Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Kangaroo Court

(Blog for website at http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ )


















Oh,  dearie me!  Another red card.  A month's suspension this time for stirring 'em up.  Oh well, .. anybody interested in this ongoing saga of educating the unwashed, and the 'peer review' that goes with the territory, will probably know they can follow it here.  Not a bad run though (four days, .. maybe five if we count the date line) between the offence and the punitive action - the offence being interpreted by Gingko this time (post #8254 on P413), .. though as you'll note, not directed at him.  Another case of choosing to wear the monkey's bum,(.. and it fitting), for which I get the blame.  Truly, .. a bunch of Kangaroos indeed.  I could complain, but I don't think they have the wit to take it on board. Check the previous post for the other red cards, for the wit of kangaroos and the way they rush out right in front of the truck that will mow them down.

Just when I was just about to post a very edifying response to nig-nog Spearthrower too, .. literally just about to do the click, when the red card hand-off pushed me in the face.  I would identify Just a Theory (the other respondent I was going to post to)  in much the same way except he's worried about his identity being stolen, .. and that would be ungentlemanly, even if it is a bunch of anonymous Kangaroos we're dealing with.  Never mind, we can do it here, But I'll do the shopping first. (Tomatoes, .. you know, .. if I can make it through all the cheerleeders outside.)










Check back in a bit.



7 comments:

ginckgo said...

Not directed at me? You take a nasty swipe at scientists, and you don't think it counts as directed at me, as a scientist? Pull the other one.

Just FYI: I did not report you.

Stephen Hurrell said...

Hi Don,

Yes, another excellent demonstration of a Kangaroo court in action. The psychologists will be able to study these guys for years to come!

Just A Theory said...

There was a forum user's agreement that you accepted when you signed up. That agreement precludes the type of behaviour you displayed and, quite frankly, the forum really doesn't need another troll polluting it.

I didn't report you either, but I'd be more than happy to engage you with the kid gloves off.

don findlay said...

(Me too, if you authenticate your identity.) The forum users' agreement is a joke that gets abused daily with impunity by the resident coterie who are themselves a collection of unashamed "trolls", protected by disguise and seemingly too by the patronage of management, and (so far as this topic goes at any rate) intent only on blood sport, .. and displaying precisely the same behaviour that got them banned en-block from Richard Dawkins' Forum.

I answered your post on the matter that "needs to be addressed" here
http://earthexpansion.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/theory-versus-observation.html
However, .. some authentication /transparency re. identity will be required for continuing diallogue.

Lanzalaco said...

yeh no surprise there.. made the same kangaroo court observation myself .

Look at the positive side, at least they are all located together on the same spot on the internet.

I also met some ex ratskeppers on more open science circles, a bit too old to change their spots.. The style they have adopted doesn't transfer very well, out their mad little clique situation.


Lanzalaco said...

they ruined dawkins forums. I tried to explain to the team at that time, if you have a them vs us situation AND anonymity you are asking for trouble and a political structure akin to what we have in our justice system is about all that humans have ever been able to do to overcome it.

(assortment).. I.e. The jury system of picking members randomly to sort disputes or make decisions. By the time somebody wants to become a moderator, they are already biased towards the groupthink.

don findlay said...

("all in the one place") = Institutions for the institutionalised

Thinking doesn't really come into it much. 'Groupthink' is just another word anyway for consensus, and in scientific circles thinking and consensus is mostly an oxymoron. If people are not prepared to back what they say in a discussion with their identity if gives full permission to stamp them that way.

And those who seek authority are in most cases precisely those who should be denied it ('moderators')

Interesting point : The dictionary definition of consensus doesn't include thinking. Yellow box here is my big Webster's dictionary definition of the term http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html

Post a Comment