poll: should sputnick aka aristarchinexile be banned

[makc]

sputnick was once banned for some months for promoting non-mainstream material, but was re-instantiated before the ban expired, I believe, on grounds that his IPs were from some public library, or something like that (bystander (or Nereid) should know better). few days ago, Chris complained that he's up to this thing again, and suggested to re-ban him. usually the decision is made behind the curtains but today, in the spirit of true democracy, I am putting this on vote this doesnt mean poll results will control the final decision, but they may affect it.

so, should we ban him, or give him yet another warning? I count chris vote +1, and mark vote -1, the rest of you please post (for some reason real polls are disabled in the forum).

[makc]

p.s. if for some reason you have no balls to speak here, send me pm, I will list you as "anonymous coward".
p.p.s. sputnick, your vote will not count you cant make up your mind any way.

[bystander]

I'll go on record as a yes. I'm tired of his flagrant disregard of the rules. I regret ever having let him back in and apologize to the forum for having done so. To be fair, though, I did ban him four times before giving up (sputnick, agate, mopedtothemoon, IPRider).

FYI: How about a Trial? (another sputnick persona)

[Doum]

No problem. He can be ban. i can't be against that. He work hard to get that ban. He earn it.

[aristarchusinexile]

For sure! Ban him. Private message not needed, I'm not afraid of him. He talks crazy stuff like Spirit like the Mars Rover and other nutso stuff like Big Bang is Baloney .. hey, I think there's a poem in that:

Big Bang is Baloney

Big Bang is Baloney
Big Bang is Baloney
Big Bang is Baloney
Big Bang is Baloney
Big Bang is Baloney
Big Bang is Baloney
Big Bang is Baloney.

Good rhyme eh!

Problem is, if we ban him, we'll all miss his wonderful, slightly paranoid but entertaining and affectionate multi-personality, and especially his absolutely phenomenal instinct as to what the universe really is, that instinct being a bright light for so many of us here on APOD. So, really, I can't make up my mind, at this point (a trait I seem to have in common with Sputnick) .. I know I said "Ban Him" but now I'm reconsidering, maybe we should appoint him Head Moderator? Not that Nereid is not doing a good job, so maybe that's not a good idea, as Nereid is a lovely lass. Perhaps we should ban someone else, like Neufer, for his Shakespeare stuff (no, that's a bad idea, too, Neufer is the life of the Party and light in the darkness, but we could perhaps at least persuade him to get involved with modern American writers like Mark Twain?)

Anyway, that's the best I could do. I'm sure Sputnick appreciates the thoughts of all of us here on APOD.

[makc]

• This is madness!
• Madness? This is ASTERISK!

[Chris Peterson]

so, should we ban him, or give him yet another warning? I count chris vote +1, and mark vote -1, the rest of you please post (for some reason real polls are disabled in the forum).

I don't vote one way or the other. I was just questioning the process by which he re-emerged under a new identity.

When my dog or horse doesn't behave, I engage in some training. I don't shoot them. On this forum, aggressive moderation is perhaps the best option. When silly, non-scientific stuff gets posted, it should just get deleted, and promptly. After spending some time producing a post only to have it disappear into the bit bucket (or even a black hole <g>), the training might start sinking in.

[apodman]

should we ban him, or give him yet another warning?

Neither. It's not worth your time, and it's not a picnic without the ants.

[The Code]

The guy has some very interesting things to say. They make you think. And i look forward to reading his posts. he has the ability to look at things from another angle in a very entertaining way. and there is no malice. Every body on this forum write some really good posts... Things that intrigue me .. Long may it last.

Mark

[neufer]

Perhaps we should ban someone else, like Neufer, for his Shakespeare stuff (no, that's a bad idea, too, Neufer is the life of the Party and light in the darkness, but we could perhaps at least persuade him to get involved with modern American writers like Mark Twain?)

Twain came in on a comet and went out on a comet.
That's too obvious an astronomical connection for my tastes.

I'm for banning Sputnik but keeping aristarchusinexile.

[rstevenson]

I'm for swift deletion of off-topic or other sinful posts, but not outright banning except for the most egregious of activities

Rob

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This sounds like a joke.

Have we no topic to dicuss but for Mr Minors.

Aris is OK, as for sputnik, I like to know how to get two names, so that I can get two wifes.

[apodman]

I like to know how ... I can get two wifes.

You are entitled to 16 wives: 4 richer, 4 poorer, 4 better, 4 worse.

This sounds like a joke.

[neufer]

I like to know how ... I can get two wifes.

You are entitled to 16 wives: 4 richer, 4 poorer, 4 better, 4 worse.

I think the 16 wives would be:
"4 better or worse, 4 richer or poorer,
in sickness and in health . . . "

(Unless you are from St. Ives.)

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

Every forum establishes parameters within which ideas or opinions are submitted and accepted. I have no doubt that with all the forums out there that thousands of individuals have been banned for one reason or another. Most of the forums state the same requirements for being a member in good standing and rarely veer from them.

That being said, there are other considerations such as using publicly accessible terminals and taking the selfish risk of being a poster responsible for getting public accessibility to an internet forum denied if the IP address triggers a big fat "ACCESS DENIED". And I'm sure there are forums that get caught in the middle because of being sensitive to this fact. I believe it to be unfair play to use public computers as a shield. Different name, different terminal-very difficult indeed.

Now, Hello aristarchusinexile,

I would not like you to be aristarchusinpermanentexile.

However, you say that you already are in the know about the workings of the Cosmos and have your set (and stated) beliefs on the matter. That being the case them I would think that very little would be gained here that would augment what you say is the truth of real workings of Cosmology, a waste of one's time in fact if it were me. If that is the case then only a fool would stay on and needlessly continue to hammer away and criticize mainstream science, which is what this Forum is based on.

If the guidelines for posting comments within the format are unagreeable to you then, after a year or so now of testing the waters of change without success, maybe it would be wiser and more prudent, especially for you and because of the public-use computers, to move on.

Ari, believe me when I say that I deeply regret these statements although I feel them to be sensible and correct. This Forum has a format for member discussion and no one person's opinion can or will change it. Your ideas are interesting and stimulating but with them come an undercurrent of cynicism and sometimes barbed comments about the status quo often enough to become distracting.

I mean, when humanity runs out of science spirituality begins. It's probably always been so.
Spirituality and spiritual comments are fine-nothing wrong with them whatsoever- But not here on this Forum, please. And since, like your particular viewpoints of what you believe to be the real truth behind the workings of the Universe, matters revolving around esoteric ideas keep appearing as if to convince the members of your valid certainty of what's really going on which in turn invalidates other more empirical endeavors. If you know for sure then BRAVO for you. But your disregard of this Forum's rules time and again leaves me no choice but to concur with a vote to ban you. I'm very, very, very sorry, aristarchus......................

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Here down under we call it witch hunt.

This topic should be locked and deleted.

[bystander]

Here down under we call it whitch hunt.

And what, pray tell, is a whitch, is that something like a snipe?

[neufer]

Here down under we call it whitch hunt.

And what, pray tell, is a whitch, is that something like a snipe?

---------------------------------------------

<<The difficulties involved in hunting snipe gave rise to the term "sniper", referring to a skilled anti-personnel military sharpshooter. Colonial American snipe hunters used some of the earliest versions of a telescopic sight invented by American statesman and inventor Benjamin Franklin. This early version of the telescopic sight utilized two lenses affixed inside a tube made of hardened pigskin with cross hairs etched into the glass using acid.>>

--------------------------------------------
WHIT, n. [L.] A point; a jot; the smallest part or particle imaginable.
"He is not a WHIT the wiser for experience."

HITCH, n. A catch; any thing that holds, as a hook; an impediment.
---------------------------------------------

<<A snipe hunt, a form of wild goose chase that is also known as a fool's errand, is a type of practical joke that involves experienced people making fun of newcomers by giving them an impossible or imaginary task. It comes mainly in two varieties: trying to find something that does not exist, or trying to accomplish an impossible task. Others who are aware of the prank will often redirect the victim to several different places. The prank often involves the use of jargon, where the immediate meaning is not obvious. It can also depend on a new recruit's unfamiliarity with the business, such as being sent on a search for an ID10T form (IDIOT), or the PU55Y form.>>

---------------------------------------------

[Finnegans Wake 221.14] she tells forkings for baschfellors,
under purdah of card palmer teaput tosspot Madam d'Elta,
during the pawses), kook-and-dishdrudge, WHITCH believes
wanthingthats, whouse be the churchyard or whorts up the aasgaars,
the show must go on.

[Finnegans Wake 226.1] The bowknots, the showlots, they wilted into woeblots.
The pearlagraph, the pearlagraph, knew WHITCHly whether to weep
or laugh. For always down in Carolinas lovely Dinahs vaunt their view.

[Finnegans Wake 546.35] Chief Night Cloud by the Deeps, or again
had Fluvia, amber WHITCH she was, left her chivily crookcrook
crocus bed at the bare suggestions of some prolling bywaymen

[makc]

This topic should be locked and deleted.

All in its time, Harry, I sort of expected it to be more entertaining, with a bit more antiban votes and people flaming each other... Any way, let's wait a bit more.

[bystander]

On this forum, aggressive moderation is perhaps the best option. When silly, non-scientific stuff gets posted, it should just get deleted, and promptly. After spending some time producing a post only to have it disappear into the bit bucket (or even a black hole <g>), the training might start sinking in.

Are you volunteering to be the Science Police? Remember, there is absolutely no compensation for this job. In theory, your idea sounds good. In practice ???

Maybe you have the time to read Harry's entire reading list and decide whether it's relevant and not junk science and to research the authors to see if their credentials are good. Most of the time I don't even bother to finish reading the abstract. Should we start deleting all of Harry's posts unless he explains the relevance and what the paper means? If we required him to do that, I'm sure the number of Harry's posts would decrease significantly.

And neufer, I don't always see the point to art's posts, but I know there is one, somewhere. Should we start deleting his posts to teach him a lesson? A lot of times he is the bright spot in an otherwise dull day.

And your new buddy, gpobserver, he seems very opinionated. Should I dismiss him out of hand because I disagree with him? Personally, I thought both of your arguments were irrelevant. Regardless of which side you favor, you still need to clean up after yourself. AGW or no AGW, who cares? It really shouldn't make any difference. Policies for reduced pollution, renewable energy, recyclable resources, etc, should be the goals for everyone.

Anyway, if they wish to start paying me to do this job, then maybe I'll start being more agressive. Until then (or than, as Harry would say) ...

[Chris Peterson]

Are you volunteering to be the Science Police? Remember, there is absolutely no compensation for this job. In theory, your idea sounds good. In practice ???

Whether it would work in practice depends on the will (and free time) of the moderators. I didn't mean to suggest it would necessarily be practical, only that if enforced, it might solve the worst posting problems.

[BMAONE23]

Here down under we call it whitch hunt.

And what, pray tell, is a whitch, is that something like a snipe?

Which Witch is whitch?

[makc]

Are you volunteering to be the Science Police? Remember, there is absolutely no compensation for this job. In theory, your idea sounds good. In practice ???

Whether it would work in practice depends on the will (and free time) of the moderators. I didn't mean to suggest it would necessarily be practical, only that if enforced, it might solve the worst posting problems.

And still, are you volunteering to be the Science Police?

[orin stepanek]

I think the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping this forum from posts outside the astronomy field. I'd hate to see ideas become censored. I would suggest that 2 or 3 warnings in a specified time would be issued before a member gets banned. If Astarchusinexile in exile has been so warned; it should be handled by the moderators discretely.

Orin

[neufer]

<<Bird banding (also known as bird ringing) is an aid to studying wild birds, by attaching a small individually numbered metal or plastic ring to their legs or wings, so that various aspects of the bird's life can be studied by the ability to re-find the same individual later. This can include migration, longevity, mortality, population studies, territoriality feeding behaviour, etc. In North America John James Audubon and Ernest Thompson Seton were pioneers although their method of marking birds was different from modern ringing. Audubon used silver threads the legs of young Eastern Phoebes in 1803 while Seton marked Snow Buntings in Manitoba with ink in 1882.

The earliest attempt to mark a bird was by one Quintus Fabius Pictor. This Roman officer, during the Punic Wars around 218-201 BC, was sent a swallow by a besieged garrison. He used a thread on its leg to send a message back. A knight interested in chariot races during the time of Pliny (AD 1) would take swallows to Volterra, 135 miles (217 km) away and release them with information on the race winners.>>