Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Quality of debate on this forum

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    I don't want to silence people who are skeptical about global warming.
    .

    Yes you do. You said so with post #271

    If anything against this global warming agenda is so "wacko" what have you got to worry about. Just let people laugh and move on, or maybe it is not so "wacko".
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I want them to engage in the debate..

    The debate was going just great before you arrived with the post stated above, probably too well for your liking.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm asking whether it makes sense to provide a platform for them to scattergun links while refusing to actually engage in a serious debate on the topic..

    What, do you own this site??? Who are you to decide what this "platform" is used for. Scattergun links? I have yet to see a link to "fair city" or a "yore ma" comment. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with what was going on here. Maybe you should leave the debate, rather than suggesting that the thread is closed because OB is "not happy with things".

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But I'm sure after a few more posts, someone will skim over what I've posted here,

    Hopefully.


  • Options
    #33
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    Instead, we get JonnyMaguire posting a link to a Register story that was already linked on this very thread, replied to by djpbarry, whose reply in turn was dismissed with a flippant comment.

    .

    Just to clear things up.

    When DJP posts it is called a reply.

    When Baldieman posts it is called a dismissal.


  • Options
    #34
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Yes you do. You said so with post #271
    No, I didn't.
    If anything against this global warming agenda is so "wacko" what have you got to worry about. Just let people laugh and move on, or maybe it is not so "wacko".
    What I've got to worry about is the quality of the debate on this forum. People come here to discuss green issues, not to listen to soapbox rants with no scientific basis whatsoever.
    The debate was going just great before you arrived with the post stated above, probably too well for your liking.
    I disagree. I'm sure the debate was going just fine from your perspective, but since your aim seems to be solely to raise the noise level in here, you'll understand if I disagree with you.
    What, do you own this site??? Who are you to decide what this "platform" is used for.
    I'm someone who volunteers his time to help ensure the smooth running of the site.

    Also, it seems to have escaped your attention that I haven't made any changes; I've solicited opinions on whether change is necessary. I'll take on board any and all opinions I receive, with the notable exception of yours, since you personally are about 80% of the problem.
    Scattergun links? I have yet to see a link to "fair city" or a "yore ma" comment.
    Stop pretending to be stupid, it doesn't suit you.
    You seem to be the only one who has a problem with what was going on here. Maybe you should leave the debate, rather than suggesting that the thread is closed because OB is "not happy with things".
    Maybe you should stop signing up troll accounts. Alternatively, engage seriously in the debate.


  • Options
    #35
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    When DJP posts it is called a reply.

    When Baldieman posts it is called a dismissal.
    When djpbarry points out that the report in question is not inconsistent with the IPCC's position, it's a reply. When baldieman replies with a personal remark to djpbarry without actually addressing the substance of the issue, it's a dismissal.


  • Options
    #36
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »

    What, do you own this site??? Who are you to decide what this "platform" is used for. Scattergun links? I have yet to see a link to "fair city" or a "yore ma" comment. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with what was going on here. Maybe you should leave the debate, rather than suggesting that the thread is closed because OB is "not happy with things".

    Hopefully.

    ehhhh Oscar BRavo is the Soc... moderator..... which means he has the right to run this forum as he see fits within the rules set out by admin...

    you are not helping any cause here to keeping threads open....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    When baldieman replies with a personal remark to djpbarry without actually addressing the substance of the issue, it's a dismissal.

    It's an Ad Hominem actually. And thats worth a ban for a week.

    Personally, OB, I think you are being too kind. I want a proper debate from a position slightly anti-alarmist but without the noise. Amend the charter and ban at will.


  • Options
    #38
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Maybe you should stop signing up troll accounts. Alternatively, engage seriously in the debate.

    I am doing my best to engage seriously in the debate.

    My issue centers around the fact that some people seem intent on amending charters to silence those who disagree with this man made global warming agenda.

    From the highly respected Wall Street Journal, even Albert Gore will not stand any debate on this issue.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/


  • Options
    #39
    maniac101
    Registered Users Posts: 233 ✭✭maniac101


    Sorry oB, although your patience and tolerance are to be commended, this has to be worst thread ever on green issues.
    Kill it now pleeeeease!


  • Options
    #40
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,475 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've been following this thread for a long time, and

    What thread:confused:

    EDIT: From reading a lot of this thread I see it relates to the global warming issue thread. might want to highlight that at the start, it's confusing


  • Options
    #41
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    I am doing my best to engage seriously in the debate.
    No, you're not. Not even close. djpbarry gave you a list of questions you had refused to answer, and you dismissed them. That's not engaging seriously.
    My issue centers around the fact that some people seem intent on amending charters to silence those who disagree with this man made global warming agenda.
    It's not an agenda, it's science. I don't want to silence people who disagree with science, I want them to engage meaningfully or not at all.

    I'm also tired of repeating this. Stop misrepresenting me. If you're serious about engaging in debate, answer the list of questions djpbarry asked you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, you're not. Not even close. djpbarry gave you a list of questions you had refused to answer, and you dismissed them. That's not engaging seriously. It's not an agenda, it's science. I don't want to silence people who disagree with science, I want them to engage meaningfully or not at all.

    I'm also tired of repeating this. Stop misrepresenting me. If you're serious about engaging in debate, answer the list of questions djpbarry asked you.

    I believe Mahatma Coat put forward a list of questions which were then dismissed with a spiteful remark by Bonkey.

    As I already stated, I have answered many of those questions asked by DJP, clearly evident to anyone who choses to read through the relevant part of the thread. There is nothing in this charter about the need to dedate every and any point.

    You stop misrepresenting me.


  • Options
    #43
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    I believe Mahatma Coat put forward a list of questions which were then dismissed with a spiteful remark by DJP.
    That's news to me.
    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    As I already stated, I have answered many of those questions asked by DJP...
    No, you have not. You might think you have (which I doubt), but you have not. If you had, I would not have compiled the list.

    For the record, posting a random link to an article (or blog) loosely related to climate change does no constitute an answer.


  • Options
    #44
    JonnyMaguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭JonnyMaguire


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That's news to me..

    Sorry, it was your mate Bonkey.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, you have not. You might think you have (which I doubt), but you have not. If you had, I would not have compiled the list.

    For the record, posting a random link to an article (or blog) loosely related to climate change does no constitute an answer.

    I have dealt with most of those questions. I have posted links to articles where I have drawn specific information. Would you like my own opinions on these matters?? I am more than willing to offer my opinions.


  • Options
    #45
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    My issue centers around the fact that some people seem intent on amending charters to silence those who disagree with this man made global warming agenda.

    From the highly respected Wall Street Journal, even Albert Gore will not stand any debate on this issue.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/
    You see, this is exactly what I’m talking about. What has that article got to do with anything? What point are you trying to make? You just came across an article about Al Gore and thought “hey, that’s loosely related to climate change. I’ll just throw that into this here thread. That’ll show ‘em.”
    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    Sorry, it was your mate Bonkey.
    bonkey is not my mate.
    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    I have dealt with most of those questions. I have posted links to articles where I have drawn specific information.
    What specific information? For example, you claimed that James Hansen has demanded that you pay taxes to a company that he owns. I stated that I do not recall any such demand ever being made. You replied by linking to this article:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0305/1224242305699.html

    What “specific information” in this article lends weight to your claim about Hansen?


  • Options
    #46
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You see, this is exactly what I’m talking about. What has that article got to do with anything? What point are you trying to make? You just came across an article about Al Gore and thought “hey, that’s loosely related to climate change. I’ll just throw that into this here thread. That’ll show ‘em.”
    bonkey is not my mate.
    What specific information? For example, you claimed that James Hansen has demanded that you pay taxes to a company that he owns. I stated that I do not recall any such demand ever being made. You replied by linking to this article:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0305/1224242305699.html

    What “specific information” in this article lends weight to your claim about Hansen?
    He's been banned. So I guess the quality of debate should increase exponentially until he re-reg's again. :D


  • Options
    #47
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    JonnyMaguire wrote: »
    I believe Mahatma Coat put forward a list of questions which were then dismissed with a spiteful remark by Bonkey.

    I haven't dismissed them, nor was my remark intended to be spiteful.

    I have asked for some clarification regarding the intent of the questions. If MC already knows the answers, then the questions were intended rhetorically, and need no answering. If, on the other hand, MC is genuinely asking these questions because he doesn't know the answers to them, then I'm more than willing to discuss the issues....although in such a case I find it somewhat unusual that all of the questions tend to suggest that he has a certain position despite not knowing the answers to these questions.

    If MC doesn't know the answers, then let him say so, and lets discuss them. If he does know the answers, then its clear the questions were posed rhetorically and need no response.

    Again, I'm dismissing nothing. I am, rather, trying to avoid the tedium of writing a long and detailed response only to be told that he already knows everything I wrote.


  • Options
    #48
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    have responed in that thread, but I will repeat and hopefully clarify myrsponse here

    the questions are Semi Rhetorical, in that I have formed an opinion on global warming and those questions sorta outline my thoughts on it, Im not really sure about most of the points tho as sometimes over timeone canget confuesed about isues,hencethe request for clarification. a lot of it stems from snippets I rememberseeing on Discovery docos many years ago, like the Saharaforest or the fact that the antarctic coastline had been maped as early as the 3rd century, a feat we could only replicate inthe 60s with satelites, AFAIR there is an old turkish map thats a copy of a copy of a copy.... that shows thephysical coastline of antarctica

    the earths woble questionis a bit ofa wishy washy one, inthatyes I know the earth wobbles but I'm unsure of the actual details of how it afects us or how it has affected us in the past.

    also ys I am aware of a medieval warmin but unsureof the cause,

    does this help to clarify my intent


  • Options
    #49
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pamela111 wrote: »
    Global Warming Scandal
    This is another example of what I'm talking about. It contributes nothing whatsoever to the debate.


  • Options
    #50
    BlueCable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭BlueCable


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    This is another example of what I'm talking about. It contributes nothing whatsoever to the debate.

    What do you mean?

    The link shows that the climate has changed many times in the past. Given that this debate fundamentally about climate change, how would this piece of information not contribute something?


  • Options
    #51
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bugger off, casey.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    BlueCable wrote: »
    What do you mean?

    The link shows that the climate has changed many times in the past. Given that this debate fundamentally about climate change, how would this piece of information not contribute something?

    Which debate? In this one we seem to be arguing about the quality of debate rather than global warming -- or am I missing something?:confused:
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Bugger off, casey.

    Casey? wtf is casey? Unmodlike expression, to coin a new word for the language:D

    Yes, many times the quality of debate is less than it should, perhaps, be, but any opinion is worth listening to and debate is primarily about opinions surely? It isn't too difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to decide that one particular opinion is based on prejudice or mental aberration.


  • Options
    #53
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ART6 wrote: »
    Casey? wtf is casey? Unmodlike expression, to coin a new word for the language:D
    Casey is someone who repeatedly signs up new accounts in order to "educate" us all on such assorted topics as the global warming "scam", the alleged spraying of chemicals by overflying aircraft (which the rest of us naively believe are mere exhaust contrails), and so on. JonnyMaguire and Blue Cable are merely two of his most recent incarnations. I make no apologies for my attitude to him; he takes up the bulk of the time I volunteer freely to moderate this forum.
    Yes, many times the quality of debate is less than it should, perhaps, be, but any opinion is worth listening to and debate is primarily about opinions surely? It isn't too difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to decide that one particular opinion is based on prejudice or mental aberration.
    If it was the occasional flash in the pan of aberration, sure. But when a tiny handful of people take it upon themselves to deliberately raise the noise floor in order to try to drown out the quality debate, I feel compelled to take action.


  • Options
    #54
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    It's a fare point that this thread has gone on for a long time with two apposing sides mostly slagging each other off, trying to score points with no success, nobody's listening, neither side is remotely interested in seeing it from the other point of view.
    So I'm going to suggest a new thread called COMMON GROUND.
    Well, it can't be any worse then whats already being going on.


  • Options
    #55
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    ART6 wrote: »
    but any opinion is worth listening to and debate is primarily about opinions surely?

    I would argue against this.

    If someone were to post an "opinion" that amounted to nothing but invective and ad hominems against another poster, I would certainly not consider it to be "an opinion worth listening to" when taken in terms of the established ground-rules.

    This is the crux of the issue. This isn't a "free-for-all", but rather a moderated discussion. The question is where the line with regards to those ground-rules should be drawn.


  • Options
    #56
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    bonkey wrote: »
    I would argue against this.

    If someone were to post an "opinion" that amounted to nothing but invective and ad hominems against another poster, I would certainly not consider it to be "an opinion worth listening to" when taken in terms of the established ground-rules.

    This is the crux of the issue. This isn't a "free-for-all", but rather a moderated discussion. The question is where the line with regards to those ground-rules should be drawn.

    You misunderstand me. I was certainly not intending to suggest that an expressed opinion that attacks a poster rather than a post is acceptable. On the contrary. What I meant was any opinion, even if completely daft, can be allowed and regarded or disregarded by the reader provided that it conforms to the forum charter. Sometimes even a daft opinion can generate a lateral train of thought.


  • Options
    #57
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    ART6 wrote: »
    You misunderstand me. I was certainly not intending to suggest that an expressed opinion that attacks a poster rather than a post is acceptable.

    So you agree then that it is not the case that any opinion is valid and worth listening to...bu that it is rather a question of where to draw the lines.

    The point I believe that you were making is that you disagree where those lines should be drawn...which is fair enough.


  • Options
    #58
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    bonkey wrote: »
    So you agree then that it is not the case that any opinion is valid and worth listening to...bu that it is rather a question of where to draw the lines.

    The point I believe that you were making is that you disagree where those lines should be drawn...which is fair enough.

    It is not a case that a post that contains an abusive statement or opinion is worth listening to, but rather that is is in breach of the forum charter and we can rely upon mods to put a stop to it quickly. Beyond that, where an opinion is expressed as being genuinely held even if it's perceived to be nonsense, then the lines drawn should, I suggest, be those perceived by individual readers. No-one is forced to read such posts. What reads like nonsense to one might be treated with some respect by another. Who is to say which is right?

    If we adopt an arbitrary measurement of what is good debate and what is not then surely we run the risk of limiting the value of debate forums? That doesn't mean that I support trolling or the putting up of patently silly arguments, but again, I think we can generally rely upon the moderation of the forum to deal with that, preferably not by closing the thread.


  • Options
    #59
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    ART6 wrote: »
    If we adopt an arbitrary measurement of what is good debate and what is not then surely we run the risk of limiting the value of debate forums?
    I would argue that we give users a choice of the type of forum in which they wish to debate.
    That doesn't mean that I support trolling or the putting up of patently silly arguments, but again, I think we can generally rely upon the moderation of the forum to deal with that, preferably not by closing the thread.
    By allowing "genuinely held" positions to be any type of crazy, you implicitly allow "trolled" positions of any type of crazy, unless you allow that a moderator can arbitrarily accept/refuse to allow an opinion based on their (unsupported) belief as to whether or not the user is serious.

    Whether you support them or not isn't the issue...its whether or not they are (or should be) allowed


  • Options
    #60
    Oldtree
    Registered Users Posts: 8,104 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    I for one am confident in the both the discretion and tolerance of the moderators of this forum. I respect their decision to do what they feel necessary to continue to allow me to enjoy expressing myself and reading a reasonable form of self expression.

    Freedom is always tempered by reasonableness, in this case the moderators.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    bonkey wrote: »
    I would argue that we give users a choice of the type of forum in which they wish to debate.

    So if someone reads a thread in (say) the green forum that he feels strongly and even possibly wrongly about, even if in which he is not scientifically or otherwise qualified to express an opinion, he should start a thread in another forum?

    By allowing "genuinely held" positions to be any type of crazy, you implicitly allow "trolled" positions of any type of crazy, unless you allow that a moderator can arbitrarily accept/refuse to allow an opinion based on their (unsupported) belief as to whether or not the user is serious.

    Whether you support them or not isn't the issue...its whether or not they are (or should be) allowed

    I am sure you know that was not my meaning. Let's try an analogy. Suppose there's a thread about the psychological reasons why people choose to believe in God. Several people post responses that are qualified but are in some disagreement with others. Then along comes one who demands that everyone must believe or face the fires of hell for eternity. The debate ignores that post for the moment and continues. Someone might ask "Why must I believe?"

    Let's suppose the only answer is "because you must." Now let's further suppose that other posts further inflame the one who points to hell fire, causing him to respond with more corrosion's of the soul. How long before the mods decide that he has said enough?

    And to whether I "support them" or not, are you suggesting that freedom of speech is only what is "allowed"?

    I am going to be away for the next few days, but I would enjoy continuing this debate with you if we have the opportunity.:)


Advertisement