2011-11-10 15:43:49cjshaker
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Could it be that "cjshaker" is poptech in disguise playing games wtih you all?

Regardless, he's managed to highjack a number of comment threads over the past few days. 

The sooner he is banned from posting, the better.

2011-11-10 16:07:01No, he's his own piece of work
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

cjshaker:

IP Address 65.102.58.124
City Portland
State or Region Oregon
Country United States
ISP Qwest Communications Company LLC. 

       and

IP Address 216.87.231.121
City Bend
State or Region Oregon
Country United States
ISP Chambers Cable of SunRiver Inc. 

 


 

Poptech:

IP Address 206.137.1.198
City Clementon
State or Region New Jersey
Country United States
ISP MCI Communications Services Inc. D/B/A Verizon Business
2011-11-10 23:26:56
JMurphy
John Murphy
aphex30@hotmail...
213.120.211.100

I don't think they are one and the same, especially since cjshaker has admitted making errors ! Poptech's belief in himself does not allow him to admit to any faults, and I believe that he is so arrogant that he couldn't bear to post under any name but Poptech, so he can refer to himself at all times or complain about censorship when people get fed up with his spamming.

2011-11-11 03:14:37
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Why continue to tolerate cjshaker's shenanigans?

2011-11-11 05:32:00
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

It's starting to feel (to me) like any time anyone disagrees with SkS they get banned.

Certainly they're wrong, but we need to be careful that we're not perceived as completely silencing dissent.

I think a better approach might be to let him post, let people respond (lurkers learn a lot from those exchanges, both about the subject and about the nature of denial) but to put a clamp on it (as Dan usually does) when they stray too far, cross the line, or carry on for too long.

2011-11-11 05:33:29
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

Camburn is far worse than cjshaker in my opinion, because when cjshaker is corrected he generally gives up.  Camburn digs in his heels, sticks his fingers in his ears and just screams more loudly that black is white.  You can prove your point, and he'll just pretend the words actually say something else (sort of like a Ken Lambert without the math).

2011-11-11 05:57:24
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Unless the comment is truly aweful, which does happen once in a great while, no one gets banned without due process.  Currently due process involves gentle encouragement, snipping & more forceful recommendations, then comment deletions/coercion.  Then Warnings 1-3.  Sometimes I skip Warning 1 or 2 if they are being troublesome.

Even then they have the possibility of reinstatement.  Recall I initially gave Doug Cotton a 2-week timeout, then reinstated him.  I also reinstated Norman as well (but he's been circumspectly quiet since).

Camburn has just been issued his final warning.  I do not expect him to not stick his hand back in the hornet's nest as that restraint would be contrary to his nature (yes, that's a lot of negatives, but we speak of Camburn here).

Chris Shaker just got Warning 1.  He will eventually reveal the denialist websites of his choice for his misinformation for all to see.  He will persist in his ways & receive a 2nd Warning at some point.  It's been my observation that 1 Warning doesn't faze any denier; about half persist after the 2nd Warning and get a 3rd.  And about half of those get shown the exit.

I've yet to see any real skeptic get a 2nd Warning.  Most have the restraint to modify their behavior to meet expectations of conduct, once they are (forcefully) shown what those expectations are.  Or they have the common sense to find easier pickings elsewhere.

2011-11-11 10:46:35Sphaerica
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I know that you enjoy sparring with these people, but when they hijack a comment thread, it turns people off. I also believe that your time would be better spent generating new original articles and/or updating old ones.  

2011-11-11 10:55:44Sparring vs content writing
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12
I know it's completely up to everyone how they spend their time. I love sparring in comment threads. Who doesn't want to take an ignorant climate myth and crush it to dust under the weight of evidence and peer review. I know I do.

But I decided long back that it was a far better use of my time if I concentrated on creating the content that thousands of others could then take to crush myths. Sure, they get all the fun but the end result is a greater impact.

And I seem to becoming even more removed from the process now, more concentrating on managing various projects, maintaining the website and researching how to write better content rather than writing the actual content. That's even less fun than writing the content and nowhere near as much of a rush as jumping headlong into a denier blog thread. But it's all a matter of priority and how we organize our time to have the greatest impact.

So spend your time how you will. But do think about whether your time is better spent posting comments that reach a handful of readers or writing blogs/rebuttals that will reach orders of magnitude more readers. There's plenty of people to engage in the comments threads but only so many SkS authors.

2011-11-11 10:58:32PS - I do still get to have some fun
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12
Am writing a response to Cardinal Pell today! To be published in ABC Religion, and so far, am having so much fun with it, I'm going to have to dial it back in the editing process. Easy to get carried away!