IMO, too much time, energy and precious PP site real estate is being expended on "outing" or jousting with suspected "trolls". It begins to look more like sport than productive purpose.Sparky1 in my experience here threads and topics have phases. For a while the only topic seemed to be how to disinfect masks ad-nauseam. Then the topic was on to another bent. I think people are expressing frustration and thats being discouraged. Their frustration will pass. But you are right, though I would not suggest ignoring but rather a better word might be discernment. Carefully choosing what we respond to. AKGrannyWGrit
Truly, the best, most effective way of dealing with and neutralizing a presumed troll is to IGNORE them.You are, of course, correct. I've been guilty of sparring with trolls here lately, but if that denigrates the forums or acts as a hindrance to new members feeling welcome, I will most assuredly cease and desist. Sometimes it is fun, though, and oh so easy. That being said, wrestling with pigs only makes pigs happy and gets one covered in the pig's shit, so...
After listening to your thoughts, I realize that I don’t want to be judge, jury, or executioner.
I just want a way to tag these people for myself, so I can remember who they are. It will help me ignore them. Some people, such as you level-headed calm and discerning people, clearly don’t need this feature. Others - like me (and perhaps others) - could find it very useful.
And - maybe us hot-headed people can share the tags between us. To help us all calm down.
Does that make sense?
Maybe Dr Martenson can shed some light on the possible reasons why the US military has banned or disqualified all covid 19 victims from enlistment even if “recovered” ? is because you never really recover? or is perhaps because you are functionally disabled or medically incompetent forever. I think this in itself should show how much we are not being told about this disease… This is really really significant, considering most people will eventually get this, Just hoping we know more before most get it. But as ex military with high clearance, I can tell you , these statements do not come without foundation and they know something significant that is being withheld.
Sadly, I think your suspicions are very well founded. Earlier today I posted an expert panel discussion on vaccines. I cannot remember which panelist made the comment about a group of people who had already been recruited (I think in Seattle) for vaccine testing happening now. Apparently they were cautioned that they should not have unprotected sex. I don’t know what the specified length of time was but it sent up a major red flag for me that someone would volunteer for such a study (scary future implications!?) and I wondered if there was any kind of financial incentive. Normally there is not, but these days, it seems anything is possible. They most likely had to sign non-disclosures as well but I will try and do a bit more research on the topic and see what I can find.
You need to know, Snydeman, my original post which began this disgraceful episode is below. Here, in my own words is incontrovertible evidence that I called a man’s opinion (n.b. not the man himself) bullshit:
“Despair not! There is a BS detector. Look for a claim’s philosophy of causation (aetiology). As I suggested previously, find a logical fallacy and you find Kant.
By way of example, I see Jim H # 177 (reply to #171) is pleased that you see “The …machine that you are awakening to Janie.” And what does Jim believe you see? Why it is that “corrupt, global elite”.
Now, my BS detector redlined here. The most common of all falsehoods, the old Post Hoc Propter Hoc logical fallacy (e.g. The rooster crowed, then the sun rose, therefore the rooster caused the sun to rise)”
I have no apologies to make to anybody for going hard on the issue (I.e bullshit), and easy on the man (Jim H) There is nothing ad hominem here.
So I play the ball and “throw pearls before swine” who don’t have the faintest idea what evidence or truth is, and who quite rightly consider their perceived liberty to not let the truth get in the way of their personal narrative , descend en masse, and you, Mr Snydeman, play the man.
Yeah, I’m talking to you Mr. Snydeman:
“We’re drawing fancy-talking trolls now!” #246 (reply to #246)
“I’ll fall on my sword and say you are a completely incomprehensible idiot”. #265 (reply to #262)
We’re all fair game on an unmoderated public site for snide comments in reply to our posts, and since I use such a literary device myself, I can hardly complain if it is employed to ridicule my own opinions. That is all very well if we mock another’s opinions only, but you made a seriously bad mistake Mr Snydeman by impugning my character. For this you will bear consequences.
You see, Mr Snydeman, whether you knew it or not, you did give me fair warning in your alias that you are quite a piece of work. What was amusing for me in the meaning of that alias is that in trumpeting to this community that according to the Oxford Dictionary you identify as “(of a person) devious and underhand”. What I found so funny was that in this Freudian slip, you had completely subconsciously told me the truth.
I did take you very seriously, and you began to deliver from your first post about me. My three strikes and you are out policy is not interested in what your motivation was, only that you caused me harm in back-dooring me and preventing your readers knowing whom you were posting about, or providing them the ability to read the full text of my case and the backstory behind the issue. As I said in response:
“Now as a noun, Snydeman, the Oxford defines a “snide” man as “devious and underhand”. I have no reason to believe you are such a man, Snydeman, even though your post clearly proves you behave that way. I give everybody three strikes before I declare them out, Snydeman, and this stunt is only strike one for you.” #244 (reply to #243)
What you did not know Snydeman is that I had given you enough rope to swing free, or hang yourself. You indicated to me you chose the latter when I discovered on closer reading you did not mention my alias. Absent both a voice and a name now, you caused me harm again and earned Strike 2 for that. When a comprehensive reading of your post indicated you were selling that I had projected my own character flaws on others, you earned Strike 3, and cleared any doubt in my mind about your character. I agree with you that you are a devious and underhand man, but have no evidence you caused me these harms intentionally, Mr Snydeman.
Malice of forethought is devilishly hard to prove without an unequivocal admission of intent. I therefore submit to the PP community that the excerpts below are as good as it gets to hoist you on your own petard:
“… I don’t know why I take on the task of taking trolls to task … I used snark to combat snark, so I admit I was being a bit hypocritical on some level … “
Thu, May 07, 2020 7:53 pm. Snydeman #258 (reply to Wildtravel #244) but referencing Quercus bicolor #246 “More civility please”
“You are, of course, correct. I’ve been guilty of sparring with trolls here lately, but if that denigrates the forums or acts as a hindrance to new members feeling welcome, I will most assuredly cease and desist.” #61 (reply to #59)
Friday May 8, 2020 12:32pm
Oh you’ll stop alright, boyo, but your “outing” doesn’t end yet. I feel very unwelcome here.
Let’s hear now from the man himself where his conscience resides over what he has done:
“Sometimes it is fun, though, and oh so easy. That being said, wrestling with pigs only makes pigs happy and gets one covered in the pig’s shit, so…”. #61 (reply to #59)
Friday May 8, 2020 12:32pm
O.K, there you have it. Mr Snydeman sure did pick the wrong guy, didn’t he? I will explain why in the following post explaining who I am, and why I talk funny.
This is your community, people, so I would welcome public responses only on these issues, please. However, I would also welcome Private Messages from legal practitioners in the United States, who might advise me if there are civil remedies I might seek against Mr Snydeman In consequence of the alleged harms he has caused me.
I am also interested in discovering any, if any, Private Messages between Mr Snydeman and any other person, in relation to these issues. I want everybody to know if there is any conspiracy behind these events. If anyone wishes to unburden themselves publicly please do. If not, please be assured that if I am compelled to obtain discovery by legal avenues, I will.
No dob ins please. Do it publicly, or not at all.
Now just stop or go away. You are wasting bandwidth and offering nothing of value here.
BTW This is not an unmoderated site. It is a very well moderated site and depends on the integrity of members tokeep it that way. I suggest if you wish to continue do not push the edges of the envelop. This is not in ant way a threat, just some friendly advice. You may have noticed a certain prolific poster is MIA. That is not an accident.
I am well aware that many PP members are troubled by the heat of the commentary recently, and counsel to just ignore it. Those members would do well to remember that democracy is a mediocrity. As John Curran said in 1790:
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
And, as Count Macchiavelli says in “The Prince”:
“Sometimes doing nothing comes at a very high price indeed”.
The enemy is within.
I urge those members who value being part of an evidence based community to bear in mind that without people such as myself, who are prepared to do their dirty work for them, we’d all be speaking Japanese at the moment.
Just as Chris found it important to assert his professional qualifications against personal attacks, I also wish to assert my expertise in the face of the personal attacks on me, made by Mr Snydeman.
I am a former national consultant for about half of Australia’s Local Governments in the privatisation and deregulation of the National Energy Market. My role was to achieve fair and reasonable prices for my clients in relation to about $100M of annual operational expenditure on energy services.
Over some 5 years I saw absolutely no evidence whatsoever of some shadowy, sinister “Deep State”, only the far less glamorous reality of extraordinary people just doing their jobs in service of a huge environmental, economic and social public good in Australia.
That being said, with such serious money on the table, it didn’t matter if something was unethical, providing it was legal. Swimming with sharks is not for the faint hearted.
In this awareness, I called a spade a spade in response to someone posting drivel on Peak Prosperity. I provided incontrovertible evidence that the conclusion made in the post was what is known as a logical fallacy. In other words, the conclusion was just plain wrong, or bullshit as I called it. I regret using the brown word, and will substitute a word such as hooey, codswallop or bunkum in future.
As members will be aware, my telling the truth proved unpopular amongst members who don’t like the facts getting in the way of a good yarn. There was a vigorous exchange with several people who misunderstand that saying something’s so doesn’t make it so. Some also struggled with understanding a new form of evidence they had not come across before. This post introduces yet another form of evidence, eye witness testimony.
In these misunderstandings I gather I was declared a troll, which I gather means someone who is not you. A certain member took it upon themselves to show me a firm hand, with no success.
My BS Detector is a tool which discriminates between arguments by faith and arguments by evidence. Since there is by definition no possible evidence for articles of faith, and no shortage of venom and vitriol from people who argue a priori, when their conclusions are proven to be simply not true.
That tool proves Peak Prosperity is anything but an evidence based forum, but one in which a clique of very well organised self appointed vigilantes determine who will be admitted and whom will be quite ruthlessly attacked personally and expelled for proving people’s beliefs are entirely absent evidence.
Major Premise: “if you wish to continue do not push the edges of the envelop,”
Minor Premise: “not in ant way a threat,”
Conclusion: “friendly advice.”
Your BS Detector Result:
False Dilemma logical fallacy
I would take your threat seriously Mohammed_Mast, were it not for the absence of any causal relationship between your major premise and your conclusion. Accordingly, since you assure me you are not in any way threatening me, I would not need to take your conclusion that you are giving me “friendly advice” seriously, now would I?
Since your conclusion is false, I will therefore draw the conclusion you are giving me unfriendly advice. That’s cool, because, as one of my mentors said, “We’re doing business here, not trying to go to bed together”.
Thank you for sharing.
Dear Chris
Maybe interesting to discuss?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.974139v3.full.pdf
Thanks for your work!
Thanks for clarifying this! When I read about it your description was what I thought but don’t have enough direct experience myself.
“My body, my choice” is developing a whole new meaning.