Comments on: Housekeeping: can we control the conversation?

By: Earthling

Earthling — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:48:11 +0000

It’s my experience, over a number of years, that CAGW proponents (alarmists) are more likely to use ad hominem without provocation than sceptics, or as alarmists prefer to call us, deniers.

By: Doug Proctor

Doug Proctor — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:56:09 +0000

All conversations eventually wander off into the brush. That’s when it’s time to close comments.

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:27:06 +0000

As a retired teacher of teenagers and young adults, I discovered many years ago that people who behave badly in public fora, such as Brandoch, were often never given pause, as they were growing to maturity, to consider their own behaviour and how it would be seen by adults with different views and experiences from themselves.
Individuals who behave in a similar fashion to spoilt children, sadly, need to be treated as such.
All the better if responsible adult people can do this without losing their sense of humour and manners, but dealing with such irritants is never easy.

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:41:31 +0000

A timely reminder – thanks Huub & RT. I will try to reword things so that I criticise the message rather than the messenger. Or maybe the delivery of the message, which in most cases from the CAGW proponents is laden with smugness, arrogance, rudeness and sarcasm.

By: Huub Bakker

Huub Bakker — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:47:54 +0000

Richard,

I am aware that you don’t have much time to moderate this blog and therefore the onus is on us to keep it clean.

I certainly have issues with Brandoch over his insults and his habit of throwing statements out there without any expectation of backing them up with any evidence. This is simply troll behaviour although I would not like to call him a troll; it’s like children, they are not bad children, they behave in a bad manner.

As the owner of this blog you have the power to block people from posting as you did to Ken. It’s not as though Ken wasn’t given plenty of warning. Perhaps you might like to look at Brandoch in the same light. Certainly, he is not contributing to a useful discussion at all and is merely raising the static level and temperature of the comment threads, not to mention of the readers.

BTW I put together a rebuttal of Joseph Postma’s “Understanding the Greenhouse Effect” that I would be happy to have you post, if you’d like to email me.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:34:49 +0000

Thank you, Alexander!

I agree with you and point out that Huub was also annoyed by Brandoch; he notes simply that we ought to avoid his errors in our own replies.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:30:49 +0000

Hear, hear.

By: Bob D

Bob D — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:59:52 +0000

As an additional comment, can I say that I have no problem with people like Simon. We’re on opposite sides and I usually don’t agree with him, but he is seldom rude and is often prepared to discuss a topic properly. Contrast that with Brandoch and Rob Taylor’s demeanour.

I also have no time for Ken, but then few people have. It’s not just at this blog that he’s unwelcome due to his insulting behaviour.

Let me also say that I have been guilty in the past of responding in kind to Brandoch and others, and I feel bad about that. It doesn’t help matters, and it’s exactly what they want – they needle as much as possible to distract from the real issues, like the lack of a tropospheric hot-spot, or the lack of any warming over the past 16 years.

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:51:11 +0000

Richard, I am delighted you ‘have no wish to rule the world’ and heartily approve!
With all due respect, Huub, I found Brandoch incredibly annoying in that he did what trolls always do ie use mis-direction, make unsubstantiated statements and totally ignored fair and relevant questions put to him. He was very obviously never interested in reasonable discussion but only in hi-jacking threads, which. for serious commenters, is beyond the pale.
I have been impressed by the restraint displayed here in the face of Brandoch’s insults, rudeness and ridiculous goading; I feel that, while you are entitled to your opinion, Brandoch was always consistently the author of his own misfortunes here.

By: Bob D

Bob D — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:48:09 +0000

I feel that we can do without the likes of Brandoch, Rob Taylor (are they the same person anyway?) and Richard Christie. They contribute nothing to the conversation, simply insulting everybody and never responding when their spurious statements are challenged. They simply change the subject and continue making unfounded allegations.

How about putting up with folk like that for a short time, to give them a chance to reform their behaviour, but then just banning them if they won’t listen? Most blogs do that.

I’m not of course suggesting that anybody is ever banned for providing inconvenient data, such as happens at Hot-Topic. Only if they are consistently rude and exhibit troll-like behaviour.

Remember, people like that are only here to try to destroy this blog, or make it unpleasant for everyone. They hate dissent, and strive to prevent alternative views from being presented or debated. Their only weapons are ridicule and ad homs. After all, the real-world data doesn’t support them, so they have nothing else.

Nobody visits their alarmist blogs any more, due to their disgusting manners, so their only outlet is to come here and insult us.