Who Wants to Have Josh Banned?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:09 pm

What Should Be Done About Josh Cryer?

If you want something other than "banning" or "nothing" choose "Other, See My Comment" and leave a comment.

Additional direction added later.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:25 pm

Maybe we could just ban AGW "discussions". The ease with which people forget themselves and what they say, and resort to outright conflict, on the thinnest of unsupported historical material would appear to qualify it as a religion.

taniwha · Post by **taniwha** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:15 pm

Well, "nothing" might not be quite accurate, but I'm certainly not in favor of banning him (he's had some interesting things to say in non-related topics). I'm also not in favor of banning AGW discussions: they've been rather interesting too.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:30 pm

taniwha wrote:Well, "nothing" might not be quite accurate,

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I have added some direction that should clarify.

jmc · Post by **jmc** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:52 pm

I quite like AGW discussions, I found lots of links on them to sides that are both for and against which on the whole I found informative.

Pehaps a Polywell forum strictly speaking isn't the most appropriate place, but I imagine forums dedicated to AGW are completely flooded, with Polywell the number of posts are kept to a manageable level, additionally the people here tend to try to back up their statements with evidence (there are a few who don't but my experience is they soon tend to stop posting on this forum)

I would say nothing, myself. The important thing is Josh too tries to back his arguments up with evidence and links and reasonably thought out arguments which means he adds to the discussion.

P.S. I wonder whether Josh is please or hurt by this thread, they say in Iran a fatwa is the closest thing they have to the booker prize

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

I particularly like this bit:

In 1990, soon after the publication of The Satanic Verses, a Pakistani film was released in which Rushdie was depicted plotting to cause the downfall of Pakistan by opening a chain of casinos and discos in the country. The film was popular with Pakistani audiences, and it "presents Rushdie as a Rambo-like figure pursued by four Pakistani guerrillas"[35].

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:03 pm

I might have missed it (I dont have an opinion on AGW, so I stay out of it), but has he done anything beyond defending his point of view quite persistently? I mean has he used offensive language, or otherwise acted against the rules of the board?

mad_derek · Post by **mad_derek** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:05 pm

To ban anybody (unless they have persistently broken site rules) is censorship of the worst kind.

I may seldom agree with Josh but he has a right to his point of view and does at least argue (normally) with the backing of some kind of 'evidence'. I've put evidence in quotes because there are different points of view as to what constitutes 'evidence' and what constitutes a third party opinion put forward as 'evidence'. This certainly true on both sides of the AGW debate.

I have noticed that some of the recent exchanges on AGW have become somewhat heated (and possibly as a consequence, not particularly enlightening) but are certainly no worse than some which have gone before.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:24 pm

Joe Strout has made it clear in the past that as long as these sorts of topics remain in the general section, thats all good. I have complained many times in the past that political arguments (Like it or not, yes AGW tends to break down by political affiliation) bring down the status and reputation of talk-polywell. Its years later and there is a portion of the internet community that only lurks here because of the voracious attitude found in the general topics section.

I am the 24th person to sign up @ talk-polywell, before MSimon. I was here during the birthing pains.

Kiteman, did you take this up with JoeStrout or MSimon privately? My guess is that you didn't and made this post a unilateral attempt to besmerch a fellow member of talkpolywell.

Kiteman if you made little or no attempt to make your feelings heard thru private channels, then you sir are in the wrong.

On the surface it appears you have made no case at all for the banning of said member, I see no link, no citation, no listing of charges, an utter lack of any sense of due diligence in trying to make your case.

I do know that Josh has worked to give Polywell good visibility and representation on a number of other web sites. I have emailed MSimon asking for his take.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:14 pm

If Josh wants to burn the flag, I'll stand in front protecting him with a gun if needed.

Our country is strong because we value open debate and free opinion.
Josh will learn from his exchanges here, as do we.

Sure, I agree that he gets juvenile in his defense techniques, but doing so generates friction and response, and he can not but learn something from that.

I voted for do nothing.

If he goes more juvenile than the liar liar pants on fire finger pointer regime, then maybe I would change my vote based on value degredation of the board. But for now I think he is value added to value neutral.

CaptainBeowulf · Post by **CaptainBeowulf** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:47 pm

I agree with many of the other posts here. Freedom of speech is a central tenet of democracy. Let Josh say what he wants. If the AGW stays in General, that's fine.

Of course if it gets so juvenile that it's degrading the value of the board, or threats or other crossing-the-line things to be thrown around, it would be legitimate to ban whoever is doing that... but I don't think that's happened here.

AGW isn't the only subject on which extreme opinions have been thrown around on the General forum. Also, what the mainstream community would consider "fringe" physics topics have been discussed here. If we're worried about the General forum putting people off Polywell, the only real solution would be to make another forum where we could have our political discussions.

Edit: by another forum I mean another website.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:04 pm

Roger wrote:Joe Strout has made it clear in the past that as long as these sorts of topics remain in the general section, thats all good. I have complained many times in the past that political arguments (Like it or not, yes AGW tends to break down by political affiliation) bring down the status and reputation of talk-polywell. Its years later and there is a portion of the internet community that only lurks here because of the voracious attitude found in the general topics section.

I am the 24th person to sign up @ talk-polywell, before MSimon. I was here during the birthing pains.

Kiteman, did you take this up with JoeStrout or MSimon privately? My guess is that you didn't and made this post a unilateral attempt to besmerch a fellow member of talkpolywell.

Kiteman if you made little or no attempt to make your feelings heard thru private channels, then you sir are in the wrong.

On the surface it appears you have made no case at all for the banning of said member, I see no link, no citation, no listing of charges, an utter lack of any sense of due diligence in trying to make your case.

I do know that Josh has worked to give Polywell good visibility and representation on a number of other web sites. I have emailed MSimon asking for his take.

I think the site was better before the politics got dragged into it, but since pandora's box has been opened, we might as well live with it. Besides, i've seen the theory beaten to death, and until we get something NEW that's polywell related to talk about, we've got to do SOMETHING to keep from getting bored.

As for Josh, he isn't bothering ME. I'm very much against the idea that anyone should be banned just for expressing their opinion. (even if it's a lunatic opinion, which i'm not saying josh's is, i'm just saying if it were.

)

As long as people aren't being obscene or hateful, I have no problem with their input.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:27 pm

I am the 24th person to sign up @ talk-polywell, before MSimon.

Yeah. I didn't like the format so I delayed a few weeks. And then I had no one to talk to. And then Joe got tired of herding cats and I volunteered. And the rest is history.

BTW so far it is 6 to 0 for NOTHING. That is the way I voted before seeing the totals.

My estimation? We will see a lot more of this type behavior as the CAGW thing beaks down. I knew a rabbi once who lost his faith. It was not pretty. He was a broken man. His spirit was gone. Sad. I never stopped liking him. And he still had a few friends who were not just friends because of his position. My dad for one.

So here would be my suggestion. Never follow a faith that is falsifiable.

The Catholic Church wisely decided a while back to separate faith from reason. Which is why the Church is Darwinist as far as the science goes.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:34 pm

Oh, and I just ran across this. Thought it was funny.

Bow Down Before It, Ye Mortals!

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:58 pm

Roger wrote: Kiteman, did you take this up with JoeStrout or MSimon privately? My guess is that you didn't and made this post a unilateral attempt to besmerch a fellow member of talkpolywell.

Kiteman if you made little or no attempt to make your feelings heard thru private channels, then you sir are in the wrong.

I have no case. I saw a number of posts with people trying to converse civilly with Josh and a number of posts where Josh wrote most UNcivilly to numerous others, and a post where MSimon pondered whether he SHOULD ban him. I was just asking. Seems like almost evewryone on this forum is VERY civil and tolerant EXCEPT Josh. I've often thought this was a high-class crowd.

I have made my "feelings" known in other posts and if you feel that said posts "besmerch" Josh and are therefore "wrong", well so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:04 pm

Diogenes wrote: As for Josh, he isn't bothering ME. I'm very much against the idea that anyone should be banned just for expressing their opinion. (even if it's a lunatic opinion, which i'm not saying josh's is, i'm just saying if it were. )

As long as people aren't being obscene or hateful, I have no problem with their input.

Where do you draw the line between "hateful" and not? Does repeatedly calling someone and "idiot" and a "liar" begin to approach? Others may draw the line in closer or further. As I said above, this seems a very tolerant crowd.