Put your money where your mouth is!

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Should be good enough for this.

I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.

The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Should be good enough for this.

I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.

The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.

Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Should be good enough for this.

I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.

The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.

Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.

True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Should be good enough for this.

I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.

The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.

Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.

True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things.

No, it won't. No matter who you use as a judge, nothing will change. All it will turn into is a flame war over the judge's decision. Awarding money on a blind forum isn't practical. You have to give personal information including banking information to third parties to accomplish this.

Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name. You and anyone you know is under threat of this. Imagine the further damage someone can cause because someone you don't know on the internet has your bank account information. You only need look in the UK itself to see how people are being harassed and even arrested simply for saying something politically incorrect.

No. The best way is for people to judge for themselves, which they will do anyway. That's really what blind forums like this one are all about.

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Should be good enough for this.

I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.

The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.

Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.

True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things.

No, it won't. No matter who you use as a judge, nothing will change. All it will turn into is a flame war over the judge's decision. Awarding money on a blind forum isn't practical. You have to give personal information including banking information to third parties to accomplish this.

Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name. You and anyone you know is under threat of this. Imagine the further damage someone can cause because someone you don't know on the internet has your bank account information. You only need look in the UK itself to see how people are being harassed and even arrested simply for saying something politically incorrect.

No. The best way is for people to judge for themselves, which they will do anyway. That's really what blind forums like this one are all about.

You have just given a rational as to why there can never be any sort of workable legal system.

Yet we have a working, if imperfect, legal system.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Or if I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Or if I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble.

sealover wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Or if I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble.

Hello, Tim the Plumber!

As far as I know, this is the FIRST time that I have addressed you in any way.

It looks like today you posted for the first time in years.

Today, in the "Another better way to post on climate-debate.com" thread, you responded with:

"I am reminded of the insults you have hurled at me."

You will have to remind ME what those insults might have been.

In THIS post, from two years ago, you said:

"Or I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble".

I don't remember insulting you, or ever even ADDRESSING you, but I am absolutely sure that I never DOXED you.

As Into the Night said here:

"Doxing is a real problem."

Less than an hour ago, on the "Another better way to post on climate-debate.com" thread, IBdaMann DID dox ME. AGAIN.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Im a BM wrote:
The senior site members DOX just as freely as they TROLL and SPAM.

Im a BM wrote:
A semi conscious moderator would have banned them more than 8 years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe there can be ONE safe space, a moderated sub forum, where a DOXING post such as this would IMMEDIATELY be removed.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Doxing is bad behavior and displays bad faith in a "debate" about "science".

But if someone in a discussion provides a clue that I can use to track down their (POSSIBLE) home address, they are just BEGGING to get doxed.

I'm sure that Branner agrees this is okay. NOT!

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Doxing is bad behavior and displays bad faith in a "debate" about "science".

But if someone in a discussion provides a clue that I can use to track down their (POSSIBLE) home address, they are just BEGGING to get doxed.

I'm sure that Branner agrees this is okay. NOT!

You doxed yourself, Robert. The house was yours.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Doxing is bad behavior and displays bad faith in a "debate" about "science".

But if someone in a discussion provides a clue that I can use to track down their (POSSIBLE) home address, they are just BEGGING to get doxed.

I'm sure that Branner agrees this is okay. NOT!

You doxed yourself, Robert. The house was yours.

According to IBdaMann, this dox post is not MY house. It was years before I joined.

Tim the Plumber... IBdaMann seems to believe that this is Tim the Plumber's home and/or place of business.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Doxing is bad behavior and displays bad faith in a "debate" about "science".

But if someone in a discussion provides a clue that I can use to track down their (POSSIBLE) home address, they are just BEGGING to get doxed.

I'm sure that Branner agrees this is okay. NOT!

You doxed yourself, Robert. The house was yours.

According to IBdaMann, this dox post is not MY house. It was years before I joined.

Tim the Plumber... IBdaMann seems to believe that this is Tim the Plumber's home and/or place of business.

You can't blame your dox on anybody else, Robert. It was your house.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Doxing is bad behavior and displays bad faith in a "debate" about "science".

But if someone in a discussion provides a clue that I can use to track down their (POSSIBLE) home address, they are just BEGGING to get doxed.

I'm sure that Branner agrees this is okay. NOT!

You doxed yourself, Robert. The house was yours.

According to IBdaMann, this dox post is not MY house. It was years before I joined.

Tim the Plumber... IBdaMann seems to believe that this is Tim the Plumber's home and/or place of business.

You can't blame your dox on anybody else, Robert. It was your house.

Im a BM wrote:
But if you actually read the post here, IBdaMann says that doxing is only a problem if THIS is your house, and anyone can click on it.

IBdaMan doxed, or attempted to dox (suspicion that it MIGHT be the right home) the fellow member who called himself Tim the Plumber.

Click on where IBdaMann instructs within this post and you see the house.

It is alleged to be located at 109 Walkley Bank Rd, in Sheffield, England.

You got me, YARP! (Yellow And Red Parrot)

As YARP insists, this is actually MY house. In England.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hi Tim

Thanks for the new idea!

But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.

It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...

Best,
Jeppe

How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..

It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.

It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.

The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.

Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Im a BM wrote:
How would YOU know what "science" is?

Im a BM wrote:
Why should anyone ELSE believe that you know ANYTHING about this stuff?

Im a BM wrote:
It is quite clear to ME that you do NOT understand this stuff. Not even enough to pull off a plausible sounding bluff.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
How would YOU know what "science" is?

Philosophy. Something else you deny.

Im a BM wrote:
Why should anyone ELSE believe that you know ANYTHING about this stuff?

Philosophy, which you deny.

Im a BM wrote:
It is quite clear to ME that you do NOT understand this stuff. Not even enough to pull off a plausible sounding bluff.

Philosophy is not a bluff.

Im a BM wrote:
I genuinely want to thank you.

Your stubborn heckling actually inspired me to create my last big SEALOVER thread with tons of journal references and hundreds of buzzwords.

This is the LAST big piece of scientific research that I never published anywhere.

Try one more time to find the actual definition of the term "interstitium" and you might not feel so left out.

I won't be surprised if the "interstitium" thread racks up many thousands of views, once people find out about it and start forwarding links to it.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I genuinely want to thank you.

Your stubborn heckling actually inspired me to create my last big SEALOVER thread with tons of journal references and hundreds of buzzwords.

This is the LAST big piece of scientific research that I never published anywhere.

Try one more time to find the actual definition of the term "interstitium" and you might not feel so left out.

I won't be surprised if the "interstitium" thread racks up many thousands of views, once people find out about it and start forwarding links to it.

Science isn't a research. Science isn't a publication. Inversion fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Im a BM wrote:
Science isn't whatever it is you think you're doing at this website.

Im a BM wrote:
It sounds like you will feel morally obliged to TROLL the interstitium thread.

Im a BM wrote:
"It's basically saltwater". Therefore, you will have a LOT to say about it.

No collagen. No fibers. No connective tissue. No compartments. Definitely NOT an organ.

Im a BM wrote:
And you'll keep up your tantrum of "NO, it's NOT!" about every assertion.

Im a BM wrote:
You'll find 10,000 more ways to make the same empty statement.

Im a BM wrote:
Yup. You know all about "anatomy", don't you?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

Getting doxed at climate-debate.com

"Doxing is a real problem." - Into the Night

"It's only a problem if (link to dox) is where Time either lives or works or both."

I have no idea if Tim the Plumber lives in that house or not. It is NOT mine.

Some websites have a moderator who would not allow this, or who would at least remove such a post in which one member attempts to dox another.

Into the Night says all is fair in this game, and Tim the Plumber really just insisted on doxing HIMSELF.

A conscious moderator would have banned both IBdaMann and Into the Night ten years ago.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.

It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.

.

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann, did you really think that this was MY house?

Either I'm very confused, or Into the Night is.

He says that this was me doxing myself somehow.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann, did you really think that this was MY house?

Either I'm very confused, or Into the Night is.

He says that this was me doxing myself somehow.

Still trying to deny your own house, Robert?

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
IBdaMann, did you really think that this was MY house?

Either I'm very confused, or Into the Night is.

He says that this was me doxing myself somehow.

Still trying to deny your own house, Robert?

Im a BM wrote:
Your reading comprehension is highly questionable.

According to IBdaMann's post, December 27, 2022, on this same page of this same thread, "doxing" was "only a potential problem is (link to image of house) is where Tim either lives or works or both."

Why would it be a "problem"? Because Tim "doxed himself" and FORCED IBdaMann to dig up all the info he could find.

Into the Night, are you truly SO DENSE that you can't figure out whose house IBdaMann is trying to dox?

Sorry, I said that wrong. Can't you see that Tim the Plumber, and not myself, is the member who doxed himself in this post?

sealover wrote: IBdaMann, did you really think that this was MY house?

sealover wrote:Either I'm very confused, or Into the Night is.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
IBdaMann, did you really think that this was MY house?

Either I'm very confused, or Into the Night is.

He says that this was me doxing myself somehow.

Still trying to deny your own house, Robert?

Hey, if someone wants to give me that house, I won't deny them that.

Im a BM wrote:
Your reading comprehension is highly questionable.

According to IBdaMann's post, December 27, 2022, on this same page of this same thread, "doxing" was "only a potential problem is (link to image of house) is where Tim either lives or works or both."

Why would it be a "problem"? Because Tim "doxed himself" and FORCED IBdaMann to dig up all the info he could find.

Into the Night, are you truly SO DENSE that you can't figure out whose house IBdaMann is trying to dox?

Sorry, I said that wrong. Can't you see that Tim the Plumber, and not myself, is the member who doxed himself in this post?

No one can give you your own house.
It is your house.
You doxed yourself.