Sad. Just got banned from a science board for...

Post Reply New Topic

...speaking out against quote-mining and how I believe the reputation of quote-miners should be ruined. The administrator said he couldn't care less about quote-mining and interpreted my statements as a threat against an administrator, the administrator of a science board no less! I would expect him, all of them, to share the same passion against quote-mining as me, but apparently not. Apparently, the board was run by pseudoscientists.

No loss.

All cheers to burning down that board and the admins there should be burned at the stake!

Unfamiliar with what "quote-mining" is. Help with that?

Quote mining is when you look for quotes of a famous person and apply them out of context in order to make it look like they supported a position that they didn't.

oh ok.
That's kinda done everywhere all the time. Unfourtunately. To the point where now if people quote one or two sentences and I'm not familiar with context I look it up out of habit. I don't think it's ok but it's kind of to where it's so pervasive- particularly in high debate areas- that it's more up to each individual to decide if they are going to "fight dirty" or not and if they are going to choose to engage with such people.
It kind of sucks, I understand the frustration.

I'm not really commenting on the banning in my above commentary though- in most cases I think that kind of thing should be last resort but in a lot of places it's seen as an easy fix and creates a pretty terrible environment if people can be banned "just because I am having a bad day". Sorry that happened.

Don't worry. I asked to be removed in my final post. The reason was the complete lack of passion against, or even opposition against, quote-mining, which the admin showed by stating he didn't care about quote-mining.

I thought that such a thing was shameful on a science board. I told them that when it comes to quote-mining (and I was meaning deliberate quote-mining), it is something I neither forgive nor allow. Try to use quote-mining against me, and I'll repeatedly bash your head against the wall (metaphorically) as punishment.

Of course, there was a bit of history. The "science board" is pretty much completely run by climate denialists and they probably did not appreciate the sardonic tone I took to each of them. One went through a completely wishy-washy post, saying "we can't really know if the climate is changing or not" before launching into an attack of climate scientists at the end (revealing his true position). I asked him if he ever considered putting his head in a freezer and his feet in an oven at the same time.

People might think I'm cruel or abusive, but I think that taking this approach is important to finally making it known in American culture that not every opinion is of equal validity. American culture is so wishy-washy around this subject, and that is why we have such massive ignorance of science, anti-vaxxers, creationists, denialists preventing us from adopting policies that take into account AGW, etc.

Basically, I'm trying to get these people to realize their opinions are crap, basically, and there are far better-informed and more valid opinions out there. Try them out for a change, I say to them. Don't expect me to validate crap, 'cause I'm not.

Is it possible perhaps they took some of your violent terminology to be something other than metaphoric speaking?Hence that is why they figured you where some form of threat to the board. I mean quote mining, know that i know what it is based on previous posts....seems quite obnoxious, but I imagine if I got on a board and said something like 'all the quote miners on this board need to be shot to death' I figure I'd likely get banned regardless of the immorality of quote mining.

Also in what way do you not 'allow' or tolerate quote mining...maybe that concerned them since if you're not a moderator you don't have authority to disallow certain types of posting, so maybe they took it as a threat you'd hack in or something to try and enforce your disallowing of said behavior. IDK, perhaps it wasn't a very good science board to begin with but if you did find it a worthy use of time....personal opinion is it was probably kind of silly to cause a big uproar over something like that especially when that kind of thing happens all over the web.

What I'd specifically said was that I would be like a bird pecking their heads over and over again for it; in addition, I said that such people deserve to have their reputations ruined.

So from the sounds of things and how you just described the board in question....

So who is up for a smear campaign against that board, or we could just go with the BURN THEM ALL AT THE STAKE!

The internet. Where latent tyranny abounds in those too weak to be real world dictators.

I rarely ever banned anyone on the venues I used to moderate. We had rules and the person would get at least one warning before being banned, and it was usually temporary.

But you are right, no loss at all. Move on to better forums.

Just checked back at the forum and see the thread was deleted. Sad. Basically, I've noticed two contradictory statements from denialists:

1.) The urban heat island effect and the way measuring temperatures has changed over the years, creating only the illusion of warming. Scientists have failed to make any adjustments for this, going off only the bare numbers.

2.) The scientists are tampering with the numbers to make it look like there's more global warming than there really is! They're fabricating global warming!

Both of these are BS, and an attempt by denialists to have their cake and eat it, too. Which argument is it? The scientists go off the bare numbers, or they make adjustments to it? Denialists are apparently too confused to make up their minds.

The thread was about the second argument when a Fox News hostess's pants were on fire as she said that scientists making adjustments meant they were fabricating the numbers:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ed-temper/

Basically, scientists do adjust the data to account for changes over time at each measuring statement and to account for differences between stations in measurement so they can get a more accurate picture! It allows for "apples-to-apples" comparisons among different stations and over time of temperatures! As shown at the link, if they did not make these adjustments, then there would appear to be 20% more global warming than there really is! In other words, the scientists' adjustments decrease the apparent global warming, not increase it!

Of course, I expect denialists, the dishonest bastards they are, to completely ignore this.

Looking at several of the links involved, that's not really true.

All that's shown is a quote that there would be 20% more global warming than there really is.

What's shown is that over half of the adjustments have increased the temperature data, despite the adjustments being described as correcting, among other influences, artificial heat sources. Which should result in a negative adjustment rather than a positive one.

But no real data is available as to the actual breakdown or nature of the corrections. Hardly any samples are offered or explored in-depth.

Based solely on those links, it would seem that there is a basis for skepticism.

But to your broader point, I agree completely that nobody should be banned from anywhere over a scientific discussion, even one that's very, no pun intended, heated.