|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 20, 2011 13:20:36 GMT 1
Should we accept membership from people who use Anonymous on-line proxy servers to post messages here? Does the use of these servers, presumably to cover ones tracks, demonstrate good faith?
I understand from PMs with admin that most of those who have been banned from this board have been users of proxy servers.
I don't understand why it is deemed necessary myself. Can anyone suggest an ethical reason for adopting the practice?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 20, 2011 14:20:52 GMT 1
Seems a rather authoritarian standpoint (my, my, a certain poster must be REALLY getting up your nose!).
Let's face it, the whole point of boards is anonymity -- you can make whatever claims you like as to your age, gender, profession, sexual preference, or level of education, yet at the end of the day you are judged on what you SAY, not who you supposedly are. Which I think is rather liberating.
Getting a bit snitty because of other stuff just seems to say to me -- you can't think of a good enough riposte to their arguments, hence let's ban 'em!
Bugger faith, let's have facts and proper discussion (as opposed, for example, to mass cut and paste and atempts to shut-up your critics).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 20, 2011 14:55:02 GMT 1
"the whole point of boards is anonymity"
What an extraordinary perspective!
I post to express my views. That's my priority! Not to cover my tracks.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 20, 2011 14:56:00 GMT 1
Repeat
Can anyone suggest an ethical reason for adopting the practice?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 20, 2011 15:29:46 GMT 1
I post to express my views. Me too
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 20, 2011 15:35:02 GMT 1
But it's not your views louise - it's the views of others.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 20, 2011 15:45:34 GMT 1
I use cut 'n' paste in the same way that marchesarosa does to post her views as it seems the safest way to interact on this board. Posting one's own opinion appears to have led to several others from being banned. I'll stick to the moderator approved method as Joanne stated. As for the “cut and paste” objection, what is wrong with bringing the latest research and opinion to the attention of this board’s members? You seem to be expecting rather too much in terms of personal originality from others. .
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 20, 2011 16:02:49 GMT 1
Not extraordinary at all! In fact, one of the great strengths of these sort of discussions, in that you are judged not on who you are, what you wear, whether you are old or young, fat or thin, blond or bald, male or female -- but solely on WHAT YOU SAY. It doesn't help if you claim to be a Nobel prize-winner, or a prize-winning author, if what you say doesn't add up.
Expressing your views? -- A rather unambitious aim, I aim to educate and inform (on physics and maths at least), and perhaps entertain a little as well. Just expressing my views -- any idiot can do that, it's defending and justifying them that is the hard part, since we are talking science, not which character you prefer in a soap opera.
Anyway, I don't CARE who someone is, why they may want to 'cover their tracks' (which assumes anonymity is always suspicious), I just care about what they say.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 20, 2011 17:53:50 GMT 1
I don't CARE who "Louise" is, either, speaker. I do wonder why s/he deems it necessary to cover her tracks.
As for this "cut and paste" red herring, Louise has yet to demonstrate that she is able to mount a case "in her own words" either to educate or to inform us. She has however, shown in the full glare of WUWT, "most read climate blog in the world" that she cannot interpret a table. And on Climate Audit, where the big boys are discussing UHI adjustment by nightlights the best she can contribute to the thread is an apologia for Hansen's climate activism!
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 20, 2011 17:59:44 GMT 1
I don't CARE who "Louise" is, either, speaker. I do wonder why s/he deems it necessary to cover her tracks. I don't 'deem it necessary' and I don't do it. You keep stating this as if it is fact - it is not and you have absolutely no evidence or even genuine reason that leads you to think this. Is this an example of how you 'do' science?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 20, 2011 18:17:41 GMT 1
Simple question, now that I've looked up what an anonymous proxis doohdad is --
HOW do you claim to know that Louise is using one? What is your evidence?
|
|
|
Post by helen on Jan 20, 2011 20:01:19 GMT 1
Marchesarosa doesn't do science or have any intention of engaging with other posters or so she says, just to cut and paste stuff from WUWT for the edification of other viewers. What disingenuous garbage.
I'm with louise and STA. There's been a line drawn in the sand , however hateful it might be, between the anti-science libertarians and the rest............maybe it might be a good plan to scrub the line out and try a bit of understanding?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 20, 2011 20:11:12 GMT 1
I thought this was an interesting question, in that it seemed to be saying -- I know what I'd like to be the case, can anyone come up with a reason for it that I can label as ethical? Which is kind of the wrong way about, to be totally frank!
I'm still waiting for an answer as to why M thinks L is doing this anyway? (and in case anyone wonders why I'm not using their full names, no one uses MY full name, and marche..... is something I can't spell. Unlike Louise.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Jan 20, 2011 20:15:22 GMT 1
I'd watch out speakertoanimals, I got called for not addressing Marchesarosa appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 20, 2011 20:38:36 GMT 1
Marchesarosa doesn't do science or have any intention of engaging with other posters or so she says, just to cut and paste stuff from WUWT for the edification of other viewers. What disingenuous garbage. I'm with louise and STA. There's been a line drawn in the sand , however hateful it might be, between the anti-science libertarians and the rest............maybe it might be a good plan to scrub the line out and try a bit of understanding? And just who, Helen would the 'anti-science libertarians' be?
|
|