(Blog for website at http://users.indigo.net.au/don )
Uh-oh, .. Four days now. And still locked. Hey, .. doesn't look good.
Seems that telling Hackenslash to piss off, backed by the threat of my Big Sister was just too much for them. They've locked the thread again, "for review".
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/expanding-earth-do-the-continents-wind-back-to-a-sphere-t8539-7320.html [See footnote]
Review for what? We might well ask. Certainly not with a view to censoring the rottweiller for its barking, or any of its minders for *their* more than occasional, 'robust contributions'. If *you* do it, you're more than likely to get moderated off with a full house of blue cards.
I earned mine for being pally with the dog at first, cooing in its ear, being nice and affably calling it 'Slash' on account of its endearing predilection to defecate on anything upstanding, but got chided for not referring to it by the registration on its collar, in support of which rebuke the Thwoth-moderator referred to him as "theslasher". Hardly different from the reason that encouraged the goth-moth to rise out of the bog and slap me with blue, but evidently the palliness that a bit of web-search reveals, explains it, .. and the length of the leash that the Rotweiller enjoys to defecate on people. Evidently the goose sauce welcome in that outfit is the little green puddles all over the grass.
Checked out 'Hackenslash' on the web and came up with his website and two you-tube videos, explaining all about them being moved off Richard Dawkins Forum and finding a home at Rationalskeptics.org where they continue to carry on their abusive behaviour under the guise of "critical thinkers"as a means of keeping the world squeaky clean and free of religious biggots. How do you do it? Hurl abuse at it and hope your big sister's bigger then theirs. .
An admirable enough trait. But what I don't get is why, given their dedication to debunking rubbish wherever they find it, and talking about religious biggots anyway, which they're full of, ... is why they are on the side of the Church (of Plate Tectonics). If they were the fundamentalist warriors they say they are, they shouldbe pulling holes in Plate Tectonics to save me the bother. Even schoolchildren can think of *something* about it that's nonsense.
But all they can muster is the same as was aimed at Alfred Wegener when he proposed that continents "move" ("are displaced") (the bit about 'ploughing' was added by the physicists of the day to hang dead dogs on him), .. namely "*no mechanism*. Well, if the geological evidence says that the Earth really does looklike it's got bigger, then they should be encouraging somebody that knows something about physics to look for one, because the answer almost certainly isn't to be found in the principles that floated Archimedes wet leg.
Or is it? ... Collision with a mars-sized object that set the planet spinning beyond its regular constitutional, and exploding into the bargain (as the geological evidence says), especially when it was a lot smaller, seems to me a really good way to add mass. Virtually unasked and with no messing about.
So what's the big deal? I don't know if it did or it didn't, and I wouldn't press it as a "mechanism", but it makes a pretty good story, with pretty good support. Much more geologically supported I reckon than Plate tectonics is.
Mechanism? I don't know. What *does happen to an electrical 'soup' (plasma) like the Earth's core when it gets biffed by a regular "mars-sized-object" going at full-tilt x 10^n km/sec ? Nothing? Or does it react?
Any physicist out there with a big idea?
Any geochemist with an answer to where all that basaltic mantle (and water) comes from?
[ Footnote:- The forum was down finally for six days before I got moderately spanked for "Attacking and Insulting" Hackenslash (for telling him to get lost /piss off / get a life), with an admonishment to be "calmer and more rational". :-)) Took them six days to work out that 'piss' coupled with the word 'off' could be deemed abusive. "Taking the piss"? Mm, "Piss off"? an emotive word evidently. They could do with an emoticon, .. these days of communication-by T-shirt slogans, .. then it needn't be said.
I did think (while I waited with baited breath for six days), and going by the exhibited sensibilities on the forum, it could be the looming threat of my big sister that caused the shut-down, .. But, no, .. had that been so it would have been "threatening behaviour". (They don't know my big sister..) I also guess it would have been Hackenslash himself complaining, since he sent an off-forum note to my Rationalskepticism mailbox, asking me if I considered myself speaking on behalf of others. (No, .. just me.)
Seems to me Hackenslash has taken on the mantle of being the tool, the Willing Idiot for the whole coterie, .. on account of whose behaviour (coterie) the Richard Dawkins discussion Forum was closed down.
(Though we have to wonder, in this case, which way round the reversible arrow-of-association exactly is.)
Solidarity in adversity? Seems so. They seem to think that by shutting down discussion on topics considered to be 'irrational' wherever they see it, they are doing the world a service. Something to do with 'free speech' I guess, .. ]
P.S. I see Priscilla, Queen of the Desert has turned up too, .. smoking a cigar, .. A change from 'Jaws' I guess, .. but no less threatening under that Burka. (Good Cop bad cop?) .. (Or a double whammy - the Mafia in disguise..) ]
P.P.S Another red card today. Two infringements this time, though a bit backdated, considering the immediate lockdown earlier. Time to give it away. Nothing there. Just a repeat of the bad behaviour that got the resident 'skeptics' moderated off Richard Dawkins Forum. But it is an interesting illustration on how a consensus clique operates. Grubbier than probably this one with its
" … and the peace of mind that comes from knowing you are helping to debunk the myths that confuse and corrupt good science!"and the discussion forum on the Expanding Earth on the Wikipedia with its "edit wars, but the intention (and probably the techniques) are the same.
P.P.P.S. OOO-hh!! Ahhh! Another red card today. The penalty for persisting, I guess. My fault. This time for suggesting to Paul (age 54) from Old Blighty, .. and since he raised the point, .. and since he represented himself the way he did in that funny green-golly kind of way, ..that homeopathy might not be the way to go. Apparently that was deemed provocation, while his avatar - the way he chooses to represent himself and speaking a thousand words - is not.
Here's 'Paul', age 54, from Old Blighty.
The forum rules explicitly prohibit:-
"1.2.c. personally attacking, insulting or threatening other members of rationalskepticism.org. You may robustly criticise the content posted by other members but may not direct criticism towards the members themselves."
1.2.e. posting content to purposely provoke or inflame another member(s) of rationalskepticism.org.
("Robust criticism" apparently includes pouring the vilest, foulest invective imaginable on what the victim of the attack has said, but does not include the same, or one-finger salutes accompanying everything you say. Those are ok.)
So, that was my third third red card, and hence a suspension for a week (oh dear). I don't know how Paul got caught up in this, .. something to do with introducing homeopathy, which being an off-topic topic is an indictable offence according to the rules. But that's ok too, .. I guess (if your pals are writing them) .
[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-