2011-04-24 12:14:33Are skeptics trying to turn SkS into WUWT?
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Seems to me there's a trend in the tone of the dialogue:


Ken Lambert at 11:55 AM on 24 April 2011 (Email commenter)

Well done Gilles. If you want to see another win for the
Skeptics, head over 'A Flanner in the Works....', where I have reduced the opponents to a string of error filled incoherent ramblings devoid of any logical facts.


Peter Freeman at 07:39 AM on 23 April 2011 (Email commenter)

'You only allow the politics you agree with' is your actual rule you moral degenerate


Peter Freeman at 07:32 AM on 23 April 2011 (Email commenter)

yes moderator delete my post you coward

2011-04-24 13:43:04
Julian Brimelow

Sigh....so much for logical, rational, fact-based and scientific dialogue.

2011-04-24 19:05:30


"It is, of course, possible all those comments are from separate individuals, none of whom are paid by corporate polluters or conservative billionaires. It is also possible we never landed on the moon…."


"If you want to push your wackaloon ideas that cosmic rays are causing global warming or that smoking isn’t a major cause of cancer or that vaccines cause autism or that President Obama was born on the planet Flerbnitz and is here to steal our broccoli, go join the other crazies online who share your particular delusions. Unless, of course, you’re a persona management software-created sockpuppet and you’re just following the dictates of your programming…"


2011-04-30 01:41:59Successful and Immoral Tactics


I've been a bit disheartened of late, because Ken Lambert has adopted a new tactic which is not covered by the moderation rules.  That is, no matter what is said, he simply claims to have proven his own point, and that others are in error.  In this guise the truth, logic or clarity of an argument becomes irrelevant.

If you prove something, he simply comes back claiming to have proved the opposite, or that your previous statements were in error.  Any response that he is wrong just generates another response that he has proven you wrong or that you made a mistake.

It literally comes down to:

Ken: It's black.

You: No, nothing's black, it's gray.

Ken: You failed to prove that it's white, so it's obviously black.

You: No, no, I said that it's gray.

Ken: So you admit that you were in error.  Everyone now knows that it's black, so we can proceed from there.

You:  It's not black, it's gray.

Ken: You are really embarrassing yourself.  Your repeated attempts to say that black is white just make you look silly.  You made that mistake many times so far, even though I've repeatedly demonstrated for you that black is not white.  But you cling to that misconception, even though I've proven that it's black.

You: That's not what happened! I said it's gray! I proved it's gray!

Ken: As we've all agreed, it's black. You even admitted as much, when you made your previous series of errors. How can you now say that it's white? Really, everyone can see what's going on here. It's black, you've admitted it, I've proven it, and your attempts to prove that it's white included egregious errors, which I have pointed out to you.

You: *muffled sound of gunshot... muffled because barrel was inserted in mouth*

This style of arguing is unbeatable, and more than confusing to lurkers.  If they see a comment that says "I proved you were wrong, and now you're admitting it" they are unlikely to go back and read the entire thread to see the truth of the matter.

Sadly, I see only two possible solutions to this.

One, a very dangerous precedent, is to add to to moderation policy that gross lying  and distortion will not be tolerated.  This is dangerous because what is a lie versus an opinion versus an arguable fact is very much open to interpretation (although in Ken's case, it really was a visit to the land of Oz to see his re-interpretation of people's posts).

The second, also a dangerous and undesirable precedent, is to simply, quietly and totally ban certain posters who exhibit this behavior.

Ken Lambert is the only one so far that I've seen do this so blatantly egregiously (although many try), and successfully, but it is seriously dangerous because there is no real defense except to resort to the same ridiculous tactic.  He riddles his posts  with numbers and details to make them seem well thought out, but then dismisses all counter arguments simply by declaring that black is white.

2011-04-30 02:19:42How did you disable the wordwrap?
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Shades of this, then.  Life imitates art.

I hate to be the one to say it, but Ken has already done more than enough to be banned. 

I try to keep out of things but when he's on one of his rampages, he calls out everyone he's perceived as ever having wronged him by name in his venting. 

Like he is now, taking over and derailing an entire thread via infection.

Once upon a time I believed he could be reasoned with, and tried to do so.

And learned my error soon enough.

He simply brings nothing to the dialogue but disinformation, distortion, diversion, division, innuendo, insinuation and snark.  And goes off-topic with impunity just so he can cry foul when moderated.


2011-04-30 12:29:51Disable word wrap
John Cook


The very long width of this thread came from all the PRE tags in Sphaerica's post. I replaced them all with P tags.

2011-04-30 13:23:35


Yeah, applying the format "Preformatted" style in the rich text editor caused the word wrap fail.  I was looking for the blockquote (I see it now... no idea how I missed it before) and when I couldn't find it Isettled for the "preformatted" style instead.  I should have just switched to raw HTML.  Lesson learned.