pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 3, 2011 14:37:42 GMT
Has anyone ever been banned from this board?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 3, 2011 14:40:53 GMT
No.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 3, 2011 14:47:03 GMT
...and we can say just about anything we like. So long as we don't break Proboard's rules. Or swear. Or mess about with each others' names.
HURRAH! for Woman's hours!
|
|
|
Post by Jonjel on Nov 3, 2011 14:49:30 GMT
What a very strange thing to say. Does that mean that I am not welcome on a Woman's Hour board because I am a man and can not possibly understand female trials and tribulations?
Why not keep him or anyone else on board. Just because someone is perhaps not particularly articulate, or can't spell (or more likely does not know where to find the spell checker!) or has madcap ideas is no reason to ban them from anything. Well, maybe the Royal Society, but not a piddling message board.
The problem with that board is that I am sure there are many who would ask fairly basic questions but won't because otherwise they will be sneered at.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 3, 2011 14:51:55 GMT
I think it is evidence of bad faith rather than mere stupidity when a poster argues several diametrically opposed points on the same thread.
In the OP on the AGW thread adam first claims that the mild autumn in SE England has to be seen as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. When it is pointed out that British weather is naturally variable, that there have been downs as well as ups in this year's temperatures (as well as over the last half century to my certain knowledge), he then argues that regional variation doesn't count because "British summers are notoriously unpredictable" but only global data "You have to look at the STATISTICAL evidence" s/he claims. Bu bu but.... the whole point in the OP is premissed on a warm Autumn in the Southest of England being evidence of AGW!
Now is that bad faith (opposing other posters for the sake of it) or is it just stupidity? (And no jean, we do not need you to parse adam's contradictory "meanings" for us.) Either way, young adam is not up to par for the board s/he has joined.
How about his pinnacle of logic where s/he claims in consecutive sentences that the cold August was NOT exceptional, barely worthy of note, whereas the warmer October and November were (NB we were only 2 days into November when s/he wrote that, by the way!)
This is not the intellect of someone the Science Board can afford to take seriously. This is someone contradicting for the sake of it. S/he clearly belongs here, jean! Is it pippop's twin?
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 3, 2011 15:04:44 GMT
I think it is evidence of bad faith rather than mere stupidity when a poster argues several diametrically opposed points on the same thread. In the OP on the AGW thread adam first claims that the mild autumn in SE England has to be seen as evidence of anthropogenic global warming. When it is pointed out that British weather is naturally variable, that there have been downs as well as ups in this year's temperatures (as well as over the last half century to my certain knowledge), he then argues that regional variation doesn't count because "British summers are notoriously unpredictable" but only global data "You have to look at the STATISTICAL evidence" s/he claims. Bu bu but.... the whole point in the OP is premissed on a warm Autumn in the Southest of England being evidence of AGW! Now is that bad faith (opposing other posters for the sake of it) or is it just stupidity? (And no jean, we do not need you to parse adam's contradictory "meanings" for us.) Either way, young adam is not up to par for the board s/he has joined. How about his pinnacle of logic where s/he claims in consecutive sentences that the cold August was NOT exceptional, barely worthy of note, whereas the warmer October and November were (NB we were only 2 days into November when s/he wrote that, by the way!) This is not the intellect of someone the Science Board can afford to take seriously. This is someone contradicting for the sake of it. S/he clearly belongs here, jean! Is it pippop's twin? Perhaps your man Adamadamant meant to say climate change? (The weather does seem very odd just recently)
|
|
|
Post by Jonjel on Nov 3, 2011 15:04:49 GMT
MR. From someone who does not know the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit I find that a little odd......
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 3, 2011 15:06:18 GMT
Shall we try and guess when she'll ban him?
Before bonfire night say I!
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 3, 2011 15:07:21 GMT
MR. From someone who does not know the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit I find that a little odd...... Quite important that - if you want to get the shit-stains out!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 3, 2011 15:08:07 GMT
What a very strange thing to say. Does that mean that I am not welcome on a Woman's Hour board because I am a man and can not possibly understand female trials and tribulations? Of course not, jonjel! You're here, aren't you? Exactly. That should apply to everyone, including people who might to some extent share Adamadamant's views. But I made a much better job of arguing with carnyx/sim when I was a member there than poor Adamadamant is doing now, and that wouldn't do at all.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 3, 2011 15:18:45 GMT
Shall we try and guess when she'll ban him? Before bonfire night say I! No, she won't. Only the posters who present a real threat get silenced. Adamadamant doesn't, so his presence there is useful, in that it makes it look as though the arguments he is advancing not very effectively couldn't be advanced at all. I certainly don't agree that trying to salvage parts of your argument when you're under attack proves that you're disagreeing for the sake of it, or posting in bad faith.
|
|
|
Post by Jonjel on Nov 3, 2011 15:23:21 GMT
Yes, but I only wandered in out of the rain........
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 3, 2011 18:04:05 GMT
Thanks for pointing out that I used Fahrenheit instead of Celsius re hot wash temperatures, jonjel.
I've corrected it. I read a lot of US climate blogs and about US climate research where they still use Fahrenheit. Not concentrating, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 3, 2011 18:10:14 GMT
"A real threat"
You consider yourself and joek "a real threat" to the Science Board, jean.
I call that hubris!
No, I'm afraid we manage perfectly well without you.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 3, 2011 18:55:53 GMT
"A real threat" You consider yourself and joek "a real threat" to the Science Board, jean. Not in terms of your climate science discussions, marchesa. I don't take part in those. I was thinking of louise, helen and others in that context. You get an easy ride there when well-expressed contrary views are silenced. As far as I'm concerned, I was thinking more of the mauling Adamadamant has been getting for being unemployed and on benefits. You are quite right to say because you know I wouldn't let you get away unchallenged with what you're doing on the thread I linked to at the beginning of this one.
|
|