PowerSwitch

Shall we do a survey?

Sadly, the people who got most fed up have already left so won't be voting.

Shouldn't the title be "Should RGR be banned" ? It rather pre-judges the outcome by referring to "Troll".

Catweazle wrote:Shouldn't the title be "Should RGR be banned" ? It rather pre-judges the outcome by referring to "Troll".

Indeed, I see your point. But.. frankly, F--k terminology.

It was said earlier that to ban RGR would be tantamount to fascism.

Bullshit.

To ban someone isn't tantamount to fascism. This site isn't involved in the whole-scale discrimination of sections of society. One person who is disrupting the site, banned, isn't the end of the world. (as we know it )

It's a discussion site.. but many intelligent people here can see through the bollox.. and are frustrated with this psuedo-scientist who proclaims much but delivers very very little in terms of real evidence.. but is obnoxious, elusive and downright rude.

We only have his word he is of some kind of oil person. We only have his word he is in the science side of it all.


Hey.. I'm a f***ing astronaut! Do you believe that? I'm not as it happens.. but to believe I am.. based on me saying it .. and then me being rude enough.. often enough, enough to stop people questioning my "job" as a spaceman.. f***ing genius!

He's a fuckwit. He's an obnoxious fuckwit. The site would be better without him. For this reason.. his replies are designed to sidetrack. Pretty much every thread is sidetracked by him. No thread can continue as it should.. even if it goes offtrack.. without him making it about himself or some other kinda bullshit.

Kill the troll.
(or else.. Mods.. kill this site.. cos you're losing too many good posters with him here )

You muppets are the ones ruining this site. You bleat on and on about RGR until this has become the RGR forum.

I only come here to read relevant news articles, I'm not really interested in the multi page circle jerk ban the troll threads, could you all just please grow the feck up and talk about something more interesting than wanting to ban someone who has a different POV than yourselves FFS.

+1

+1

Kentucky Fried Panda wrote:You muppets are the ones ruining this site. You bleat on and on about RGR until this has become the RGR forum.

I only come here to read relevant news articles,.

So who's stopping you? This isn't the news section BTW.

Posters are leaving the site because there isnt much here of any interest. Also, after a while most peakers are resigned to the fact that everything is going to end and cannot do anything about it so give up trying to convice others.

Kentucky Fried Panda wrote: I only come here to read relevant news articles.

So why did you start this thread?
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... 909#184909

edit: Admin have, very sensibly, deleted the thread.

Kentucky Fried Panda wrote:You muppets are the ones ruining this site. You bleat on and on about RGR until this has become the RGR forum.

We cannot avoid "bleating on about RGR". Ignoring it is not an option.

This forum is going to the dogs. All because of ONE PERSON. Only one in four people using this board thinks that person should stay. Two-thirds think he should be banned. Also bear in mind that at least one of the votes for him not to be banned, and probably several, came from RGR and his sockpuppet(s).

Kentucky Fried Panda wrote:You muppets are the ones ruining this site. You bleat on and on about RGR until this has become the RGR forum.

I only come here to read relevant news articles, I'm not really interested in the multi page circle jerk ban the troll threads, could you all just please grow the feck up and talk about something more interesting than wanting to ban someone who has a different POV than yourselves FFS.

We don't want him banned because he doesn't share our opinion. We want him banned because of his attitude, his tactics and his sockpuppetry.

I have a lot of experience of boards dealing with the science/religion conflict. I was Dawkins' forum admin. Those boards could not function if every creationist or other believer in "woo-woo" was banned, but they also could not function if all them were allowed to stay. It depends entirely on the way they choose to interact with other people. If all they do is turn up in any thread about evolution and post "You dumbasses! You still believe in this rubbish, don't you?", then you ban them. RGR does this a lot of the time. His catchphrase is "which peak???? the one that happened in 1971? 1986? 2002?" Yet we all know he isn't stupid enough to not know what "peak oil happened in 2006" means, when those words are uttered by the economic chief of the IEA. RGR is the equivalent of a creationist who deep down knows that Darwin was right, but doesn't want people to get away with claiming this in public without being heckled, because he fears that the brainwashed masses might start believing the truth.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
We don't want him banned because he doesn't share our opinion. We want him banned because of his attitude, his tactics and his sockpuppetry.

+1

Trying to ignore RGR's posts may be a laudable aim - I just skip past his posts - but when the follow-ups are all in response to his posts then it becomes a pointless exercise.

There comes a point where enough is enough - we have passed that point

I learn that there is a forum, visible to mods but not to us ordinary mortals, on which the troll question has been discussed. There has been enough feeling vented, good people threatening to leave and good people actually leaving, for the mods' discussion to be translated into decisive action to save PowerSwitch.

I Agree. He should go. He has already been banned on a number of other sites, if I remember correctly, as someone posted links to before. We should ask ourselves why he was banned there.

He seems to know when he's getting close to being banned, then subtly shifts his discourse to calling himself as peaker too, and saying how he is going on a personal energy descent plan, etc. I think he gets a thrill out of causing all the strife. There may be a psychological term for it.

We're not against a calm, sensible discussion about ideas, theories, solutions, data, etc. but the superiority complex he displays is worrying.

He assumes we are all doomers, which is not true in the strong sense. Many of us simply know that the world has finite resources, and that we can't just use them all up. We are doing something about it at a personal level, and voting to try to get changes brought in at higher levels, too. We see with alarm what is going on around us to do with the economy, energy and the ecology (TM Chris Martenson and feel that at some point, things will change. We don' t say how or when, just that they must change. That isn't controversial, or quasi-religious. The troll shrieks that it is, and so we leap to defend ourselves, and he rubs his hands in glee.

Jon