Wunderground Content Policy

By: Michelle Schlachta , 6:11 PM GMT on August 06, 2013

Share this Blog
12
+

We have expanded the Community Standards to include a bit more detail regarding how we review and manage content posted on our site. These rules refer most commonly to blogs and blog comments, but also pertain to photos (titles, captions, comments on photos, etc.), and virtually any place on WU where you're allowed to post content. If you're posting content on WU, please familiarize yourself with the "Rules of the Road" if you haven't already given them a good once-over.

Whether what you post here is original, taken from an external source, or includes a quote from someone else's comment - you are solely responsible for what you post. We encourage everyone to be thoughtful when it comes to choosing which sources of information to share or reference in a comment. Keep it clean. Keep it relevant. All good.

Scroll down to the "Responsibility" section in the Community Standards for more details about WU's content policies.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 571 - 521

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

569. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
6:15 PM GMT on March 11, 2014
sensitivethug has created a new entry.
568. beell
3:17 AM GMT on January 23, 2014
No apology necessary for me, Brian. But thank you for your response. I well understand the need to keep a healthy balance between the real world and its responsibilities and blogging time.


Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16918
567. BaltimoreBrian
1:20 AM GMT on January 23, 2014
I apologize to Barefootontherocks for saying that she was using sockpuppets to harass bloggers. I have been assured that is not true. I regret my accusation.

I also apologize to beell for not 'manning up' as quickly as s(he) wanted. I take my duties seriously and don't fool around online when I'm working.

I am also removing the accusations I made from the comments I made here.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
566. beell
2:16 PM GMT on January 22, 2014
Quoting 565. Skyepony:
Brian, Barefoot & juslivn..

I can clearly see the misunderstanding. So I'll do what I can to set this straight & right today.

Brian~ Those other handles are not Barefoot's. Juslivn is no way involved in this either..

Hope everyone can take my word on this & make up.. This truly is a misunderstanding as to who is doing this.


Worth a repeat and waiting on a response, BB.

BFOTR can be a handful at times-but disagreement with her opinions on our collective dysfunction as a blogging community does not require an attack of this nature.

Time to man-up...
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16918
565. Skyepony (Mod)
2:08 PM GMT on January 22, 2014
Brian, Barefoot & juslivn..

I can clearly see the misunderstanding. So I'll do what I can to set this straight & right today.

Brian~ Those other handles are not Barefoot's. Juslivn is no way involved in this either..

Hope everyone can take my word on this & make up.. This truly is a misunderstanding as to who is doing this.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 209 Comments: 39077
564. Barefootontherocks
8:19 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 157 Comments: 19204
563. BaltimoreBrian
8:11 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
removing my comment.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
562. juslivn
8:01 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
.
Member Since: August 20, 2009 Posts: 87 Comments: 10174
561. BaltimoreBrian
7:47 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
duplicated post.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
560. BaltimoreBrian
7:45 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
removing my comment.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
559. juslivn
7:34 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
.
Member Since: August 20, 2009 Posts: 87 Comments: 10174
558. Patrap
7:21 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129422
557. Barefootontherocks
7:21 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 157 Comments: 19204
556. BaltimoreBrian
7:20 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
removing my comment.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
555. BaltimoreBrian
7:19 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
removing my comment.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
554. Barefootontherocks
7:15 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 157 Comments: 19204
553. Barefootontherocks
7:14 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 157 Comments: 19204
552. BaltimoreBrian
7:03 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
removing my comment.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
551. BaltimoreBrian
6:47 AM GMT on January 22, 2014
removing my comment.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8802
550. washingtonian115
2:00 PM GMT on January 17, 2014
And this folks..is why I don't discuss GW on this site.I have my own views.I don't believe we're gonna die in 50 years and that it's part of a cycle perhaps with some attribution from man.Instead of wasting energy trying to make some one believe put that in your community to raise awareness of the environment problem s we face.In my neighborhood we have planted new trees and flowers kept clean safe play areas,made sure most restaurants use organic ingredients from local farms/growers and stopped the greedy money grubby big guys in downtown D.C from building a condo on our little dog park.All this energy culd be used for something else..J/S.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17616
549. Neapolitan
1:38 PM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 544. Barefootontherocks:
Neo, I'll say the same to you here as I did last eve about comment 58 on Ricky Rood's current blog - the comment apparently in question. (ADD:)(end Add)

Cut and paste from 318 at Dr. Rood's:
318. Barefootontherocks 3:46 AM GMT on January 17, 2014 1

... at 58. Neo wrote this part: "thought it might be educational for some here who profess to "wonder" why we "warmists" don't give them the respect they feel they deserve:" Even though Neo may or may not have written the derogatory words originally, he did direct this cut and paste at other wu bloggers. As such, it does have bearing on moderators taking action.

I just have one more thought, then I'm going to back off this and see what happens. Global Warming and Climate Change arguments at wunderground have not been civil for a long time. I've heard climate forums across the net are difficult to keep civil. This is not a climate forum. This is wunderground. The community standards apply equally to all blogs and all comments.

Even if half the comments end up missing and half the commenters get unpaid vacation for a day or two each time they offend, the community rules obligate discipline to maintain civility. Discipline applied fairly will restore civility.

Oh, gosh. I see ncstorm is also banned this eve/early a.m. May I inquire what that is over? It does smack of favoritism.

And now I'm gone. Good night.
Bearfoot, I've already responded to my posting in Dr. Rood's forum of a paragraph from (and a link to) a valid blog entry written by a credible, well-respected person and appearing on a credible, well-respected website. Folks here can paste it all they wish, or cry foul, but anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills (and without some other agenda) knows that neither I nor the OP called all denialists "idiots"; that noun was nothing more than one item in a serial list of possibile reason for the refusal by some to support the scientific point of view where climatechange is concerned. I do find it disappointing that rather than discussing the hundreds of other words in that post and maybe taking personal stock of their own actions, some have chosen instead to play the victim card and demand that heads roll because of the use of one word that offends them. But that's human nature, I suppose, and there's nothing I can do about that.

Now, despite what you wrote, Dr. Rood's forum is most definitely a climate-based one. Dr. Rood is a scientist, as is Dr. Masters. They are both firm proponents of climate change theory. And there are many proponents of those theories who participate in those forums. So when someone enters either forum and begins posting nonsense--repeating thoroughly debunked blog science, for instance--they will be surrounded and challenged. Call it a "gang mentality" if you wish, but it's a "gang mentality" much like leukocytes swarming a virus to protect the host. And I think that's a good thing.

So far as the relative lack of civility--both here at WU and in other fora--where climate change discussions are concerned, pretty much anyone looking at the situation honestly realizes that the incivility is introduced again and again by those who dispute the science. For instance, Dr. Masters can post a well-written blog entry about global warming, and the forum will be immediately flooded with nasty comments about how he's sold out, or WU has sold out, or how he's got some evil socialist agenda, or whatever. Now, some may believe that responding to those comments with fact and evidence leads to arguments--but I contend that the initial comments themselves are the culprit.

All points of view deserve to be heard, but not all deserve to be respected. I think problems arise when people forget that.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13731
548. ncstorm
1:30 PM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 547. FLwolverine:
Remember that the mods have to ban a poster for a short time in order to remove a comment.


My ban was for two hours.
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
547. FLwolverine
1:28 PM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 546. ncstorm:
Barefoot, I was ban while only in this blog when I reposted Daisy's full comment which I might add that Daisy's post has been removed from Dr. Rood's blog in the middle of the night.

I sent an email to Admin to inquire how does one receive a ban while being in Admin's blog given the ban reason was to keep personal disputes out of the blog. I thought this blog was where you could freely air out your grievances?

Hopefully, I will hear from admin today and I hope this post doesn't qualify as a personal dispute.
Remember that the mods have to ban a poster for a short time in order to remove a comment.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2421
546. ncstorm
1:17 PM GMT on January 17, 2014
Barefoot, I was ban while only in this blog when I reposted Daisy's full comment which I might add that Daisy's post has been removed from Dr. Rood's blog in the middle of the night.

I sent an email to Admin to inquire how does one receive a ban while being in Admin's blog given the ban reason was to keep personal disputes out of the blog. I thought this blog was where you could freely air out your grievances?

Hopefully, I will hear from admin today and I hope this post doesn't qualify as a personal dispute.
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
545. Naga5000
11:38 AM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 532. ncstorm:


Knowing a person was an English major is an important fact everyone should know.

Thanks FL..but I really would prefer before you and your buddies come in plussing away and offering your die hard appreciation for your leader that the conversation stays between the Mods, Admin, Nea and myself. I know how important you feel you have to defend Nea but its not necessary this time. You can sit this one out and enjoy that book you took up reading.


This is part of the problem. You have convinced yourself of a delusional conspiracy involving bloggers on Dr. Rood's blog, coupled with the feeling of persecution because despite the science, you have taken up the contrarian viewpoint.

Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3889
544. Barefootontherocks
7:28 AM GMT on January 17, 2014
Neo, I'll say the same to you here as I did last eve about comment 58 on Ricky Rood's current blog - the comment apparently in question. (ADD:)
Quoting 58. Neapolitan:
I happened across this awesome paragraph about denialists over at Greg Laden's blog, and thought it might be educational for some here who profess to "wonder" why we "warmists" don't give them the respect they feel they deserve:

"For global warming to not be real some very basic physics need to not be real. The basic physics are real. Your idea that global warming is a fiction is not real. You might have good intentions (this is doubtful, more likely you are a jerk for wanting our children to suffer the consequences of your actions) or you might be misinformed (this is doubtful %u2014 if you know enough to use dog whistles such as "recovery" you can't claim this honestly) or you might be economically motivated (there are those who are paid to deny global warming, millions have gone into this form of science denialism). Or maybe you really are an idiot. In any event, remember that there are consequences. Short term, you're not going to be taken seriously. Long term you are helping to ruin the planet. Either way, please consider the advice given at the beginning of this post: [The best way to not look like an idiot is to shut up. Works every time.]"
(end Add)

Cut and paste from 318 at Dr. Rood's:
318. Barefootontherocks 3:46 AM GMT on January 17, 2014 1

... at 58. Neo wrote this part: "thought it might be educational for some here who profess to "wonder" why we "warmists" don't give them the respect they feel they deserve:" Even though Neo may or may not have written the derogatory words originally, he did direct this cut and paste at other wu bloggers. As such, it does have bearing on moderators taking action.

I just have one more thought, then I'm going to back off this and see what happens. Global Warming and Climate Change arguments at wunderground have not been civil for a long time. I've heard climate forums across the net are difficult to keep civil. This is not a climate forum. This is wunderground. The community standards apply equally to all blogs and all comments.

Even if half the comments end up missing and half the commenters get unpaid vacation for a day or two each time they offend, the community rules obligate discipline to maintain civility. Discipline applied fairly will restore civility.

Oh, gosh. I see ncstorm is also banned this eve/early a.m. May I inquire what that is over? It does smack of favoritism.

And now I'm gone. Good night.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 157 Comments: 19204
543. Barefootontherocks
6:12 AM GMT on January 17, 2014
The scene in Dr. Rood’s comments is just, well, one moderator called it “a madhouse.” I don't read the comments there often anymore, but I did tonight and found what I'd call a gang mentality happening, some of it directed at a couple specific bloggers. I hope admin will address this.
Quoting 204. pcola57:
Good Morning All..
I see I have plussed comment #201 by mistake..
Forgive as been a long night and am a bit weary..

FWIW..
I have determined that yoboi has a reading comprehension issue and have quit replying..
I leave that up to those who have better patience..
And no, yoboi, I'm not attacking you..
It's ok..
Just sharing a personal observation of my own..
We all have certain quirks..
That makes us "individuals"..
And that is a good thing.. :)

Quoting 226. no1der:
Well, you're welcome to prove that Daisy's very thoughtful and well-written attempt to communicate with you didn't in fact just go right over your head...



Quoting 268. pcola57:
Re: Post # 265..

Post # - 0
Comment # - 0
Intelligence factor # - minus 10

Conclusion..
New Troll..
Quoting 271. JohnLonergan:


Conclusion, Time for The Trollhammer
Quoting 275. FLwolverine:
notice the similarity to yoboi's style? Definitely time for the minus signs.


Also, not quoted here, a couple comments at #58 and #196, though not directed any anyone specific I’d call acrid in their derogation of bloggers who do not share the viewpoint of those posting these comments. I have flagged all these comments.

One of the bloggers, the one called a troll and for whom a “-“ campaign was suggested, a new handle called “AGWHAA,” got banned this eve. I have a slow connection so I didn't see all comments, but I wondered if the handle was banned by Dr. Rood - as is his prerogative, of course - or by a moderator. If the latter, what was the blogger banned for?

Ps. Not eve for me now, but still is on the West Coast.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 157 Comments: 19204
541. Daisyworld
5:02 AM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 540. ncstorm:


li·ar
ˈlīər/
noun
noun: liar; plural noun: liars

1.
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; More
fabulist;
informalstoryteller
"even in a court of law, Jeff was a shameless liar"

Origin


Keyword in your statement: fabricator

For the last time: You were never implicated as the fabricator of the lies you posted (they are quite commonly used by others). You were never accused of making them up yourself. Propagating them via reposting, perhaps. But not the fabricator. The word "liar" was not attributed to you. Please stop putting words in the mouths of others. It's extremely disingenuous.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 867
540. ncstorm
4:48 AM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 539. Daisyworld:


Ncstorm, let's get something straight: I never called you a liar. That's a personal attack, and I will never purposely do that to anyone. What I wrote was that you posted lies. Where those lies came from or whether you truly believe them is your business. But regardless where they came from, they were verifiable lies: They've been proven wrong scientifically, and shown to be a fabrication intended to foster a manufactured controversy about climate change.

As a point of note, I will remind you that you've done this before: You've been called out when posting a lie about climate change, then claim you've been personally attacked by commenters who supposed called you a liar when they didn't.

For the future, if you've been called out when posting a verifiable lie, you may want to read carefully into the comments, and not make an unjustifiable jump to the wrong conclusion. It will save you a lot of frustration.


Liar
noun
noun: liar; plural noun: liars

1.
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; More
fabulist;
informalstoryteller
"even in a court of law, Jeff was a shameless liar"

Origin

I'm taking a long break from WU. Its clear Admin is not concerned with bloggers attacking other bloggers or that Mods are showing their true colors.

Its not worth my peace of mind right now to continue with this discussion but I won't be the last person to come to this blog and complain about the unfair treatment received at WU.

Daisy..I hope you take in what I just posted and if wasn't your intention to personally attack me you would remove your post from Rood's blog.

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
539. Daisyworld
4:43 AM GMT on January 17, 2014
Quoting 537. ncstorm:
[...] Look in Dr. Rood's blog today. Daisywood called me a liar and her post is still up and proud with so many plusses but yet I got a ban...



Ncstorm, let's get something straight: I never called you a liar. That's a personal attack, and I will never purposely do that to anyone. What I wrote was that you posted lies. Where those lies came from or whether you truly believe them is your business. But regardless where they came from, they were verifiable lies: They've been proven wrong scientifically, and shown to be a fabrication intended to foster a manufactured controversy about climate change.

As a point of note, I will remind you that you've done this before: You've been called out when posting a lie about climate change, then claim you've been personally attacked by commenters who supposed called you a liar when they didn't.

For the future, if you've been called out when posting a verifiable lie, you may want to read carefully into the comments, and not make an unjustifiable jump to the wrong conclusion. It will save you a lot of frustration.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 867
537. ncstorm
2:11 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
First, as skye explained in #530, the article to which I linked didn't call denialists (or "contrarians", etc.) "idiots, jerks, and to shut up"; it was a reputable science writer on a reputable science website stating his frustrated opinion that climate denialists either have good though misplaced intentions, are misinformed, are paid to spread anti-science, or are idiots,

Do you realize what you just wrote. you just contradicted yourself. In the first sentence, you stated he didn't call denialists idiots but in the last bolded statement you said he did?

I will agree with you on your statement. If the other side is doing what you claim they are doing and thats posting articles filled with insults then they should stop as well. Using an excuse that because so and so does it, I can do it as well isnt very mature. I'm sure I dont need to post the friend jumping off a bridge analogy. You and others have stated that GW awareness is important and will do whatever is necessary including hurling insults. You can debate your opinion without calling people names as well as the other side, however your side does it more than anyone else. Look in Dr. Rood's blog today. Daisywood called me a liar and her post is still up and proud with so many plusses but yet I got a ban. I guess thats not a personal attack.

To counter your statement that people jump on your posts-its well known and sometimes as a joke that if you post in Dr. Masters or Dr. Rood's blog about anything cooling, here comes the GW calvary to save the day especially yourself to shoot that statement down.

Look at yesterday with Australia. You felt it was important to clear that matter up. So please give the victim mentality a rest here. You set yourself up as an outspoken person on GW and argue the issue any chance you get. You cant have it both ways where you can post your graphs and no one say anything but if someone posts about cooling then its okay on your part to comment and counter.

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
536. Neapolitan
1:52 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
First, as skye explained in #530, the article to which I linked didn't call denialists (or "contrarians", etc.) "idiots, jerks, and to shut up"; it was a reputable science writer on a reputable science website stating his frustrated opinion that climate denialists either have good though misplaced intentions, are misinformed, are paid to spread anti-science, or are idiots, but that whatever the case may be, there will be consequences for their denial. How my direct posting of that could be spun as me directly attacking fellow WU members is beyond me. But I've seen stranger things happen, so, well, whatever.

Second, as the complaint seems to be that I was allowed to post that paragraph while others aren't allowed to link to posts calling people names, it should be on record that certain visitors to both Dr. Masters' and Dr. Rood's forums repeatedly--and I do mean repeatedly--link to websites such as WattsUpWithThat and RealClimate that use much more offensive language to describe their opponents, accusing scientific types of lies, deceit, ignorance, arrogance, uncertain paternal lineage, and far worse. In fact, some of those sites have directly called out and insulted both WU's featured bloggers and certain respected WU members by name. Now, this isn't a tit-for-tat thing; I'm only bringing it up to demonstrate that the "Nea does its so why can't we" argument doesn't wash.

Third, while I've never complained about it publicly that I can recall, there are certain members who will "attack" pretty much anything I and a few others write. I can post a temperature map showing cooling, or make a comment about the ongoing heat wave in Australia, or put up an image of a cumulus cloud; it doesn't matter what it is, members of this same sub-group of users will immediately pile on to accuse me of lying, or spreading some agenda, or whatever. That's okay; I've got very thick skin, and it's comforting to realize just how obsessed some of them can be with me. (And I went to high school, so I remember well all the "fun" that was.) But to be honest, it is more than a little irritating at times that I can't even write something as inocuous as, "It was just above freezing this morning here in Naples" without that sub-group trying to drown me out with pre-emptive, en masse shouts of "IT'S NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!" But you know what I don't do? Post comment after comment complaining about it.

Fourth--and finally--there seems to be the mistaken impression that we "alarmists" receive preferential treatment here from the mods and admin. If that's true, I'd like someone to explain to me how it is that I've been banned multiple times. As with anyone else who's been the recipient of a ban, I felt I deserved some, but not others (and the cryptic "take a break" message didn't tell me which behavior[s] to avoid in the future). But in every case, I just accepted it; this is, after all, nothing more than an internet forum, one of many thousands. Why get worked up about it, you know? No, I realize my opinion on this is biased, but I would say that if we "alarmists" receive fewer bans than the "contrarians" (and I've seen no evidence of that being the case), it's only because we tend to break the rules less often, and nothing more.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13731
535. VR46L
1:28 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
NC ~ You know my opinion , it hasn't changed ! 3 out of 4 of my tases were in that blog ( only one I feel I deserved was the other ban )..... I can take the hint ....

Its also where I think you got most of your tases / timeouts ....

Anyway ,after reading Dr Roods writing, apart from the entertainment value of the arguments ,its all copy and paste jobs or directing people to other blogs off site ( which I thought was a permaban offence)!
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6969
534. ncstorm
1:21 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
Quoting 530. Skyepony:
Quoting ncstormLet me ask you something Skye..you seem to want to defend Nea all the time and as a Mod if I would think you want to remain BIAS???..I will check out your "search" function shortly but I can say with a fact that Nea did say that.

Second, since you came to the aid of Nea, you must have been the one who gave me a ban for "Personal Attack"..however Nea posted a long post calling denialists IDIOTS!!..Isnt that a personal attack as I am called a denialist on this site every chance one can take.



I don't want to defend nea. You had seemed to be pursuing a personal dispute with him, about what he said~ that we only had decades, even after he denied it. This should have been stopped for that. That's not discussing climate change in a featured blog, it's discussing nea & a personal dispute. That also went as far as a personal attack.

Quoting 101. ncstorm: I really want to hear if he is going to admit it or not..and if anyone else is reading this discussion..be honest and speak up and verify it..there is no search function in this blog so its easy for you to holler "I need evidence"..I come here a lot and I'm pretty sure I can read and I know that these statements were said by Nea..this is the kind of two step you guys do..I need to go over to the IT blog and ask for a search function..things would be so much easier here with that capability

Bolded is what firstly answered...that isn't me as a mod, it's me as someone that has been reading this discussion a long time. You asked. I just honestly don't remember him using those words. Civilization as we know it maybe..but like your second issue even that states kids living with the consequences of AGW, not all dead in decades.... Reading back, I should have worded that to not sound so snippy, I was in a hurry & trying to turn a blind eye to the mounting personal dispute & maybe give you something to prove me wrong. That search isn't perfect but it can be useful if you know how to use it. That's why I ran the search for you..gave you I thought the best odds on your quest..

As per nea's comment that he quoted from another blog. Not even his words... Yeah we've moderated regulars from just constantly expressing blatant frustration, ranting or generally attacking the other side constantly. If I went in there all the time ranting, it would get trollish, monomania. Both sides demanded it. Once in a blue moon for someone to get a little frustrated, maybe one comment or someone passing through to vent opinion against the other side in general is very different than a personal attack where someone calls you out by name (denier is no more your name as alarmist or climate nazi is mine) or if it's directed at the community as a whole, those get removed. That was directed at the anti-agw everywhere.

Denialist/Alarmists..I still find is not the best choice to sway people but they refer to each side like this on TV.. It is not considered hate speech. Even the wording of that quote..more likely a jerk (because you don't care about me & my kin), maybe an idiot (not very bright)..these aren't even definitive attacks with all the maybes & likelys..These also describe behaviors that this author is upset with..not spewing hate speech.

You haven't used up your quota for the month.. It's been the standard in Rood's for a while, other than maybe quoting it's been an hour min & frequent offenders more. If we didn't we'd spend our day removing the comments that came by on a bad mood, drawn to attack someone in there like a moth to flame.

You are a great contributor here in many ways. I'm sorry you felt put out today & like the mods were bias. You demand fair & make sure we don't miss anything, which I appreciate.

Hope you get a chance to enjoy this full moon. Too many clouds here tonight.


Skye, I want to say I have nothing against you. You provide informative posts as well but why oh why must I stayed up in Sensitive Thug's blog complaining? I'm not the only one who feels that there are certain people here on WU who can do anything on this site and will not have any repercussions.

For any mod to say that the post calling people idiots and jerks is not offending because its not in the bloggers own words even though Nea expressed in that same paragraph that he thought "it might be educational" is still the same as he agreeing with the post..I mean why would he post it..just to test out his copy and paste skill? What if I posted an article stating horses should be used for food. As an animal lover yourself, I'm sure you would find that offensive, but according to the recent Mod rules, I can do that because it won't be my own words. I could make it a point every morning and link that article here every day knowing it would offend you and any animal lover here, but thats the difference between some bloggers and myself..I wouldnt do that. I dont call the other side idiots. I dont call people jerks. (Sometimes I come so close but I hold my tongue) I dont tell people to shut up. I may irritate a hell of lot of people with my posts about GW but I try to remain cordial and respectful at the same time. The issue here is you defend Nea more than he needs defending as he is a smart individual and well spoken. You removed my comment and gave me a temp ban. Matter should have ended as I was given a warning but I come back later and see you brought it back up again. That isnt approriate or fair for a MOD.

I will try not to comment any further until I hear from Admin.



Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
533. FLwolverine
1:14 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
Quoting 532. ncstorm:


Knowing a person was an English major is an important fact everyone should know.

Thanks FL..but I really would prefer before you and your buddies come in plussing away and offering your die hard appreciation for your leader that the conversation stays between the Mods, Admin, Nea and myself. I know how important you feel you have to defend Nea but its not necessary this time. You can sit this one out and enjoy that book you took up reading.
I'm not getting into this dispute, although you should remember that this is an open forum where anyone can comment and which the whole (Internet) world can read.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2421
532. ncstorm
1:05 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
Quoting 531. FLwolverine:
For more clarity - the concern is that the mods are biased (ie, show favoritism), when they should be unbiased (ie, impartial). I'm really not being critical here, but I do think it's important to use the right words so readers can understand.

And yes, I was an English major.


Knowing a person was an English major is an important fact everyone should know.

Thanks FL..but I really would prefer before you and your buddies come in plussing away and offering your die hard appreciation for your leader that the conversation stays between the Mods, Admin, Nea and myself. I know how important you feel you have to defend Nea but its not necessary this time. You can sit this one out and enjoy that book you took up reading.
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
531. FLwolverine
12:53 PM GMT on January 16, 2014
For more clarity - the concern is that the mods are biased (ie, show favoritism), when they should be unbiased (ie, impartial). I'm really not being critical here, but I do think it's important to use the right words so readers can understand.

And yes, I was an English major.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2421
530. Skyepony (Mod)
7:32 AM GMT on January 16, 2014
Quoting ncstormLet me ask you something Skye..you seem to want to defend Nea all the time and as a Mod if I would think you want to remain BIAS???..I will check out your "search" function shortly but I can say with a fact that Nea did say that.

Second, since you came to the aid of Nea, you must have been the one who gave me a ban for "Personal Attack"..however Nea posted a long post calling denialists IDIOTS!!..Isnt that a personal attack as I am called a denialist on this site every chance one can take.



I don't want to defend nea. You had seemed to be pursuing a personal dispute with him, about what he said~ that we only had decades, even after he denied it. This should have been stopped for that. That's not discussing climate change in a featured blog, it's discussing nea & a personal dispute. That also went as far as a personal attack.

Quoting 101. ncstorm: I really want to hear if he is going to admit it or not..and if anyone else is reading this discussion..be honest and speak up and verify it..there is no search function in this blog so its easy for you to holler "I need evidence"..I come here a lot and I'm pretty sure I can read and I know that these statements were said by Nea..this is the kind of two step you guys do..I need to go over to the IT blog and ask for a search function..things would be so much easier here with that capability

Bolded is what firstly answered...that isn't me as a mod, it's me as someone that has been reading this discussion a long time. You asked. I just honestly don't remember him using those words. Civilization as we know it maybe..but like your second issue even that states kids living with the consequences of AGW, not all dead in decades.... Reading back, I should have worded that to not sound so snippy, I was in a hurry & trying to turn a blind eye to the mounting personal dispute & maybe give you something to prove me wrong. That search isn't perfect but it can be useful if you know how to use it. That's why I ran the search for you..gave you I thought the best odds on your quest..

As per nea's comment that he quoted from another blog. Not even his words... Yeah we've moderated regulars from just constantly expressing blatant frustration, ranting or generally attacking the other side constantly. If I went in there all the time ranting, it would get trollish, monomania. Both sides demanded it. Once in a blue moon for someone to get a little frustrated, maybe one comment or someone passing through to vent opinion against the other side in general is very different than a personal attack where someone calls you out by name (denier is no more your name as alarmist or climate nazi is mine) or if it's directed at the community as a whole, those get removed. That was directed at the anti-agw everywhere.

Denialist/Alarmists..I still find is not the best choice to sway people but they refer to each side like this on TV.. It is not considered hate speech. Even the wording of that quote..more likely a jerk (because you don't care about me & my kin), maybe an idiot (not very bright)..these aren't even definitive attacks with all the maybes & likelys..These also describe behaviors that this author is upset with..not spewing hate speech.

You haven't used up your quota for the month.. It's been the standard in Rood's for a while, other than maybe quoting it's been an hour min & frequent offenders more. If we didn't we'd spend our day removing the comments that came by on a bad mood, drawn to attack someone in there like a moth to flame.

You are a great contributor here in many ways. I'm sorry you felt put out today & like the mods were bias. You demand fair & make sure we don't miss anything, which I appreciate.

Hope you get a chance to enjoy this full moon. Too many clouds here tonight.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 209 Comments: 39077
529. ncstorm
4:20 AM GMT on January 16, 2014
Hi..its me again..of course..

I wanted a bias ruling on an issue and of course I'm here to get the "Final Word"


Today I was in Dr. Rood's blog having a discussion about GW. I stated that I saw where a blogger had written in other blogs about GW would lead to "We having decades left". I was told to prove it and I said that was difficult due to WU not having a search function for comments in the blog. (I found out later that it was incorrect). Blogger who I had stated had written the statement commented back and said he never said that. I responded with (may not be exact as my comment was removed) "That is a lie..unbelievable". I then received an hour ban. I was good with my ban. I have received several before and I actually got some work done due to the hour ban UNTIL I saw a mod respond to my comment about the blogger who I said made the statement. This is the second time I have seen this Mod come to this blogger's defense who I thought Mods were supposed to be bias according to Admin when they were announced as Mods to WU. Mod provided a link to the search function and stated matter of fact that the blogger didnt say those words. Now if I received a ban and my comment removed, why did the Mod feel it was her duty to defend this blogger..again. Removing my comment and giving me an hour ban is a resolution to the discussion, so why bring it back up? Now when I saw this, I got peeved off. No Mod has ever come to my defense and this said blogger seems to be able to get a "turn and look the other way" from certain Mods. I then thought it about my ban due to the reason listed as a "Personal Attack" and realized that I shouldn't have been the only one banned today. Earlier in that discussion, said blogger posted an article from another website calling denialists "Idiots, Jerks and to shut up". If you havent guessed now, I am not a believer of GW. So if I got a ban for a "Personal Attack" in saying someone lied but the other blogger gets nothing for Personally attacking me as I am a denialist. I was even told by another Mod that because the article was not the blogger's own words who posted it then it was fair to leave up and blogger wouldn't face any consequences. Now am I to believe that I can post from any article calling alarmists insults but because its not my own words..mind you now, I'm posting the article so I have no responsibility with my actions that WU is saying its allowable and this can be done without any consequences. This is where you come in and provide the ruling.

I want to be sure on the rules here because we had an instance several months ago to which was posted in the admin blog where a blogger posted information that the alarmists would consider a denialist comment but because the information itself was supposedly from a website that affiliated with hate accusations then of course it was wrong and the blogger was banned. Now remember, the blogger comments weren't anything about hate accusations but questionable comments were "supposedly" said on that website. As I was told tonight in Dr. Rood's Blog if its not the bloggers own words then there is no responsibility for the actions of that blogger.

As a firm opponent against GW, I feel..no..I know there is a bias here among some of the Mods for those who believed in GW as that was proven today. I tend to stay out of Dr. Rood's blog because of the insults thrown and I should have known better that spending more than 10 minutes there would lead to a ban for me. I can accept that. I tried to move on. What I can't accept is that certain people are untouchable on this site and then there is me and the company I keep.

I was WARNED again tonight that I would receive a ban for wanting to know why I got a ban and the other blogger didn't. If this is what WU is a representation of where I can post from other sites which calls any group here names and not have any consequences then I have sadly mistaken WU as a community.

I'll be awaiting your comment.

You can find the full conversation in Dr. Rood's blog

Comment posted from other site filled with insults about denialists:

58. Neapolitan 1:25 PM GMT on January 15, 2014 13
I happened across this awesome paragraph about denialists over at Greg Laden's blog, and thought it might be educational for some here who profess to "wonder" why we "warmists" don't give them the respect they feel they deserve:

"For global warming to not be real some very basic physics need to not be real. The basic physics are real. Your idea that global warming is a fiction is not real. You might have good intentions (this is doubtful, more likely you are a jerk for wanting our children to suffer the consequences of your actions) or you might be misinformed (this is doubtful %u2014 if you know enough to use dog whistles such as "recovery" you can't claim this honestly) or you might be economically motivated (there are those who are paid to deny global warming, millions have gone into this form of science denialism). Or maybe you really are an idiot. In any event, remember that there are consequences. Short term, you're not going to be taken seriously. Long term you are helping to ruin the planet. Either way, please consider the advice given at the beginning of this post: [The best way to not look like an idiot is to shut up. Works every time.]"


Comment containing Mod's response after coming to blogger rescue..again:

136. ncstorm 12:25 AM GMT on January 16, 2014
+2
Quoting 120. Skyepony:


First I've never seen nea say that..

Secondly there is a search feature..click on the community tab, scroll down, on the right..that search functions for all the blogs.

Took the liberty..I'm not wasting my time with the results but knock yourself out.



Let me ask you something Skye..you seem to want to defend Nea all the time and as a Mod if I would think you want to remain BIAS???..I will check out your "search" function shortly but I can say with a fact that Nea did say that.

Second, since you came to the aid of Nea, you must have been the one who gave me a ban for "Personal Attack"..however Nea posted a long post calling denialists IDIOTS!!..Isnt that a personal attack as I am called a denialist on this site every chance one can take.

I can take my bans but not when its not justified on both sides then I am going to voice my opinion. This is a common complaint with the Mods where you ban one person and leave the other post up and then maybe a mod might remove it if enough comments are made about it..today..I let his post go but being that I got the personal attack timeout, I'm calling out the offensive post and ask that it be removed and Nea received a hour ban as well!!

58. Neapolitan 1:25 PM GMT on January 15, 2014 13
I happened across this awesome paragraph about denialists over at Greg Laden's blog, and thought it might be educational for some here who profess to "wonder" why we "warmists" don't give them the respect they feel they deserve:

"For global warming to not be real some very basic physics need to not be real. The basic physics are real. Your idea that global warming is a fiction is not real. You might have good intentions (this is doubtful, more likely you are a jerk for wanting our children to suffer the consequences of your actions) or you might be misinformed (this is doubtful %u2014 if you know enough to use dog whistles such as "recovery" you can't claim this honestly) or you might be economically motivated (there are those who are paid to deny global warming, millions have gone into this form of science denialism). Or maybe you really are an idiot. In any event, remember that there are consequences. Short term, you're not going to be taken seriously. Long term you are helping to ruin the planet. Either way, please consider the advice given at the beginning of this post: [The best way to not look like an idiot is to shut up. Works every time.]"

176. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod) 3:19 AM GMT on January 16, 2014 +1

Quoting 171. ncstorm:
Nevermind Keep..I'll just take it to the admin blog..I'm not going to hold up this blog any further with my comments..



its ok nc iam here to be fair but I cannot take action for somebody elses comments used in a reference post

even if he posted it

they are not his own words

sorry doc ya sorta step into something there

its all good


Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16216
528. DaveFive
8:55 AM GMT on November 10, 2013
Hello Sensitivethug, I'm Dave from San Jose, CA. I have read your information. This is an excellent website.
Member Since: August 16, 2013 Posts: 9 Comments: 311
527. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:37 AM GMT on November 01, 2013
ELOL
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 176 Comments: 55532
526. ChuckNorris
2:33 AM GMT on November 01, 2013
Halloween just wouldn't be complete without me making an appearance!
Member Since: October 31, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 20
524. PensacolaDoug
10:08 AM GMT on October 31, 2013
Quoting 522. SouthSideChicago:

"I just wanna be your friend!!"


Hello Friend.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 646
523. PensacolaDoug
10:07 AM GMT on October 31, 2013
Quoting 520. washingtonian115:
I guess I'll keep the dancing teddy bear then :).




Dancing Teddy ROCKS!
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 646
521. PensacolaDoug
2:30 AM GMT on October 31, 2013
Quoting 519. FLwolverine:
Aw, that's sweet.


I ain't nutin but milk and honey!
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 646

Viewing: 571 - 521

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About sensitivethug

sensitivethug's Recent Photos

Recommended Links