Spam in forum

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Debate about Climate-Debate.com > Spam in forum

Spam in forum03-12-2012 20:39
branner Administrator☆☆☆☆☆ (34)	Lately there have been some posts with links to commercial websites, which obviously belong to the user who wrote the post. I have deleted all such references from the posts and will do so continuously from now on. You are of course allowed to use links in posts, but if I find that the links are solely used as advertising or as a sneaky SEO attempt, they will be removed from the post. I look forward to seeing more quality posts in the coming time.
22-12-2014 22:26
branner Administrator☆☆☆☆☆ (34)	Lately there has been a new wave of spam attempts in the forum, where the spammer tries to get his commercial links through by posting generic content about climate change taken from Wikipedia etc., often in languages like Dutch, Danish or Swedish. I remove all such spam threads, so please don't answer them, and they will hopefully disappear again as the spammer sees that his efforts are fruitless. Also a welcome to the new users on the forum who have joined in November and December. I hope we will see some interesting discussions in the coming time. If you know someone who would like to join, give them a hint. And as always: Please refrain from any personal attacks. Best Christmas wishes, Your admin
23-12-2014 00:14
orogenicman ★☆☆☆☆ (57)	Happy holidays.
RE: "please refrain from any personal attacks"11-11-2023 20:21
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2283)	branner wrote: Lately there has been a new wave of spam attempts in the forum, where the spammer tries to get his commercial links through by posting generic content about climate change taken from Wikipedia etc., often in languages like Dutch, Danish or Swedish. I remove all such spam threads, so please don't answer them, and they will hopefully disappear again as the spammer sees that his efforts are fruitless. Also a welcome to the new users on the forum who have joined in November and December. I hope we will see some interesting discussions in the coming time. If you know someone who would like to join, give them a hint. And as always: Please refrain from any personal attacks. Best Christmas wishes, Your admin "I remove all such spam threads" It is true that the administrator removes posts by profiteering trolls who attempt to use the website commercially. As far as the trolls who can't refrain from personal attacks... As long as they aren't trying to make any money in the process. About two new members join every three weeks. Almost all the posts this week are from members who have been here more than four years. I noticed that the very first threads started by Branner got more different members responding in one day than the number of members who responded to all the threads combined today. Whatever might explain it, it cannot be said that the discussion here is attractive enough to inspire participation by more than a handful of members.
11-11-2023 22:58
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Pretty much every topic these days can only be about tomatoes, Apple stock, drugs, or mental issues. Any attempts to discuss anything else gets spammed with tomatoes, Apple stock, drugs, and/or mental issues... Unfortunately, I have little interest in tomatoes, Apple stock (or products), drugs, or other people's mental issues. I am a little curious abot hoe tomatoes are full of 'snot', but have no sinuses...

14-11-2023 23:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14961)	Im a BM wrote:Whatever might explain it, it cannot be said that the discussion here is attractive enough to inspire participation by more than a handful of members. The guy who whines incessantly, and who gripes without end, is the one who is dug in and who refuses to leave.
14-11-2023 23:51
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Why must all climate-change websites all sing the same song? Certainly from the title, we aren't all going to chant the sames mantra. How can you debate, if everyone agrees? Science isn't a dictatorship, where conclusions, solutions are set by consensus. No other views possible, or accepted. Science is presenting your observations, findings, and opinion. People agree, or not. And are free to validate, or disprove. Scientist have never been correct 100%, all the time. Climate-change is highly debatable, since it's based on speculation, consensus, greed. It's more of a marketing brand name anymore. Everything stamped 'climate-change' is beyond question. You can trust it. Trust it, like any 'As Seen on TV' product shipped from China...
18-11-2023 04:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (23055)	HarveyH55 wrote: Why must all climate-change websites all sing the same song? Certainly from the title, we aren't all going to chant the sames mantra. How can you debate, if everyone agrees? Science isn't a dictatorship, where conclusions, solutions are set by consensus. No other views possible, or accepted. Science is presenting your observations, findings, and opinion. People agree, or not. And are free to validate, or disprove. Scientist have never been correct 100%, all the time. Climate-change is highly debatable, since it's based on speculation, consensus, greed. It's more of a marketing brand name anymore. Everything stamped 'climate-change' is beyond question. You can trust it. Trust it, like any 'As Seen on TV' product shipped from China... Science is not an opinion or findings, and is not observations. It has no politics or religion. It is not 'correct' or 'incorrect'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Sure, some theories get falsified. Others are created. Science is not static because of this. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with 'climate' that can change. The only ones using this odd phrase is the Church of Global Warming trying to re-label themselves. It is not possible to prove any theory True, not even a scientific theory. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-11-2023 21:25
James_ ★★★★★ (2273)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Why must all climate-change websites all sing the same song? Certainly from the title, we aren't all going to chant the sames mantra. How can you debate, if everyone agrees? Science isn't a dictatorship, where conclusions, solutions are set by consensus. No other views possible, or accepted. Science is presenting your observations, findings, and opinion. People agree, or not. And are free to validate, or disprove. Scientist have never been correct 100%, all the time. Climate-change is highly debatable, since it's based on speculation, consensus, greed. It's more of a marketing brand name anymore. Everything stamped 'climate-change' is beyond question. You can trust it. Trust it, like any 'As Seen on TV' product shipped from China... Science is not an opinion or findings, and is not observations. It has no politics or religion. It is not 'correct' or 'incorrect'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Sure, some theories get falsified. Others are created. Science is not static because of this. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with 'climate' that can change. The only ones using this odd phrase is the Church of Global Warming trying to re-label themselves. It is not possible to prove any theory True, not even a scientific theory. Let's say the flora and fauna changes then? This can be the type of both or the quantity and the health of ecosystems can vary. And when you trust that what you see on your computer screen is another person communicating to you via the internet, that verifies that some laws of physics are true. They allow for technology which can be improved upon and used in varying formats. There's still a lot about science that is not known and even Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is poorly understood. You see a falsifiable set of theories and I see opportunity to create my own theories and make a name for myself in science at the same time. Then I can laugh at the fools who believed conservation of linear momentum as angular momentum is impossible because people who listened to scientists who said; The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. And conservation of angular momentum is the same energy as linear momentum, really? You'll find ITN that scientists have a problem with accepting what science says. An example is does light have mass? They've said for a long time no because it has no rest mass but Max Planck solved that problem back in 1900 C.E. when he posited h = 6.6 × 10^−34 J · s. That describes the energy in 1 photon of light. To find its mass then E = MC^2 would determine that by stating it as 6.6 × 10^−34 J = M300,000^2 = 6.6 × 10^-34/300,000^2 = 7.3333333e-45 kg. See? I just used other peoples woks from over 100 years ago to determine the mass of a single photon of light just by using Planck's and Einstein's works. With the 7.333333333, e-45 is x 10^-45th power. And that's in kg's. I don't have to be as smart as Planck and Einstein, I just have to accept what their work supports. Will scientists support such a simple answer? I doubt it and then we're talking about the debate that you mentioned. With what I just said, modern electronics use it just as computers do, that's one example. p.s., Since I can't do anything at the moment I'm going to have to make me some biscuits for things like sausage egg biscuits, those are delicious if I might add and maybe even with gravy. Sometimes southern food is alright. My granny (grandmother) lived on the hill between 2 Hollers. Edited on 18-11-2023 21:28
19-11-2023 23:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (23055)	James_ wrote: Let's say the flora and fauna changes then? Nope. A blackberry plant is always a blackberry plant. A deer is always a deer. They do not change either. Climate is not flora nor fauna. James_ wrote: This can be the type of both or the quantity and the health of ecosystems can vary. Buzzword fallacies. James_ wrote: There's still a lot about science that is not known Science is not knowledge. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. James_ wrote: and even Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is poorly understood. It is well understood. It is completely understood. James_ wrote: You see a falsifiable set of theories and I see opportunity to create my own theories and make a name for myself in science at the same time. Fine. But you should pay attention to a couple of rules first: 1) All theories (both scientific and nonscientific) must pass the internal consistency check. No theory of any kind may be based on a fallacy. 2) All theories of science must pass the external consistency check. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be false. Ignoring a theory of science does not falsify it. James_ wrote: Then I can laugh at the fools who believed conservation of linear momentum as angular momentum is impossible because people who listened to scientists who said; The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. There is no conservation of linear or angular momentum. You are ignoring Newton's law of motion. F=mA. Motion may be changed by the application of force upon that mass. James_ wrote: And conservation of angular momentum is the same energy as linear momentum, really? There is no 'conservation of angular momentum' or 'conservation of linear momentum'. The direction or speed of any mass may be changed by the application of a force upon that mass. James_ wrote: You'll find ITN that scientists have a problem with accepting what science says. Anyone that disregards theories of science is no scientist (by definition). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-06-2024 19:30
Im a BM ★★★★★ (2283)	branner wrote: Lately there have been some posts with links to commercial websites, which obviously belong to the user who wrote the post. I have deleted all such references from the posts and will do so continuously from now on. You are of course allowed to use links in posts, but if I find that the links are solely used as advertising or as a sneaky SEO attempt, they will be removed from the post. I look forward to seeing more quality posts in the coming time. So, Branner, are you favorably impressed by the quality of posts NOW? Given your history, I know there is a greater chance that you will ban a published scientist than a scientifically illiterate troll. And now there are supposedly 212 "Guests online"! Shame on you, Branner.
12-06-2024 03:44
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3058)	Im a BM wrote: branner wrote: Lately there have been some posts with links to commercial websites, which obviously belong to the user who wrote the post. I have deleted all such references from the posts and will do so continuously from now on. You are of course allowed to use links in posts, but if I find that the links are solely used as advertising or as a sneaky SEO attempt, they will be removed from the post. I look forward to seeing more quality posts in the coming time. So, Branner, are you favorably impressed by the quality of posts NOW? Given your history, I know there is a greater chance that you will ban a published scientist than a scientifically illiterate troll. And now there are supposedly 212 "Guests online"! Shame on you, Branner. Branner offers this site as a free service to anyone and everyone. It is his website. I have yet to locate your website. Why do you bitch about your free stuff? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
20-10-2024 21:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1799)	branner wrote: Lately there has been a new wave of spam attempts in the forum, where the spammer tries to get his commercial links through by posting generic content about climate change taken from Wikipedia etc., often in languages like Dutch, Danish or Swedish. I remove all such spam threads, so please don't answer them, and they will hopefully disappear again as the spammer sees that his efforts are fruitless. Also a welcome to the new users on the forum who have joined in November and December. I hope we will see some interesting discussions in the coming time. If you know someone who would like to join, give them a hint. And as always: Please refrain from any personal attacks. Best Christmas wishes, Your admin From December, 2014 One of just 34 posts contributed by the administrator during the entire history of climate-debate.com as a website. New members used to join a lot in those days. The total membership didn't reach 1714 by gaining at the current pace of about one new member every two or three months. "And as always: Please refrain from any personal attacks." - Branner The administrator simply REFUSED to provide an "unambiguous definition" for the term "personal attacks". The administrator wouldn't even answer the request for "guidance" for the best way to deal with "abusive troll frauds who drag every discussion into the muck" No, wait. By not responding, the administrator was AFFIRMING his agreement with the new poster (ten years ago) that it was appropriate to identify such offending members as "morons". Those damn "abusive troll frauds"! Don't hold your breath waiting for Branner, the administrator, to ever drop in on the discussion again
21-10-2024 00:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (23055)	Im a BM wrote: So, Branner,... Stop whining. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 21-10-2024 00:52
21-10-2024 00:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (23055)	sealover wrote: One of just 34 posts... Stop whining. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Spam in forum:

Threads	Replies	Last post
General Question in General Forum.	168	19-11-2024 01:44
Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum	15	18-07-2024 21:11
We've Been Spam-Attacked by Robup Northert	31	28-05-2024 08:28
Does the forum have push notifications?	0	07-04-2024 06:37
How Did TrueCompanion Create a New Thread/Post in a Closed Forum?	3	26-08-2021 00:43