Replies

Just As a reminder to those that are complying and noncomplying. And to bring up to speed those that have NOT yet seen or agreed to the agreement.

I ask you to read the following from the agreement.

] 5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."

If one of us notices another poster creating problems on the thread, we may post a warning in behalf of all of us, to the effect of: "Hey X, that post of yours [number 123] was a bit provocative. You know we have rules about disrupting (or whatever). I understand that you're momentarily swept up in the debate, but please restrain yourself."

Or: [in lieu of the 2nd sentence in bold] "Under our agreement, the actions of provocateurs, trolls, spammers, and disruptors are prohibited, as is the use of obscene or belittling words to describe another poster or his beliefs."

After having made such a good faith attempt to bring the offending poster into compliance, if the problematic poster continues in the offending behavior we may post a warning (such as: "Don't feed the trolls!") to other posters that the problematic party has chosen not to comply. If the problem persists, the offender may thereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of this agreement.

As everyone can PLAINLY see, we are within the constraints of the agreement by pointing out obviously trollish behavior and namecalling from a consistently trolling, namecalling and flamewar inciting, NONcomplying poster.

Therefore, we are indeed in compliance by pointing out a certain posters CONSISTENT behavior.

His first post in this thread was a DIRECT attack, as usual, as soon as the consistency showed itself, we were within our rights to point out said poster as a Troller and disruptor. If on the other hand he had NOT attacked and instead actually added something to the discussion, we would have left said poster alone.

Thank you for your attention, now on to your regularly scheduled scientific thread.

Are you serious? Though you may not agree with him, the person you have attacked as a disruptor has staked out a position and is defending it. Others and now you, by this flimsy attempt at justifying the ridicule, have committed a breach of your own agreement, by using the troll loophole. You have now used it twice. This one the most egregious of the two. He called no one names. He stated an unpopular position, clarified it and then defended it. Others have ridiculed him from the sidelines and then labelled him a troll for exercising the right of expressing opinion and defending it. I ask that the name callers cease their attacks, apologize. If this is not done then I will consider calling an abuse in light of the agreement to stop such behavior.

As everyone can PLAINLY see, we are within the constraints of the agreement by pointing out obviously trollish behavior and namecalling from a consistently trolling, namecalling and flamewar inciting, NONcomplying poster.

The agreement was to promote civil behavior towards all:

We will not conspire against, scheme or bait any poster for any reason.

Therefore you and Patrick Henry have violated the agreement, have engaged in disruptive behavior and are therefore to be considered trolls.