Talk-Polywell.org

A federal judge has found that accusations against Michael Mann are prima facie "malicious." Proof of this statement has been posted on this site. Why are these malicious people still allowed to post here? I suggest they are a danger to the site, since they are posting slander or libel against Michael Mann and the University of Pennsylvania.

I mean all considerations of civility aside, these people are an actual hazard to the site. All the lawyers have to do is search and find sites that haven't repudiated people like this or kicked them off. You're a google away.

Good question, why are you allowed here?

hanelyp wrote:Good question, why are you allowed here?

I'm not the one (or one of the ones) defaming Michael Mann.

"Malicious" is not my word, it's the word of a federal judge. Do you have contempt for federal judges?

Later: Glad to see no one's insane enough to announce contempt for federal judges.

So, back to my question.

Schneibster,

Ah. So this site is run by or under the control of a Federal judge? News to me. Has Joe been informed? I'm sure he would be interested.

As to why you are allowed here: It is extremely difficult to get banned from this site.

And then there is the free speech question. Have you ever read any of the malicious stuff printed in the early US press? Vicious malicious. We are rather tolerant of that as a country. But perhaps you are European.

Ah. Perhaps you are unaware of American free speech laws. Site owners are not required to police comments nor are they responsible for them.

Now if Joe or I was in the habit of deleting comments that did not accord with our point of view perhaps you would have a case. I have only deleted one post (not counting spam or one commenter) and that was by accident. And that was 5 or more years ago. For which I profusely apologized and promised to be more careful.

And Michael Mann? The guy who used splices from one set of data to a completely different set of data in order to make his hockey stick? That Mann? Is an attempt to mislead fraud? One Tree Mann?

This judge thinks there is a case: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... nal-review

I personally rather doubt it.

The Pot asks why the Kettle is allowed!






This is just too funny!

MSimon wrote:Schneibster,

Ah. So this site is run by or under the control of a Federal judge? News to me. Has Joe been informed? I'm sure he would be interested.

As to why you are allowed here: It is extremely difficult to get banned from this site.

And then there is the free speech question. Have you ever read any of the malicious stuff printed in the early US press? Vicious malicious. We are rather tolerant of that as a country. But perhaps you are European.

Ignoring works nicely - but man, does he ever clutter up the place.

That first post - if that wasn't an attempt to stifle disagreement, I don't think I've ever seen it.

The funny thing is that the commenter brought up the Mann lawsuit. Looking back through a search of Mann's name there's no long thread of defamation or anything other than discussion of Mann avoidance issues, issues with the 1998 hockey stick chart paper and they usual stuff. Nobody was calling Mann names, they commenting on his work and it's issues, which are well known. It must be strange looking at AGW only through desmogged glasses. It's like trying to see the road at night through deep tinted sunglasses. The funny thing is that when presented with the facts, our commenter just does stuff like this, escalating threats. He must have been hell in school.

Another funny thing is that if you look at the piece at the center of all this, It's just a list of facts and links:
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/th ... py-valley/
(apparently the sentence comparing Mann to Sandusky was removed, though, on the point of university coverup, the sentence was correct. Mann did mangle and molest the data to get what he wanted)http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/
With some commentary about the hockey stick and the methods used to generate it, which I think that after climategate and McIntyre's work, fraudulent is the least that can be said about it. The hockeystick was very shoddy work and to hold on to it as long as they have sort of tells you that it's agenda and egos that's driving this.
And Steyn's piece was mostly about Penn State:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/30 ... mark-steyn
It's also evident that, like our commenter Mann is somewhat of a whiny little troll:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mann
Who likes to whine and threaten people, to say nothing of getting people he doesn't like or who disagree with him, fired or kicked out of his little club. Frankly that's just pathetic.

"Why Are Malicious People Allowed Here?"



I get it now. It's an existential question for scheisser.

Jccarlton wrote:The funny thing is that the commenter brought up the Mann lawsuit. Looking back through a search of Mann's name there's no long thread of defamation or anything other than discussion of Mann avoidance issues, issues with the 1998 hockey stick chart paper and they usual stuff. Nobody was calling Mann names, they commenting on his work and it's issues, which are well known. It must be strange looking at AGW only through desmogged glasses. It's like trying to see the road at night through deep tinted sunglasses. The funny thing is that when presented with the facts, our commenter just does stuff like this, escalating threats. He must have been hell in school.

You think he went to school? I was under the impression that he was self uneducated.

Diogenes wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:The funny thing is that the commenter brought up the Mann lawsuit. Looking back through a search of Mann's name there's no long thread of defamation or anything other than discussion of Mann avoidance issues, issues with the 1998 hockey stick chart paper and they usual stuff. Nobody was calling Mann names, they commenting on his work and it's issues, which are well known. It must be strange looking at AGW only through desmogged glasses. It's like trying to see the road at night through deep tinted sunglasses. The funny thing is that when presented with the facts, our commenter just does stuff like this, escalating threats. He must have been hell in school.

You think he went to school? I was under the impression that he was self uneducated.

I think he went to school, at least through high school and he's said things that lead me to believe that he may have at leas started college. But It seems he drank the indoctrination Kool aid right out of the communal tank and hasn't tried to learn anything real since. He seems to get his physics out of every crank fad book and online site that comes along, his knowledge of his favorite topic, AGW, is truly pathetic and he seems so limited in everything else. I have a friend with Aspergers that's like him in a lot of ways.

MSimon wrote:Schneibster,

Ah. So this site is run by or under the control of a Federal judge?

I never said so. You're making up straw men again.

MSimon wrote:Ah. Perhaps you are unaware of American free speech laws. Site owners are not required to police comments nor are they responsible for them.

So? Feeling a little defensive are we?

MSimon wrote:Now if Joe or I was in the habit of deleting comments that did not accord with our point of view perhaps you would have a case. I have only deleted one post (not counting spam or one commenter) and that was by accident. And that was 5 or more years ago. For which I profusely apologized and promised to be more careful.

I just wonder why you're whining about me when you have people engaging in outright malice and deliberate and repeated defamation here.

MSimon wrote:And Michael Mann? The guy who used splices from one set of data to a completely different set of data in order to make his hockey stick? That Mann? Is an attempt to mislead fraud? One Tree Mann?

He was engaged in honest science, as Watts and the National Review are about to find out to their cost. You'll just ignore it or make up excuses of course.

MSimon wrote:This judge thinks there is a case: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... nal-review

I personally rather doubt it.

Ummm, that judge is the judge who is hearing the case. Maybe you didn't notice.

You're not a federal judge, in any event.

What's really amusing is that Watts and the National Review behaved just like you.

Be nervous.