What happens to a science blog when moderators lack moderation
Having contributed an article to Roger Tatershall’s “Talkshop”, it seems I have fallen foul of The King’s wrath.
I am now banned from all discussion on this “top science blog”. LOL
Premier offence of Lèse-majesté: I used the word “magic” in reference to something His Majesty posted.
That saw all my subsequent posts blocked pending royal approval.
Second offence of Lèse-majesté: I did not reply to a question He asked me, on a thread I was no longer watching because he asked me to let them get on with it.
All subsequent posts again blocked pending that fulfil my servile duty and help His Majesty understand a Wikipedia page He had failed to read properly.
That was followed by an amusingly threatening email: “I’ll give you another hour to reply.”
I pointed out that this kind of behaviour, that Warmist sites are often scathed for, was not appropriate to open scientific debate and that I would not longer be contributing.
Predictably that also got removed without a trace. Anticipating that would happen I took a screen shot.
So did I break site rules , apparently not:
Rule (1) There are no rules.
Rule (2) See rule (1)
Rule (3) See rule (2)
And mind your manners while you do it.
Apparently that advice about manners is for others. Of course it does not apply to His Majesty.
[Moderators Reply] It looks like Greg prefers to flounce rather than accept his arse on a plate again – this time re barycentric orbits and solar inertial motion. Some people just can’t admit when they’ve got it wrong. Especially not to themselves. Not even when you give them the relevant JPL documentation to read.
In fact, on both occasions this “arse on plate” story is part His Majesty’s own personal fantasy world.
When I try to point out his false claim about what the JPL doc says, since he apparently did not read it or could not understand it, I find I’m banned from posting a reply.
Not held for moderation. All posts are automatically binned.
So much for scientific debate.
Apparently Willis Eschenbach also got banned some time back for criticising a paper His Majesty liked.
Now everyone is entitle to run their own little corner how they choose.
Just don’t pretend you are a top science blog if you’re that touchy about the slightest criticism and not prepared to allow open debate.
The rest of the discussion is worth reading. Some especially interesting posts from Paul Vaughan and Ian Wilson.
Grant Foster aka “Tamino” , having started a very vitriolic hit piece on my methods finds himself in a corner and uses his editorial control to avoid seeing something he does not want to see.
Grant’s with his “Open Mind” has his eyes firmly closed it seems. Here’s my final challenge to him to explain why he disagrees that the rate of change of Arctic ice is receding. He chose to snip all further comment from me rather than reply to two simple questions. Open mind …. my foot. Read the preceding posts to understand the context.
Greg Goodman says:
So what is your problem with explaining why you disagree. “Here’s my guess: ” the data shows something you do not wish to recognise ?
Ok, so rate of change of ice cover _looks_ like its magnitude is reducing and _looks_ like the increasingly negative rate of change is now a diminishing rate of change. But that’s just cos I know nothing. I don’t even know that up is the same as down. Sheesh , pwned again. !
Now you know that up is really down but are not prepared to “help” me by explaining why. You’re going to keep the all important explanation to yourself until I produce something else you can use to distract attention and hopefully everyone will have forgotten you were going to “help” me to understand why up is down.
Tamino:[Otherwise, stop pestering the adults.]
Don’t question gown-ups. Daddy knows best, now go and play.
So if I show you something else that shows a change in direction in the Arctic, why would I expect that you will do anything different than
tell me that you disagree, that I know nothing, but won’t say why because you don’t want to help me?