from heddle’s church:
http://www.sebts.edu/prospective_students/what_we_believe/articles_inerancy.cfm
Thank you SC! I’m in a bit of a scrap with heddle on another thread. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen that Statement before. XII is hysterical. If heddle believes that crap he’s a moron.
I have no idea how he reconciles that, or any theology, with his intelligence and reasoning.
Compartmentalized mind is compartmentalized.
Why do people think registration is such a good idea? All it means is that posting a message here is going to cost more time and energy, because you’ve got to go through the trouble of creating an account. From what I’ve seen godbots have more of that than we. Personally speaking, I’ll certainly stop posting if registration becomes mandatory. Not that that’ll keep you, but I thought it’d be best to get that off my chest while posting anonymously is still possible.
You may also want to read this interview with Hiroyuki Nishimura:
http://www.ojr.org/japan/internet/1061505583.php
Search for: ‘Why did you decide to use perfect anonymity, not even requiring a user name?’
As an occasional poster and in inveterate reader of most posts I have no problem with registration and it might limit the GILs, morphing and the drop by crappers.
Threading and reply buttons?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
On blogs like this they are both the work of Satan.
Anonymous Coward @249, I think you raise two non-issues.
First, registration is a one-off affair, and it may save you some typing once you’ve done so, so I can’t see how it would “cost more time and energy” to post comments.
Second, PZ has said “Any scheme I use will still allow anonymity”, so posting anonymously would still be possible.
Nerd @ 174
I do agree with some of the reasons for banning. And yes, I can identify closely to anarchism, but I never heard the term you used.
Godislove @ 198
*Epic Facepalm*
Patricia @ 176
*Blushes*
Seemingly evereryone talking about anarchism;
Lulz. You can’t get all information from online encyclopedias. It’s not about not following rules. It’s more about solidarity and doing the right things so we don’t have to worry about making laws. But It’s an individual thing, not possible as a political system or social system. It’s more about hanging out at house shows, singing along to cop-hating folk anthems, drinking beer and going to underground art galleries, and giving tons of hugs and high fives.
Patricia OM@247,
XII is good, but my favourite is XIV:
“We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.”
So literally nothing can ever be evidence against biblical inerrancy. OK, maybe the Bible does teem with obvious inconsistencies and absurdities, but you’re not allowed to take any notice.
I can identify closely to anarchism,
but I never heard the term you usedeven though I know fuck-all about it. – MarkFixed it for you.
If anyone’s wondering why I’m not responding to Mark’s comment,…well, you might mant to consider treatment for SIWOTI syndrome. :)
***
Yup, XIII also makes it clear:
Error cannot be seen as a challenge to inerrancy. Stop attacking it with your harsh standards of truth and error. It will tell you what an error is and when it makes one, and it tells you it never does.
That does so make sense, scientists.
Shut up.
Shut up!
You’re right, I know fuck-all about ‘net anarchism’. I use the term ‘net anarchist’ on a daily basis.
Beep…Beep…..Beep…….Beep. Sorry folks, my BS alarm just went into serious overload. Time to check the irony meter. I’m sure it blew the fuse again (I’ve been saving a lot of e-ducts with the new fused input model). Yep. Now where did the replacement fuses go…..
Or better yet: When they got it wrong, they weren’t trying to get it right. So shut up.
No, it’s more “any Biblical errors are errors on your part for thinking there might be errors.”
Stop encouraging them, then! Your level of humour is sometimes not much higher than a fake creationist! One reaps what one sows 8-)
Found a link!
And note who posted the first comment after the article.
http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=5624
(Sorry if you have to cut-n-paste :)
CSue @261, without detracting from the message at the link, I sense hyperbole:
Honestly, such a weapon would break bones with but one blow if wielded by a normal person. 200 blows?
I had a quick look too. Its raison d’être seems to be to say tentatively, obliquely, verbosely, and repeatedly that he isn’t gay.
raven upthread :
I agree,and we’re headed a little that way,methinks.
And seconding Sven @ 243,
Very true.
“FIND me the person who argues for ID/Creationism/Existence of God -consistently, over time- that is not banned.”
I have defended creationism over time, but not really much in depth in here. It all depends on the subject matter, and time. Many use blogs solely for debate, others like to sing to the choir. Some like to be disruptive to show the person whom they are disagreeing with.
I enjoy writing in blogs for various purposes either defending creationism, pointing out weakness in evolution or just making fun of PZ’s hair or facial expressions during one of his interviews I seen…lol
Stupid question here–with threads like that, is it possible somehow to open a whole subthread at one time? I only know how to click on each post, one at a time, which takes way way way too long!…
Not a cape. Haven’t you seen The Incredibles!?!
I bet it can autofill, you just need to find the switch.
Does he? Or is he just a fideist?
It would not quite be a one-off affair. As mentioned, it would require you to log in again either after a few weeks, or after your dynamic IP address changes, or both. Auto-fill-in is already available in probably all browsers.
—————–
Article XIII again, with added emphasis:
That sounds like it refers to the King James Bible, not to the Hebrew/Aramic/Greek originals that heddle says he prefers.
…Aramaic…
David @267,
Maybe, but wouldn’t that depend on implementation?
I know that, using cookies, some sites to which I’m registered automatically remember my UID, and though my ISP assigns dynamic IPs I’ve not had to relog for them.
Still, fair point.
SC@#255:
SC, though I hesitate to get into another argument with you, I think you’re underestimating the ability to rationalize beliefs. When CrIDers, or at least a subgroup of them, talk about the inerrancy of the Bible, they are talking about the essence of what is said, not necessarily the way it is expressed. Their belief is that the Bible can be rendered down to the message which is independent from the language and the translation. The human compilers and scribes of the Bible make mistakes, take shortcuts and insert their own narratives. However, within all those deviations from the original, God’s word, being immutable, is preserved.
We tend to deal with the way the Bible is written because we dismiss the idea of an ‘essence’ incorporated by a supernatural creator. We simply do not believe there is a God so there cannot be an essence to the stories in the Bible.
They are in effect saying that the literal disassembly of the Bible we perform as proof of its errancy is invalid because it doesn’t address the essence behind the words.
Your argument is one of inconsistency on their part, but in their world they aren’t being inconsistent, we are being ignorant or building and attacking a strawman.
Considering CrIDers to be stupid is a mistake, it takes intelligence and imagination to construct arguments convincing to believers predisposed to compartmentalization. If we don’t strive to understand the enemy we will underestimate them. Underestimating them has been a critical mistake, the head start they have on us is due to exactly that.
I’ve always felt is is a mistake and in fact meaningless to directly attack the Bible in an effort to validate atheism. What is better, IMHO, is to put the ball in their court and require them to scientifically validate the supernatural events they cling to as evidence of their faith.
They seem to believe that just listing the places and events referenced in the Bible and discovered by archeaology is evidence of the truth of the Bible. We can acknowledge the accurateness of the Bible as an historical record of places and events that are naturally based and still require them to link the supernatural with those places and events.
They get so pissed off that they start demanding we ‘think outside the box’ and move beyond the ‘materialism’ of modern science. Once they demand we change science to accept supernatural explanations we have them. Their desire to be validated scientifically goes out the window as soon as they need to change how science is done.
Sorry for any condescension you perceive in this rant, it really isn’t intended but it seems I am unable to write any other way.
I haven’t read most of the comments, but I’d like to register my vote against comment registration.
GaryB @270,
You give the majority of them far too much credit, I think. Perhaps some of the elite* do, but in general they merely assert their belies (whilst willfully ignoring contrary arguments/evidence) rather than rationalise them. Hardly any actually construct arguments, most just regurgitate them.
* and a couple of them may even be genuine about it.
I don’t want to go into bible quoting again, unless heddle comes back. The contradictions in the bible are so glaring I’d like to know how he can say there are none?
John you are right that many just regurgitate talking points they have heard without really understanding them but those people are quite easy to differentiate from the others. Admittedly, this is just anecdotal, but a substantial minority of CrIDers I’ve run across over the years do take the time to understand the arguments. They aren’t hanging on to unsupportable beliefs because they are stupid, they are hanging on because it has become an essential part of their self image and self worth. This is why they spend so much time rationalizing the explanations despite the obvious impossibility of them. The really stupid don’t tend to last long.
I spent several years on a newsgroup and a forum arguing with quite a range of creationist intellects and found the obvious mindless cranks ineffectual and ignorable, but did not find the number to be much more than the more intelligent.
The stupid may indeed outnumber the intelligent but their threat is not equal. While the stupid and the intelligent only have one vote each, the intelligent can influence more than one stupid. Unless the stupid have overly rigid personalities and cannot be moved once they are comfortable with their beliefs, they have to be addressed as much as the intelligent. To address them we need to answer their source of information. If we underestimate the intelligence of a CrIDer we run the risk of losing movable stupids because we’ve ignored information they are getting from the CrIDer.
I guess what I’m trying to say, in a rather long winded way, is, yes many CrIDers are stupid, but it is dangerous to assume someone is stupid because s/he is a CrIDer.
As an aside, I get just as frustrated and angry as any here when debunking the same stupid arguments over and over again, which is why I take breaks and come to places like Pharyngula where the secularists outnumber the ‘others’.
“I banned you from my site because your comments were so awesomely, terribly lame. And you’re crazy snarky. Life’s too short.”- John Shore, #227
Ummm, this coming from the guy who keeps saying that we need to keep the communication lines open? http://johnshoreland.com/2007/09/16/what-the-atheists-taught-me/ Lame, snarky? Not very good reasons at all. I was seriously bothered that you would simply dismiss my comments- none of which i thought were rude, and neither did you apparently, because you never said anything to me. But, like so many, you would rather be shallow and childish than have a serious discussion. I was a fan of yours. Guess now i know better.
To esteemed Mr. Shore:
I have been to your blog post fairly regularly, but recently it would seem that you are determined to erase my influence, and are more than willing to completely ignore me.
I find this utterly bizarre. I am very forward in my comments, and if you wished to correct me, that seems fine. But eliminating my influence altogether is coming close to intellectual dishonesty; this is, unfortunately, rather common in the annals of creationism/ID blog posts. I know that you are better than this, and i continue to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have your reasons.
I’m sorry if this isn’t the correct place to contact you, as i am at a loss as to your actual contact info. I have had a great deal of respect for your work, and you are a very good man- a true christian. However, there still remains the problem: I have no idea why you continue to ostracize me. If you would clear this up, I would appreciate it.
A fan,
Rickr0ll
-sent November 30 to johnshore@sbcglobal.net. Does that still sound like a “hate-mongering troll” to you, John!
No gave no response. It was this rude dismissal that called for my comment on the SIWOTI syndrome thread, long long ago- the very same in which you omitted the part where i discuss you censoring me from your blog (again, no reason) once you made a post about it: http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/02/from-a-john-tesh-nod-to-me-being-gnawed/#comments
The censorship is the real issue, but you were perfectly willing to derail the conversation and twist my words to make it seem like i was out for you. I just thought you needed to be reprimanded. Doesn’t he, guys?? The rude dismissal as well as the cherry picking quotes to twist the discussion and become a sympathy figure…just sad.
“I don’t even know what that means.”- Then what basis do you have for saying that Wasn’t the reason for my banishment?
Oh, and speaking of snark, see his comments on this: http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/responding-to-the-suddenly-christian/
Not even wrong, he wasn’t even talking About the things discussed in the videos that MorscOde made. Just about the tone. Ho-Hum. Talk about lame…Sigh. This is about the last i want to discuss this matter, unless John wants to add this.
I don’t remember arguing with you earlier. This may be a sign that I’m arguing a little too much. :)
No, I’m pointing to it, in heddle’s case specifically.
You may be interested in the Minnesota Atheists radio show from a couple of weeks ago dealing with biblical inerrancy. My favorite line from the interviewee: “The jig is up.”
In any event, the people who wrote the statement under discussion are talking about literal truth – not the more nebulous “core message.” They are Biblical literalists.
Again, listen to the podcast. Even without a deity, there could still be a core message or essence to any work of literature. The contradictions in the Bible are so profound that there’s no way to attribute them to a single, noncontradictory essence.
No, they’re not. They’re saying that the words are literally true, but that no accepted standards for assessing the literal truth of statements in any other context are applicable to the Bible because they say so.
To which post of mine is this responding? This discussion was about heddle, who is a physicist. When did I ever call him stupid? The Chicago Statement is deeply stupid, as are heddle’s attempts to reconcile this with science. Willful stupidity is still stupidity.
That statement was stupid.
The people who wrote this statement are saying that scientific validation or the lack thereof is meaningless.
It isn’t even that.
We do this all the time. Where have you been? They can’t, of course.
The “they” you’re referring to is not the people who composed this statement. It states explicitly that they do not accept scientific approaches to the Bible.
I didn’t find it condescending – merely confused. :)
They are in effect saying that the literal disassembly of the Bible we perform as proof of its errancy is invalid because it doesn’t address the essence behind the words.
That’s a nice, fuzzy way of thinking about it. However, it’s wrong. Maybe a few of them rationalize it that way, but you go to any denomination that teaches biblical inerrancy, and it’s all about the words. Listen to the sermons. Preachers can build an hour’s worth of discussion on the turn of phrase in a single verse and why it was said precisely that way.
If you really want to know what a denomination holds as their truth points, look at their childrens’ curriculum. Even better, the teacher guides for said curriculum. That’s where you see what’s drummed into their heads at an impressionable age. That’s where you see instructions like “Kids may wonder how Noah got all those animals in the ark – we don’t know, but God can do anything! And we have to trust his word!” I can understand how people want to rationalize away that surely NO ONE can believe this stuff literally, but people do. They really, really do.
And I’ll note once again that the church in which I was raised (thoought it wasn’t my parents’ – long story) was a Baptist church nearly identical to heddle’s. I’m quite familiar with what these people believe.
***
By the way, I wonder if this new arrangement between Scienceblogs and the New York Times Science page will bring in some interesting new people…
Registation is a bad thing. I don’t register. It’s no longer the kind of conversation I’m looking for. If a blog turns on regstration, I go away. You lose my comments, and you lose my readership. I’ll find conversation and insights elsewhere.
It would be a shame if this blog were to go to registration. If it does, I won’t get a chance to say goodbye. So, for that eventuality, goodbye.
It’s been a good time. Thanks for all the fish.
,
And I’ll note once again that the church in which I was raised (thoought it wasn’t my parents’ – long story) was a Baptist church nearly identical to heddle’s.
*Fist bump* SC! There are several of us recovering Baptists around here. I was raised SBC from the moment of my birth. In fact, my second cousin is now the pastor at the church my grandfather helped build, if that tells you anything.
Registation is a bad thing. I don’t register. It’s no longer the kind of conversation I’m looking for.
WHY? I’ve seen a lot of people say this, but without giving any actual reasons. Give me examples of exactly how the conversation changes after registration, beyond deterring drive-by trolls. It’s not hard. It’s not different. All you’re doing is promising to be somewhat consistent. This system already asks for name and email address. If you’re commenting around on blogs already, you ought to have an email address that is specifically for commenting, if you don’t want to use your primary address. It’s not that hard to make up a new one.
SC@#276
Yah, it was a thread about bigotry against atheists. You seemed pretty upset but then I’m pretty bad at reading people.
My comment was about that one statement you copied from some manifesto and your response to it, I didn’t backtrack your subthread.
In my experience of some rather lengthy arguments with literalists, when they start claiming the errors we point out are irrelevant they are stating that we are focusing on the words not the essence. Talk to them for a while and you will see they are essentialists (think Platonic idealism).
It is a response to the same post and the inferred stupidity implicit in your response to the manifesto article XIII. (You inferred from the article that they were stupid and implicitly stated so in your response. You just repeated it in the statement above.)
I think we may be at odds with our definition of stupid. I look at it as an inability to learn and reason. My point is that unless you are Spock, overcoming emotionally set beliefs is not easy and the inability to do so is not a reflection of reasoning ability. Rationalization is a powerful aspect of human thought, it can overcome even the most intelligent rational thought.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
However, we as atheists do indeed point out the errors and contradictions, as well as the evil, in the Bible in an attempt to prove the literalists wrong. Is that not a direct attack on the Bible?
How often have you heard an atheist state that, although brought up in a religious environment, the errors, contradictions and inability to explain the existence of evil convinced them that God does not exist? The contradictions between science and the Bible was certainly instrumental in my becoming an atheist at the age of 14, as was the existence of evil. Three years prior to that I had intended on becoming a Lutheran Minister when I grew up.
This really is a case of either or – either the religionists are correct, and in NA the Bible is their central text, or we’re correct and god does not exist.
For the last six years, going on seven, in the midst of hundreds of literalist creationists and IDers debunking their nonsense. You?
Confused? My apologies. I blame my meds.
Still drawing a blank (sorry – I don’t mean this as an insult to you). I’m sure I wasn’t upset. I am, however, quite upset that I can’t remember it. I usually have a Capote-like conversational memory. :)
But you needed that context to understand what (and whom) the discussion was about. And it seems you still haven’t made an effort to understand the context, which is fairly insulting.
With all due respect, we don’t need your experience to understand the views of the people who wrote the Chicago Statement (several of whom, heddle informed us a few months ago, are YECs). We have the statement itself. Your suggestion that these literalists aren’t really literalists is not supported by the evidence. The whole point of the statement is to declare their adherence to a literalist, inerrantist view. (Did you listen to the podcast, by the way?)
I said that the statement is stupid and that they (including heddle) are behaving stupidly in writing and supporting it. The fact that heddle is a scientist who converted to such a religion later in life makes his case highly interesting to me. He’s not a deist; he’s a Baptist who belongs to (and teaches Sunday school at) a church that subscribes to beliefs that are completely contrary to evidence and reason. He deliberately chose this, and then comes here to try to argue for it. It fascinates me that an otherwise intelligent person can be so willfully stupid when it comes to this subject (though I have read simililarly stupid comments by heddle on political threads on other blogs). Apologetics is often extremely complex, but is at root stupid as hell.
My point was that this is not done – by me, at least – in order to “validate atheism,” but to invalidate Christian beliefs (specifically).
Auto-pwn.
In any event, different approaches work for different people. I disagree with the idea that any single approach is inherently weak or ineffective.
Well, I’ve been here for a while. So when someone appears criticizing what “we” do and proposing so-called new or alternative courses of action that I’ve long seen being followed, I find it a bit strange.
Really, you could’ve saved us both some time and energy if you had just made more of an attempt to get the background of the discussion on this thread (at the very least by reading it fully), rather than simply responding to a single comment of mine without understanding its context.
Nick Gotts- i appreciate your effort on John’s Blog. So now you understand my dilema. Instead of asking, he just blocks people. In my case, there was no explanation to speak of, and i certainly wasn’t being all that rude. I appreciate the effort. Maybe he’ll make a post about you as well lol. Anyway, thanks.
RickrOll,
No thanks necessary – I went to his blog out of curiosity, and SIWOTI syndrome took over!
Hmm., “Gotts SIWOTI?” HAhaha
i think he axed me becasue of my participation on this thread: http://johnshoreland.com/2007/07/19/where-is-god-there-is-god/#comments
I have a feeling my friend MorsecOde will soon be banned as well: http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/14/rationalistsatheists-dont-too-readily-dismiss-the-believer/#comments
John @ 262 –
I share your “I need a whole huge chunk o’ salt to swallow this literally” pain, but the only point I was trying to make was this:
(1) The inbred Phelps clan monitor Teh Intarwebs for mentions of themselves, and then
(2) Jump in TYPING IN ALL CAPS and talking about GOD and how their church is the only right one, and that sounded Just Like GIL to me.
The use of an alias is new, however; usually they’re proud of who they are, for some unfathomable reason.
Must… go… dig up more web references… :)
BTW, Fred Phelps’ abuse of drugs has been pretty well documented. The ol’ upper/downer roller-coaster does a pretty good job of explaining his obvious psychosis.
– CSue