thanks, but no thanks

I would like to offer my two cents.

First, I would like to commend Jim, he has been nothing but a gentleman in all of the post I have read of his. Good Job! Jim.

Second, I have a suggestion.

Instead of trying to have the moderators make censorship decisions perhaps the burden could be placed on the users. Here is the idea.

When new users sign up they get in the welcome email a brief about how to report abuse. The letter can give a general warning saying that from time to time people can become very passionate and occationally abusive. If you encounter a member like this then please use the following proceedure:
1.) Confront the member who is being abusive by posting your feelings in the current thread the abuse occured and ask the person to stop.
2.) If the abuse does not stop then please send the moderator of the topic an email and ask them to review the abuse.
3.) The moderator will review the reported abuse and make a determination as to whether it actually was abusive or perhaps someone just being blunt and direct.(there is a difference)
If abuse occured then the moderator will send the abuser a written warning. Three written warnings in any 3 month period and you are suspended for 30 days. You are welcome back but with only one more chance, blow that and you are OUT! If any rules get placed then nobody should be exempt, NOBODY!. They should apply equally to all.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Larry)You may have notied that my participation in some threads has dropped off recently. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Thanks Larry, I thought it was just Shock and Awe!


Patrick<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Vermin Hunter"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
From JUU:

I work in the space program, and have multiple degrees. My statements about accelerations and forces have been correct.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I also work in a space program and have multiple degrees too. I agree with JUU's statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

It is generally defined as change in position over change in time (v=dr/dt). Acceleration is change in velocity over change in time (a=dv/dt).

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think this guy JoeW came here on purpose to define velocity as the time derivative of the position vector and acceleration as the time derivative of velocity. I have many books also that support JUU's statement and definitions. We have many rockets that work well using his definition of velocity and accelelation. These stories about derivatives is nonsense. I protest you allow people in here like JoeW, giving out these incorrect definitions. These are ad hominen attacks not definitions. JoeW is the one who must go back to college and learn that velocity is the change of position over the change in time. We, the people, must do something about these attacks from pseudo-intellectuals like JoeW who try to enforce Newtonian Mechanics on us. That guy Newton destroyed science. He invented that derivative concept and now JoeW comes along to tell us our rockets aren't working. This isn't right. Our rockets are all over the place. Too bad for you JoeW and his derivatives. All the kids in high hated derivatives. So what good are they when everybody hates them? Why can't we just stick with the simple defintion JUU gave that works with all rockets out there?

I'm with you JUU, that guy JoeW made no sense.

I'll be surprised (and disapointed) if we decide to use some sort of censorship to solve this problem. Earlier I characterized it (the presence of personalities that use a deliberately antagonistic posting style) as "moderately serious". I was refering to the likely possibility that some users would be deterred from posting by this presence.

This is a serious problem. But it does not automatically mean that we need a serious response.

We already have rules in place that seem effective in preventing overt personal attacks. "Codeword" attacks are still being used and are obnoxious and probably disruptive - perhaps we can move the line a little to help in this area?

Observation:
No one is required to talk to these guys. If someone runs out of the bushes, jumps into a thread doing a "cannon ball" and starts shouting all sorts of dumb stuff, my first inclination (now) is to just ignore them.

Sometimes they sneak up, though. They begin by asking a few dummy-type questions ("I don't have no education in Fizix, but according to my Theory Of UniversalHooZeeWhatZit it is obvious that 'A' is actually 'B'. Do you have anything to say about this?"). After you reply once or twice they do the cannon ball and other obnoxious stuff.

Observation:
Sometimes I DO decide to talk to them. Some of what they say is interesting (without regard to whether it is correct or not). And they are not stupid or ignorant. Sparing with them (well, most of them) is NOT EASY. You'd better stay on your toes. But doing so is great exercise. Try it sometime.

Be prepared for a non-standard end game. When you finally box them in they usually just start shouting about something else or go back to the beginning of the loop and start over. They would like for you to get mad. If not, they would like to have a new victim take your place.

It can get frustrating, but it can also be fun. and EDUCATIONAL. A lot depends on your mood.

And moods change. When the smell gets too strong or you loose interest, just wander off and leave them to themselves. I wouldn't even say "bye", but that is a personal decision.

If they follow you to another thread and try to pick a fight, you can always just ignore them.

Suggestion:
Don't talk "to" them, but do consider talking "about" them. If another particiapant in the hijacked thread is not familliar with the personality involved and starts to try to help them, a non-insulting warning would be appropriate.

<u>Reference to a thread like this one might be a good way to do that.</u>

Observation:
These DAPs (Deliberately Antagonistic Personality, also Deliberately Antagonistic Post) are probably NOT interested in hearing why their stuff is wrong. Or right, but trivial. They already know that. Their goal is to push some buttons and see who gets mad.

If you don't get mad, they "loose the game" (or whatever it is they think they are doing) in THEIR estimation.

Observation:
Helping someone that is having trouble with a concept that is difficult for them but easy for you is rewarding. And being helped is also rewarding. Don't let an *ssh*l* that is just pretending to seek help deter you from this nobel enterprise. Or from asking for help. As soon as you realize that someone isn't sincere, chalk it up to experience and look for something else to do.

Observatinon:
It might be best to give someone the benefit of the doubt the first time you suspect they are a DAP. Anyone can have a bad day, and each of us probably has a different threshold for obnoxious behavior. Look for a pattern.

Observation:
Pay attention to how Dr. Van Flandern handles these guys. He's pretty good at it. I don't have the combined breadth and depth of knowledge that he has, so I can't do what he does. But I'm learning.

=================

I hope some of this is helpful,
LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Larry)Suggestion:
Don't talk "to" them, but <u>do consider talking "about" them</u>. If another particiapant in the hijacked thread is not familliar with the personality involved and starts to try to help them, a non-insulting warning would be appropriate. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Sounds like a really good idea Larry. Don't let others develope their OWN opinion about individual personality or styles. Just talk "about"("codeword" for: SLAM their credibility by inserting your own personal opinion "about" the individual)

Larry, you are as guilty as anybody, Tom, Jeremy, JoeW, Mark, George, 123..., myself and others included. Why would you want to continue playing games.

Take the high road, confront the person by stating what is offensive to you, if it bothers you then ask them to stop, if they don't stop then go tell the "minder". What is unacceptable to one may be perfectly acceptable to another. Some people actually <u>enjoy</u> the abuse and will seek out the ones who can and will deliver it.

I'll give you example: I don't recall who it is but I have seen one individual start in with a challenge to Tom. Tom would chastise them, tell them that they still have much they need to "learn" from the books, and then end the conversation by referring them to the local library. The individual would usually put its tail between it legs and go off into cyberland.

There is a difference between a logical challenge and "Deliberate" antagonizing. I think, as JoeW has pointed out, that there are far more than just one point of view or proof. Does anybody ever consider that there may be a better way the what the book says? This isn't gospel, the books weren't transcribed by the "Word". Like you have noticed Larry, which if you didn't know is wisdom and wisdom can be more valuable than knowledge, much of the heated arguements are HIGHLY valuable from an educational perspective. When the debates get really intense there is tremendous learning value in seeing the styles and techniques used to prove/disprove one side from the other. This is where the "Gun Fight" starts. Sometimes both sides are professional "Gun Slingers" and there is no way to settle it except to let the lead fly. I'm not saying people need to pick up sand and throw it in the others eyes(ad hominen attack) but no holds barred, lets rumble, step up to the plate and support your statements or take a seat on the bench and watch. Sometimes these "Gun Slingers" are sitting at the bar and overhear something they know is not accurate, they step in and confront the situation with bluntness and directness.
Face it Larry, you just said:
"Pay attention to how Dr. Van Flandern handles these guys. He's pretty good at it. I don't have the combined breadth and depth of knowledge that he has, so I can't do what he does. But I'm learning."

Yes, Tom is a professional "Gun Slinger" and you want to be a professional too. You can't be a "Gun Slinger" unless you step into the street. If you don't step into the street then you would be consdiered more or a "sniper". Don't forget about the "snipers" Larry, they are the ones who sit back and don't really participate throughout an entire thread but then in the end come in and take "pot shots" at the winner of the "Gun Fight".

Also, don't forget about the "Bulldogs". The "Bulldogs" are the ones who come in to "attack and distract" while the "Professional" reloads or looks for more ammo.

Additionally Larry, I think you would agree that almost ALL of the highly educational(challenging) debates have come from these professional "Gun Fights" and it was the DAP's(Deliberately Antagonistic Personality) who provided that challenge.

There would never have been one single physicist unless first there was a metaphysicist. The physicists should appreciate what the metaphysicists are doing, they are helping to provide job security and future employment. After all, somebody needs to bring the "pie in the sky" down to earth so everyone can eat it. Right?

Here is one more thing for you larry. You don't have to worry about vermin as long as I'm around, I am a professional vermin hunter.

Patrick<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Vermin Hunter"