My first and last message here

[Thomas Kirby]

I read Johnny5's last thread here. It seems to have been an ongoing discussion in which he was trying to explain a mathematical concept to Matt Grime as he saw it. Things may be a bit different where some people are, but the discussion looked quite civil to me. Then Phi for All said this:

 

"Enough. This thread was designed to show one member how to save time and space in his postings and has gone on now for 3 pages. Once again we have tied up a Resident expert's valuable time to solve the problems of a member who seems to relish being a problem. This is not what we're here for."

 

I can't divine what Johnny5's terrible crime might have been. His posts seemed to me to be persistently intelligent, civil, and on topic. He seems to have been the one who questioned ideas, while one of the moderators decided he had a personality defect, visible only to the moderator, that was serious enough for a permanent ban.

 

I am not going to speculate on or try to investigate the nature of Phi for All's problems. I think it is just best for a human being to stay out of the way of people who act like he just did. There is something truly vicious about what I saw, and I want no part of it or this board. I would be proud to be permanently banned here.

[Bettina]

I read Johnny5's last thread here. It seems to have been an ongoing discussion in which he was trying to explain a mathematical concept to Matt Grime as he saw it. Things may be a bit different where some people are' date=' but the discussion looked quite civil to me. Then Phi for All said this:

 

"Enough. This thread was designed to show one member how to save time and space in his postings and has gone on now for 3 pages. Once again we have tied up a Resident expert's valuable time to solve the problems of a member who seems to relish being a problem. This is not what we're here for."

 

I can't divine what Johnny5's terrible crime might have been. His posts seemed to me to be persistently intelligent, civil, and on topic. He seems to have been the one who questioned ideas, while one of the moderators decided he had a personality defect, visible only to the moderator, that was serious enough for a permanent ban.

 

I am not going to speculate on or try to investigate the nature of Phi for All's problems. I think it is just best for a human being to stay out of the way of people who act like he just did. There is something truly vicious about what I saw, and I want no part of it or this board. I would be proud to be permanently banned here.[/quote']

 

Please don't go. Although I've seen a lot of people being banned here lately, and I thought Johnny5 was civil, there must have been a good reason. At least I hope there was. So give it a chance.

 

Bettina

[ecoli]

People usually don't get banned from SFN for bad reasons, but I see your point, Thomas Kirby. There is a lot of ridicule on this site for people with unpopular or unlikely ideas. I, myself, have been put down several times for having ideas that the majority does not believe in, and I know I am not alone.

[swansont]

The problem is that you're only looking at the straw that broke the camel's back.

[-Demosthenes-]

As have I, but I can understand the situation.

[Ophiolite]

My two cents worth: I could never quite figure out Johnny 5's agenda (but I was pretty sure he had one). However I always found his posts interesting and was - I'm searching for the right word - amazed to see he was permanently banned. He appeared to have a far better understanding of several aspects of science than I (but that may have reflected more on my ignorance than on his intellect).

Thomas, I have, until this instance, found Phi's comments and control to be reasonable. Like you I found this action disquieting. Like Betina I would urge you to stay. The measured tones of your post suggest you would make valuable and valued contributions. Stick around and we'll hopefully all learn this was an abberation.

[ydoaPs]

i urge you to stay as well. johnny was probably banned because this isn't the first, second, or even third time he relentlessly argues with a resident expert after being shown wrong several times. he has also on several occasions "hijacked" thread to do his evil deeds.

[Phi for All]

I don't feel particularly obligated to defend my actions as a Moderator here at SFN. I do feel our membership has a right to well-moderated threads which pursue scientific topics. Our purpose here is not to censor, but to make sure that the information posted at SFN is consistently worthwhile and doesn't waste our membership's valuable reading time. Some people join and we find out pretty quickly that they are inconsistent with that purpose. They are warned several times before banning takes place. That is something that is done privately for the most part. Some of the warnings are posted in the threads to highlight anti-policy behavior.

I can't divine what Johnny5's terrible crime might have been. His posts seemed to me to be persistently intelligent, civil, and on topic. He seems to have been the one who questioned ideas, while one of the moderators decided he had a personality defect, visible only to the moderator, that was serious enough for a permanent ban.

I think it's great that Johnny5 has a friend like you, Thomas Kirby, who will defend him against all criticism. Johnny5 certainly had some good posts here. He was civil for the most part and that probably accounts for his longevity.

 

He also showed some fairly disturbing tendencies as well. I know you'd like to think his ideas were all ground-breaking and earth-shattering. Here is an excerpt from his last communication with us:

[b']I want to curse you out, by my superintelligence prevents it. Keep your latex. You don't know how to use it anyways. And to all those who liked me...Yeah I'll miss you. Phi for all whined about something a day or so ago. I suspect I threaten his lack of intelligence. And mokele, you weren't there now were you. Bye all You are just nerds after all. I am the end of the evolution of the human race. I am the Universe. And I'm out.[/b]

The majority of our membership are very level-headed and some of the smartest people I know. I like reading all their posts I can. Science is predicated on the basis that nothing is sacred and all of our Experts, Moderators and Admins are well aware that one of our own posters could well be the next Einstein. Why wouldn't we want to encourage that? But some parts of science have been proven to the point of near-positive certainty. It was some of those points that Johnny5 consistently refused to ackowledge, even after multiple people pointed them out.

I am not going to speculate on or try to investigate the nature of Phi for All's problems. I think it is just best for a human being to stay out of the way of people who act like he just did. There is something truly vicious about what I saw, and I want no part of it or this board. I would be proud to be permanently banned here.

Thomas Kirby, you should know that I was just the Moderator on board at the time it was decided to finally put an end to Johnny5's account. It had been discussed by every Mod, Admin and Expert we have and the consensus was that Johnny5 was a crackpot who was always going to be a liability to the membership. If you are a disciple of his, he is currently posting over at Sciforums, where he has proclaimed himself the most brilliant physicist that ever lived. We wish him luck with that.

[ecoli]

The majority of our membership are very level-headed and some of the smartest people I know. I like reading all their posts I can. Science is predicated on the basis that nothing is sacred and all of our Experts' date=' Moderators and Admins are well aware that one of our own posters could well be the next Einstein. Why wouldn't we want to encourage that? But some parts of science have been proven to the point of near-positive certainty. It was some of those points that Johnny5 consistently refused to ackowledge, even after multiple people pointed them out.[/quote']

 

 

I find nothing wrong with someone trying to refute pieces of science that most commonly accept. It is that sort of thinking that leads to scientific revolution. Whether they're wrong or right should not condem them. In most cases I recomend those who disagree with these outlanding beliefs to discontinue posting arguments, if the other poster keeps at it.

 

However, in this particular case, I find no problem with phi banning johnny5. Just from that short sample phi posted of Johnny5 post, I could tell that he was an arrogant meathead. It's one thing to have differing ideas, but please people, have some modesty. Good job phi and all the other mods and admins as always.

[Phi for All]

Please trust us, we really have the best interests of the site and our membership at heart. Indiscriminate banning is almost as bad as letting every crackpot post thread after thread without moderation. Most people are here to learn. Some people join in order to preach an agenda which has been shot down by scholars everywhere else.

[Thomas Kirby]

I am going to write on my monitor in big letters "Never Say It's the Last Message." I can send a picture to those who don't believe me.

 

Bettina, yourdad, everyone, I appreciate the invitation but I just don't know.

 

Phi, your explanation underlines my point. You talk around it a little bit, but the sum of your message is that Johnny5 should be banned because he continually challenges the experts. I read the thread. He kept a civil tone, and he had one very good point. The expert's case seemed to rest on one idea, that the factorial of 0 equals 1. That is something that definitely needed to be proven. Even zero times infinity does not equal 1. I have at least one way to prove it. Take 1-(1/infinity)^infinity. The result converges on some number slightly greater than .3678 and less than .3679. This is a case where a difference that makes no difference makes a big difference.

 

I can't see the right of it. Challenging the experts should be zero percent of an offense, no matter how many times someone does it. The fact that Johnny had a good point as far as I can see makes this even less of a crime. Honestly, I think he does better work than I do, and is far more patient and less irascible than I. Someone really has to nitpick, as if the smaller the offense might be, the harder we must dig for it. Challenging the kind of mindset that inspires such a ban of such a personality always gets me in trouble. When I write my book, it will probably cost me a thousand sales right here in this thread.

 

What makes me insane is that this kind of thing seems to hit me, as it did Johnny, during what seems to be the careful and legitimate conduct of legitimate business. It's been done to me to make me walk on eggshells when someone couldn't get rid of me, and to get rid of me when someone could. So what does a sane human being do when he sees something like this? What do I see but someone who will do just about anything, twist any sort of reasoning, go on authority trips, or do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo? Even if it wasn't science, life isn't about the status quo. Getting irritated at someone who challenges the status quo is not a good sign.

 

I'm not defending Johnny5 in particular. I don't know him from the possum who crawls across my feet into my bedroom closet to get away from the cats under the trailer. I am defending the right to challenge the status quo, pure and simple. I am also offended by the "love it or leave it" attitude.

[Thomas Kirby]

A shorter summary: I've been told that Johnny5 has been banned because "he's a crackpot" because he seems to defend his views at too great a length (even if he keeps a civil tone), he thinks too much of himself, and the unwritten law seems to be that a participant in this forum must submit to the judgement of the experts or lose his ticket to ride. These are things that more than someone sees as legitimate. I think they are a crock.

[ydoaPs]

my problems with him are that he continues to argue with people who know more than him about the subject even AFTER HE WAS SHOWN TO BE WRONG MORE THN ONCE and that he has a tendancy to hijack threads for his evil schemes.

[Dak]

The moderators on this forum seem to be quite restrained as far as barring people goes.

 

Willow (an insane fool who was incapable of grasping logic, and who continually accused athiests of being satanists) was tolerated because he tended to keep his rantings to his own threads. the paedophiles who turned up for the paedophile thread were tolerated, despite the wishes of quite a few members of the forum. embarisingly, i remember a totally unjustified vitriolic insult-fest which i launched on opholite once and which went unpunished, presumably because i appologised. many transgressions of the rules, common courtosy and sanity are tolerated by the mods here.

 

On the other hand, trolls are generally barred semi-quickly. its impossible to have a discussion whilst there are people present who will argue moot points to death, put words in others mouths, embark on ad-hominin attacks, and ignore inconvienient evidence. i do not know for certain, but i suspect that johnny5 would have been barred for the above reasong.

 

questioning commonly accepted scientifical facts is acceptable, but when you attack them (at great length) by ignoring the evidence in favor of them, the system of open discussion is somewhat marred.

 

as i said, i have no idea why exactly johnny5 was barred, but judjing by the normal restraint of the mods on this forum, i would assume that it wasnt without reason.

 

and as far to submiting to the judjemnt of the mods goes, it is only usually applicable to breaches of logic, such as strawmanning etc, or outright insults towards other members of the forum. If, for example, Phi for all argued that HIV does not cause AIDS, i would certainly argue with him, and i do not believe that i would get in trouble for it (unless i worded my argument "no, you insane toss-piece, what you said is untrue, and i am most certainly not going to acknowledge or adress the fact that you linked to scientifical evidence to back up your claim, instead im just going to say disparaging remarks about your mother. your mother is a hampster. consider your argument rebuked"). that is the kind of person who generally gets barred from here.

[Thomas Kirby]

I know I'm running on too much here, but again I have to say "just one more thing."

 

Phi, I can't see a thing wrong with going to another forum to "preach an agenda which has been shot down by scholars everywhere else." A lot of scholars on the web shoot down "agendas" that have a lot of reason behind them, and no I don't mean people who support the extremely high evidential value of blurry pictures of Bigfoot. Maybe when this happens, the mature expert decides whether it is a good use of his time or not, and participates or not as he deems necessary. Maybe the moderators can demonstrate maturity and a sense of real class by not saving every little irritation and building them into a federal case against someone. Just letting him irritate you a tiny bit at a time until you suddenly decide that a permanent ban is necessary doesn't look like the right thing to do.

[Phi for All]

Phi, your explanation underlines my point. You talk around it a little bit, but the sum of your message is that Johnny5 should be banned because he continually challenges the experts.

If his challenges had real merit that he was able to back up with real evidence, he would be taken as seriously as anyone else here. The fact that he invaded so many threads with his agenda hypotheses got his posts reported more than anyone in recent history. When that many people complain, I listen, always.

I read the thread. He kept a civil tone, and he had one very good point.

You read the one thread then? Good science tries to look at all the evidence. Try reading all his other threads like Matt Grime and Tom Mattson and swansont have.

Challenging the experts should be zero percent of an offense, no matter how many times someone does it.

It isn't a crime. Is that what you think? Is that what Johnny5 told you he was banned for? Believe me, it was a culmination of things, but the one that stood out most was that there were times Johnny5 could not be convinced that he was wrong, despite insurmountable evidence. That's not science, Thomas Kirby, that's religion. Johnny5 holds his beliefs sacred and that was his biggest mistake.

I'm not defending Johnny5 in particular. I don't know him from the possum who crawls across my feet into my bedroom closet to get away from the cats under the trailer. I am defending the right to challenge the status quo, pure and simple.

Forgive me, since I don't really know you, but I find that unlikely. You joined a day after Johnny5 gets banned, you read one thread and are so primed to defend him? I hope you do stay so I can get to know you better. I hope you are someone who has watched our little community without joining, waiting quietly until you had something to say. I hope you can carry your convictions through in every post you make, because passion for what you are doing is important no matter what it is.

I am also offended by the "love it or leave it" attitude.

Pointing out where you can find Johnny5 is hardly telling you to "love it or leave it."

[Thomas Kirby]

Well, there are a lot of things I find hard to believe too. Many of them would offend people if I ran down the list.

 

No, it's pure coincidence. I ran across this forum while looking for formulae used to estimate relativistic/gravitational time dilation. I ran across one of Johnny5's posts, and his style and manner seemed at odds with the "permanently banned" notice.

 

Added: He also looks like he defends his positions the right way.

[Phi for All]

I ran across this forum while looking for formulae used to estimate relativistic/gravitational time dilation. I ran across one of Johnny5's posts, and his style and manner seemed at odds with the "permanently banned" notice.

Then I apologise for my skepticism about you.

 

Feel free to read the rest of his posts. We don't delete them just because he's been banned. Or as I pointed out, he is active over at Sciforums. Someone told me he already posted a record 5 pages disputing relativity. He always felt it was counterintuitive to his approach, and therefore had to be wrong.

 

No one ever said Einstein was infallible. But Johnny5 never showed why he was, he just claimed it no matter what evidence was shown.

[ecoli]

Well, there are a lot of things I find hard to believe too. Many of them would offend people if I ran down the list.

 

As long as you presented yourself clearly and logically, and did not attack anyone's personal beliefs, I highly doubt you would offend anyone.

[1veedo]

I personally think there are a lot of cynics on this board. From expirience elseware, btw.

 

That is kind of typical for people interested in these forums, though. Generally "unintelligent" cynics are more dogmatic then anything else whereas most cynics have objective reasons to think they're right and therefore tend to think everybody else is dumb for not seeing it their way.

 

It could be possible that both sids of the "argument" were just head-strong.

[Bettina]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny5

I want to curse you out, by my superintelligence prevents it. Keep your latex. You don't know how to use it anyways. And to all those who liked me...Yeah I'll miss you. Phi for all whined about something a day or so ago. I suspect I threaten his lack of intelligence. And mokele, you weren't there now were you. Bye all You are just nerds after all. I am the end of the evolution of the human race. I am the Universe. And I'm out.

 

Ok.....I see now. He seemed very disturbed but I really don't like seeing people permanetly banned, but I do understand now.

 

"I am the universe"?......I thought I was.

 

Bettina

[Phi for All]

I personally think there are a lot of cynics on this board. From expirience elseware, btw.

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.--George Bernard Shaw

It could be possible that both sids of the "argument" were just head-strong.

Head-strong, viscious, authority trip, crock, these words have all been used inappropriately in this argument. The facts are that 3 Admins, 2 Mods and 4 Resident Experts deliberated over 2 months on Johnny5 and how to deal with him. I can't count the number of warnings he's gotten privately and in the threads about his agenda. He was given plenty of chances to prove his points. This was not a heated, ego-based reaction to a minor problem.

[Phi for All]

"I am the universe"?......I thought I was.

AND we have sources to back you up on that.

[Thomas Kirby]

OK, well, when I get a little more time I will look at more of Johnny5's posts. The two threads that I saw looked like he was staying clear-headed and responding rationally, with mathematical arguments. He probably doesn't understand why he was banned at that particular time.

 

I've personally had bad experiences with groups that I thought should have been more mature and knew better, but... Some of the places on the net are just amazing. Not that I'm saying that I'm all that much better, but some of them do things I just can't integrate into my world view of what responsible people do. No personal criticisms unless someone tells me that there is an appropriate place and really wants me to do it. Maybe I've been way too sensitive sometimes.

[Thomas Kirby]

Oh, and Bettina, that excerpt sounded a lot more sarcastic than disturbed.