Banning Trolls

I don’t like banning people from commenting here. To make sure this is transparent I keep a list here of everyone who is banned. Inspired by the example of John Quiggin, I’ve added a third name to the list, the poster who calls himself “Reality Check”.

Incidently, if you’ve missed the writings of JC (Joe Cambria) who I banned in January, he’s obsessively commenting on postings here over at Catallaxy. Most recent rant:

Another day, another smear attempt at the little fellas site. This time Tim Worstall gets a smearing because he dared not to accept Lambert’s line which is that we must re-organize ourselves to eliminate emissions or the earth as we know will perish in 37 years 3 months one week two days 4 hours 33 minutes and 7 seconds. …

So shorty doesn’t want a textbook to mention there actually is benefits to global warming that could mitigate for some of the damage. In fact it seems he doesn’t even understand what a cost benefit analysis is or what it is supposed to do. I keep saying the little fella ought to go ask the people at the economics faculty about CA’s but he just won’t listen to me.

He also links to himself again which is getting stale as we’re all up to his dishonest tricks. …

Lambert is running a hate site for fellow Marxists.

And there are a hundred or so more like that!

Comments

#1 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
April 15, 2008

I don’t like banning people from commenting here.

But I do, bwahahahahaha. I’m considering becoming a blogfascist on my own blog (if it ever gets too noisy) — after all, there are already enough venues for trolls and cranks to post rubbish to their hearts’ content, and there’s no rule saying that I must make my blog another one of those.
#2 Steve
April 15, 2008

“there actually is benefits to global warming”

Reminiscent of another great twenty-first century thinker:

“Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?”

I say it’s your blog, ban whomever you choose. It’s not like you’re depriving them of a forum for their views, as evidenced by the stunning intellectual discourse on this fella’s page on Teh Intarwebs. It’s more like saying, “You’re not going to talk that way in MY living room, in front of MY friends.”
#3 Chris O'Neill
April 15, 2008

Another day, another smear attempt at the little fellas site.

So sad to miss out on the hypocrisy.
#4 Chris O'Neill
April 15, 2008

I’ve added a third name to the list, the poster who calls himself “Reality Check”.

Always sounded a lot like our old friend Tim Curtin to me.
#5 Tim Lambert
April 15, 2008

Chris O’Neill: “Always sounded a lot like our old friend Tim Curtin to me”

Hmm, same ISP, showed up the day after Tim Curtin stopped posting here, similar language and trolliness. I think you’re right.
#6 Lance
April 15, 2008

What was RealityCheck’s terminal offense?
#7 sod
April 15, 2008

What was RealityCheck’s terminal offense?

it s was completely impossible to argue with him. he was in total denial of facts and reality.

i don t support bans, but i think this one makes sense.

i wouldn t be surprised if it was Tim Curtin.
#8 Dano
April 15, 2008

I have my own list (no, not THAT one!):

Comment by Lance blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Comment by Reality check blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Comment by BillBodell blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Comment by Tilo Reber blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Comment by kent blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Comment by Harold Pierce Jr blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Comment by Peter Bickle blocked. [unkill][show comment]

Ahhhh. Heh.

Best,

D
#9 Bernard J.
April 15, 2008

How long before RC/TC manifest in an other guise, I wonder?
#10 Sortition
April 15, 2008

> I don’t like banning people from commenting here.

Why don’t you use disemvowelling then? Seems more fair. Even better, I think (and have I suggested before), is progressive disemvowelling – the vowels are gradually removed as the troll keeps on writing (first only u’s then i’s then o’s, a’s and e’s).
#11 Lance
April 16, 2008

I visit deltoid frequently because so many of the posters have a very different perspective than I do. I don’t find that offensive. I find it stimulating.

I find it amusing that folks like Dano trumpet the fact that they have killfiled people with whom they disagree. This is more of a childish stunt than an attempt to screen out noise. The fact that they always seem to proudly announce that they have done it shows that the real purpose is to insult and smear people with whom they disagree.

dhogaza is constantly hurling insulting invective at anyone and everyone with whom he/she disagrees. Still I enjoy trading barbs with him/her because once in a while he/she actually makes a good point. Once in a (great) while he/she will even cede a point.

Isn’t the purpose of a blog to engage in discussion with a wide range of people with varying opinions and perspectives? Is it so hard to ignore a post if you find it has absolutely no merit?

Threatening speech certainly must not be tolerated and there should be limits on the level and nature of insults but open dialogue is the best way to vet ideas and opinions.
#12 Meyrick Kirby
April 16, 2008

Hmm, same ISP, showed up the day after Tim Curtin stopped posting here, similar language and trolliness. I think you’re right.

Ah, good old Tim Curtin, the man who thought the Earth’s atmosphere had a constant mass, didn’t know the difference between a percentage difference in levels and growth (really funny for an economist), and most wonderfully, would twist and turn to avoid admitting he made a stupid statement. I always envisioned him as a particularly dim snake.

I notice that Reality Check in a previous post decided to take the first difference of GISS temperatures and CO2 to cure auto-correlated residuals. This is the sort of thing that a not-so-bright economist would do. Who cares about looking for omitted variables, using an alternative estimator to OLS, or running Augmented Dickey-Fuller tests. Instead, lets just assume that yearly changes in CO2 level will only impact the current year.
#13 z
April 17, 2008

so it’s you and al gore, eh? i knew there was more than one involved.
#14 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
April 18, 2008

/me ignores Lance’s usual victimhood
#15 Lance
April 18, 2008

Victimhood? You must have “ignored” my post because I never claimed to be a victim of anything. If others wish to put their fingers in their ears it causes no problems for me.
#16 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
April 18, 2008

/me ignores Lance’s misrepresentation of himself
#17 Skwee
April 23, 2008

What.. was..that..about?

Red-baiting is over, dude.

& could he name these “benefits”? Or learn proper grammar?
#18 Skwee
April 23, 2008

Lance, there are only three people in the killfile, four if you count one who is moderated.
#19 Marion Delgado
April 24, 2008

As some day it may happen that a skeptic is Expelled,
I’ve got a little list–I’ve got a little list

Of illogical responders who might just as well be quelled,
And who never would be missed–who never would be missed!

There’s the pesticidal cargo cult obsessed with Silent Spring

Evolution’ry denialists with Galileo’s wings

And those who say Iraqis just play possum in the ruins

The auditors of climate who blame warming on the Moon

and the high-school dropout experts and the failed syllogists -

They’d none of ‘em be missed–they’d none of ‘em be missed!

CHORUS. He’s got ‘em on the list–he’s got ‘em on the list;
And they’ll none of ‘em be missed–they’ll none of
‘em be missed.