Do Peer-Reviewed threads exist supporting skepticism of “Doper-made” wrong-forum posting alarm?
Proponents of moderator action to regulate GD posts all in the name of preventing a “Doper-made” wrong-forum posting “catastrophe” will declare that no peer-reviewed threads exist supporting skepticism of “Doper-made” wrong-forum posting alarm. I argue this is not true,
750 Peer-Reviewed Threads Supporting Skepticism of “Doper-Made” Wrong-Forum Posting
I’m going to censor myself to the coffee machine and get another cup.
I’d love to stick around, but I need to censor into work - I’m late.
So you’re the one accusing others of intellectual dishonesty when you can’t seem to get the definition of censorship correct, even when it’s very clearly pointedf out to you? That’s rich.
btw, your above statement is incorrect. Your thread is still available in GD although it says moved. Clicking on it in GD has the exact same result as if it hadn’t been moved. Few will take your whining about intellectual dishonesty serious with this as your own example.
Sorry I’m late-I was having a bowel censorment.
Did I miss anything?
best one yet.
Not only that, every single one of Poptech’s posts has been in the five threads that he started himself. Even though almost 150 threads have mentioned “global warming” since his join date, he’s never commented on any one of them other than his own.
I note that the Registration Agreement contains the following:
Spot on, I was not kidding when I inferred that he is also virtually spamming his dubious list in many of the science message boards and blogs.
He also fails to convince the main members or posters, and yes, he also complains about censorship when he does not get his way or that he is victorious everywhere even when many others make mincemeat out of him.
The Black Knight indeed.
Not quickly enough.
Poptech, your join date says that you are new here (March this year). Your complaints suggest you are not familiar with the rules and culture of this board.
No, the topic of policy for AGW is worthy of debate. So is the question of if there are real scientific papers that are skeptical of the man-made nature of GW. But if I understand the reasoning of the moderators correctly from the comments made, the reason why they moved your thread from Great Debates to The BBQ Pit was because you were not engaging in debate. You were apparently not listening to your opponents and responding to their actual points, but getting caught up in side issues (like the meaning of “few months”) and repeating your own talking points. Now I didn’t read enough to weigh in on whether that is an accurate summary, but I point this out to explain what I take from what is said.
The point is that if you are not engaging in reasoned debate, then you are more ranting about your topic of interest.
Here’s the thing: the Straight Dope is set up with different forums to group different kinds of topics and discussions to make finding things easier. In this case, the moderators felt your discussion style was not debate but rather rant. Ergo, they decided to move the thread to the “rant” forum, i.e. the Pit. Same way if someone were to post a debate topic in MPSIMS it would get moved to GD, or if someone posts a question about a TV show in GQ, it will get moved to Cafe Society. That is sorting.
There’s no censorship - the post is there, the discussion is included in full. If you feel your topic deserves to be in GD, I would suggest you consider the style of your interaction, and perhaps request clarification on what you should do differently (though I gather the mods made suggestions in the thread itself).
I read your previous list. It has already been pointed out that several of the remarks were made after the thread was moved to The Pit. Personal insults are allowed in The Pit, so those are discounted. Also, a couple of the items you listed were actual attacks, and those were also moderated - the moderator explicitly told the people who made those statements that they were out of line.* The rest of your list consists of remarks that, while addressed to your person, are not insults or rules violations by the interpretation of this board. If you read other threads in GD, you will find similar comments that are treated the same way all over. If you find yourself being characterized as a conspiracy theorist or as debating like a creationist, perhaps you should consider the method of your presentation and find out what it is you are doing that is getting you cast in that light.
ivan astikov said:
If the underlying pretext of this hypothetical is correct, then yes, there is something wrong with an editor burying a science report in the sports pages. But your hypothetical does not relate to this instance, because this was not a science report. The analogy fails.
But they’re not saying the topic is unworthy, just that the article in question did not belong in the “news” section because it clearly was an opinion piece.
Gad I hate analogies. They always suck. The inherent nature of an analogy is to be similar in some way, but can’t be identical or it wouldn’t clear anything up. So there’s always something along the margins or the underpinnings where the analogy is faulty, and invariably somebody gets caught up in those margins rather than the part that is accurate. [/whine]
And they say that OCD isn’t good for anything…
I really do not think of myself as a censor, but more as a thurifer.
For some reason, I read this whole thread.
If I read the word “strawman” one more time, I’m going to throw up.
(and to think, The Wizard of Oz was on tonight.)
Raised Catholic, so I’m ashamed at having had to look up that word.
On the other hand, having done so, I must say good show, man, good bloody show.
No he made an excellent comparison. The style of discussion is determined by those commenting on the post. What you are saying is if the commenters want to bury something they just have to behave like those did in my topic. I attempted to prevent this by reporting posts of which you allowed and then used against me to bury the topic or as Ivan clearly pointed out, declare it unworthy of discussion in the Great Debates forum.
Definitely not aliens or whatever the UFO-ologists believe. I don’t support any conspiracy theories, 911, JFK ect… or believe in the paranormal. I am not religiously agnostic and support evolution theory. Any other labels you want me to dismiss?
This is a strawman.
Especially since I believe in CT’s that pertain to JFK and 9/11 specifically.
How your claim that you do NOT support these CT’s is in no way relevant to the topic at hand.
It is an inaccurate statement. I addressed every relevant point of argument to the initial discussion. I attempted to report posts that dragged the debate offtopic but when the moderators refused to moderate, I was forced to respond to various unsubstantiated allegations.
Are you serious? You are obviously new to this debate. Any question of the science of AGW gets you labeled like this. It is a propaganda tactic that has again worked very well.
The topic was scientifically and politically relevant.
That is great, I don’t as I explicitly mentioned.
You are just dishonest and lack intellectual honesty.