Moderation Issues (5)

Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.

2,097 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (5)

  1. walto:
    It’s ‘everyone seems’;no one ever has any idea what you’re thinking; and yes, your OPs and comments are pointless.

    I agree that J-Mac’s OPs and comments are without substance or value, but my own reasons for not contributing much have nothing to do with J-Mac. I simply have much less time and even less energy for TSZ than I used to.

  2. Kantian Naturalist,

    I don’t blame you for not engaging much here, kn, but if you could acknowledge my remark to you on the quantum entanglement thread–either here or there–I’d appreciate it.

  3. I just want him to understand that your ‘explanation’ of entropy is not a universally held view.

    I mean, I’m guessing he probably realizes this; it’s pretty well known. But since you’re obviously never going to admit this, I’d like to make sure.

  4. walto,

    You can always find someone who disagrees with a particular scientific view. The question is whether there’s any merit to their disagreement.

    I’ve supported the “missing information” interpretation of entropy in great detail. It’s clear that you haven’t spotted any problems with my arguments, nor have you been able to cite any refutations coming from others.

    Why cling to a view that you cannot defend? (Rhetorical question.)

  5. Others have disagreed with your view ‘in great detail” too.

    Why go through this a third time? Do you have some additional argument you’d like to make? Some new misrepresentation? A couple of self-quotations you’re proud of?

    I’ve said my piece on the substance for whatever that may be worth and have nothing to add to my prior posts on this issue, and fwiw, I sincerely doubt you have anything to add either but new insults and misrepresentations. Even the post I’m responding to now is utterly misleading since you knowingly suggest there that one has to hunt around for a view different from your own on this issue, which is utterly false, as I’m sure you know. (Can you just not help doing that kind of stuff?)

    Anyhow, if you want to repeat yourself, knock yourself out. I’m content to let everyone know that there’s utter dissension among top scientists on this matter. That is what’s inarguably true here and is all that I’ve asserted. I’m satisfied with that. Ich habe genug. (And, certainly, I join everyone else here in having genug of you.)

  6. walto,

    Others have disagreed with your view ‘in great detail” too.

    Amusingly, you actually agreed with my view earlier, before inadvertently contradicting yourself.

    But now that you’ve reversed yourself, you’re welcome (and encouraged!) to present any viable refutation of my argument(s) that you can come up with, from any source.

    I don’t think you can, and I think you realize that too. Hence your excuses for avoiding further discussion.

  7. walto: I don’t think you’re listening very carefully, son.

    Perhaps we are seeing an intense argument where both parties are talking completely past one another.

  8. keiths: You can always find someone who disagrees with a particular scientific view.

    The entropy is missing information interpretation is a scientific view? I did not know that. Learn something new all the time, hanging out here.

  9. Mung:

    The entropy is missing information interpretation is a scientific view?

    Yes. You didn’t realize that?

  10. keiths: You didn’t realize that?

    At the risk of repeating myself, I did not know that.

    So are the alternative views not scientific? And if they are scientific, why is there no consensus? Is it the lack of a common enemy, such as the anti-evolution crowd?

  11. Neil,

    Perhaps we are seeing an intense argument where both parties are talking completely past one another.

    No, the disagreement is quite clear. I endorse the “missing information” interpretation of entropy. Walto rejects it, despite having endorsed it before.

    He’s unable to explain the reversal. I suspect that he was simply confused and didn’t realize he was contradicting himself. Now that it’s been pointed out, he’s ashamed to admit it — hence his eagerness to shut the discussion down. If we were to continue, he’d be in the same position he was in before: rejecting the missing information interpretation while being unable to defend his stance.

  12. I don’t think you’re listening very carefully, son.
    Neil Rickert,

    Def. I made a simple assertion. But keiths wants to fight about something else.

  13. walto:
    I don’t think you’re listening very carefully, son.
    Neil Rickert,

    Def. I made a simple assertion. But keiths wants to fight about something else.

    Kids…don’t ever allow this kind of pride to ruin your day in the sandbox…If you see it happening, just pick up your toys and move to another sandbox… 😉

  14. Mung,

    At the risk of repeating myself, I did not know that.

    Wow.

    So are the alternative views not scientific?

    Just because an idea is wrong — the “entropy as disorder” idea, for example — doesn’t mean that it isn’t scientific.

    And if they are scientific, why is there no consensus?

    Because people make mistakes. That’s what the earlier thread was about, remember?

    Lambert correctly rejected the “entropy as disorder” idea, but then replaced it with another flawed idea: entropy as energy dispersal. Sal bought into it, and so did walto. But it’s obviously wrong, and walto had to reverse himself later, accepting the missing information interpretation instead. Now, in his confusion, he’s reversed himself yet again and is back to rejecting the missing information interpretation.

    It’s easy to see why so many people have mistakenly embraced the “entropy as disorder” interpretation, and it’s easy to see why Lambert replaced it with the bogus notion of entropy as energy dispersal. Each of those ideas can seem compelling to someone who isn’t thinking deeply enough about entropy.

    And for someone like walto, arguments from authority are a perennial pitfall. (He must have slept through the lecture in which logical fallacies were discussed.)

  15. While looking at the old thread, I came across this gem from walto:

    One side has Boltzmann’s equation, the other has working chemists. And so the fight continues.

    He actually thought that “working chemists” reject Boltzmann!

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  16. keiths:
    While looking at the old thread, I came across this gem from walto:

    He actually thought that “working chemists” reject Boltzmann!

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Dunno about making it up, but I’ll bet you carved it out, nice and bloody.

  17. keiths: Just because an idea is wrong — the “entropy as disorder” idea, for example — doesn’t mean that it isn’t scientific.

    I agree with you. I did not say that the other ideas are not scientific because they are wrong. I was trying to explore what it is that leads you to believe that your idea is scientific. Certainly an idea being right isn’t what makes an idea scientific.

    Why can’t we just perform a few measurements and settle it? Is it because you are talking about something that is not measurable?

  18. Mung: Why can’t we just perform a few measurements and settle it? Is it because you are talking about something that is not measurable?

    That seems reasonable. I’m all for experimenting!

    PS were I wearing my admin hat, I might suggest sandbox or noyau for off-topic discussion and retain this thread for moderation queries.

  19. Alan Fox: I might suggest sandbox or noyau for off-topic discussion and retain this thread for moderation queries.

    Excellent idea! In fact, it is an idea I put forward myself in the past. You were even an admin when I suggested it. It was shot down. So that ship has sailed.

  20. Alan:

    PS were I wearing my admin hat…

    Thank God (so to speak) that you’re no longer wearing it. Your tenure was a disaster. TSZ is functioning far more smoothly now that we aren’t suffering through your continual moderation fuckups.

  21. walto: I don’t blame you for not engaging much here, kn, but if you could acknowledge my remark to you on the quantum entanglement thread–either here or there–I’d appreciate it.

    I’m not going to get involved in any debate between you and keiths, I’m afraid. My time and patience are limited enough as it is. I had only meant to thank keiths for pointing out that it does make sense to talk about the entropy of a single molecule.

  22. Kantian Naturalist: I’m not going to get involved in any debate between you and keiths, I’m afraid. My time and patience are limited enough as it is. I had only meant to thank keiths for pointing out that it does make sense to talk about the entropy of a single molecule.

    Oh ffs, I just asked you if you saw a comment or not. I’m not asking you to opine on anything or otherwise waste your time or patience.

  23. walto, to KN:

    Oh ffs, I just asked you if you saw a comment or not. I’m not asking you to opine on anything or otherwise waste your time or patience.

    Walto is doing his “grumpy old man” routine.

  24. keiths:
    walto, to KN:

    Walto is doing his “grumpy old man” routine.

    I.e. telling simple truths that annoy you. So sorry. One thing I def agree with you about though. Kn is wicked flouncy.

  25. walto: Oh ffs, I just asked you if you saw a comment or not. I’m not asking you to opine on anything or otherwise waste your time or patience.

    I’m sorry, I completely misread the tone of your request: yes, I did see your comment!

  26. walto,

    I.e. telling simple truths that annoy you. So sorry.

    No, you flamed KN for a perfectly reasonable response, and now you’re flaming me for pointing out your grumpy flaming.

    Thus proving my point, Grumpy.

  27. Is anyone here not retired yet, except Mung? I hate arguing with grumpy old men that would hit me with a cane, if they could reach through the internet…

  28. My new OP is ready for posting.
    I will deal with WJ Murrey in my next OP. I promise and my word counts.. 😉

  29. J-Mac,

    Is anyone here not retired yet, except Mung? I hate arguing with grumpy old men that would hit me with a cane, if they could reach through the internet…

    Don’t assume that everyone who is retired is old.

  30. keiths:
    J-Mac,

    Don’t assume that everyone who is retired is old.

    I don’t! I’m retired…How old is old for retirees?

  31. keiths:

    Don’t assume that everyone who is retired is old.

    J-Mac:

    I don’t!

    Then your statement is a non-sequitur:

    Is anyone here not retired yet, except Mung? I hate arguing with grumpy old men that would hit me with a cane, if they could reach through the internet…

  32. J-Mac,

    Well, is my suspicion correct? I have multiple reasons to think that your retirement was probably involuntary.

  33. keiths:
    J-Mac,

    Well, is my suspicion correct?I have multiple reasons to think that your retirement was probably involuntary.

    Well, I wouldn’t really call it involuntary… but it is close…But I still do a semi-voluntary work… and get gigs on the side too… I could do more…but what’s the point? Money isn’t everything… I don’t want to be famous like you 😉

  34. J-Mac,

    I just find it amusing that you’ve been so consistently contemptuous of retirees, and now you are one, involuntarily.

  35. keiths:
    J-Mac,

    I just find it amusing that you’ve been so consistently contemptuous of retirees, and now you are one, involuntarily.

    I was bought out by a large company?
    Do you have a problem with this kind of retirement?

  36. J-Mac,

    They offered a choice between an early retirement package and a layoff? That would explain why you chose to become what you despise.

    As I said:

    I just find it amusing that you’ve been so consistently contemptuous of retirees, and now you are one, involuntarily.

  37. keiths:
    J-Mac,

    They offered a choice between an early retirement package and a layoff?That would explain why you chose to become what you despise.

    As I said:

    You are an idiot who doesn’t have a clue how the corporate world works… No wonder they sent you for an early retirement… It’s cheaper than keeping an oldie and with a bigmouth….

  38. Looks like I hit the nail on the head.

    ETA: And by the way, my retirement was entirely voluntary. After giving my notice, I stayed around for a year and a half at my manager’s request.

  39. keiths:
    Looks like I hit the nail on the head.

    ETA:And by the way, my retirement was entirely voluntary.After giving my notice, I stayed around for a year and a half at my manager’s request.

    Yes. I’m sure you can verify that.. until then you seemed a bit shaky…

  40. You had a manager, keiths? Can you ask her to comment here? I’m sure she would be delighted to comment about your work ethics…

  41. J-Mac:

    I’m sure you can verify that..

    Yes. Long before it happened, I mentioned my intent to retire in comments here at TSZ. For instance:

    I hope to snatch myself from the jaws of employment within the next few months, so I’ll have more time to do research then.

    You, meanwhile, have been oozing contempt for retirees both before and after being forced into retirement yourself. This is from today:

    I do…and this comment tells me you neither read the thread nor have an idea what’s all about… Have you heard of borred retirees club? Join them…

    You’ve become what you despise. Nice foot-shooting, J-Mac.

  42. Is it me or is TSZ website loading really slowly lately?
    It’s not like that all the time but now it’s seems like it is frozen…
    Anybody?
    Admins?

Comments are closed.