Role of This Site

Things have been pretty quiet here. Nevertheless, I plan to keep the site open in order to fulfil its primary function – to act as a repository for comments rejected over at RC.

From time to time the issue of RC censorship policy tends to blow up somewhere or another on the web, and it is useful to have a site where people can have a look at posts rejected in the past.

It would be much better of course if we had access to ALL of the posts rejected at RC. Perhaps the RC guys might like to consider that? 🙂

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Role of This Site”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    There was an exchange at CA in early May – Unthreaded n+1 thread.

    756 bender: May 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Re: Mark T (#753),

    The irony, Mark T, is that a couple of years ago I was asking at RC if they could describe how heat accumulates in oceans and if it is possible that heat could be transferred deep. I was mocked as a denier by know-it-alls Ladbury and Roberts.

    757 Andrew: May 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Re: bender (#756), How rude! Jeez, the way RC treats people just looking for information never ceases to amaze-no wonder they are frustrated at their difficulty convincing people-the act like total a$$h@!#$ about it…Not that I’m just realizing this now.

  2. rcrejects Says:

    There was also an exchange at Lucia’s The Blackboard site – “Reflections on Continuing Monckton Kerfuffle” Thread.

    Lucia states in her post:

    I posted a comment at RC pointing to my post discussing the “bulleted version” of Monckton’s method, but it was moderated out of existence. I was a bit piqued that the comment disintegrated into electrons, particularly after I took time to fill out the Captcha. I thought some might like to read what seems to be “the method”. [Update 5/13: Gavin tells me he does not know what might have happened to the comment. My spam filter sometimes acts up; presumably RC’s does too.

    PaulM (Comment#13601) May 14th, 2009 at 6:34 am

    “Update 5/13: Gavin tells me he does not know what might have happened to the comment.”

    So why don’t you call Gavin’s bluff and post it again? And maybe post it here also for safe keeping. Did you keep a copy? Most skeptics who post at RC have learnt that this is often necessary.

    There is a hint in your comment “…pointing to my post…” – RC usually censors any comment with an explicit link to a skeptic site, as Jeff Id has found. (Note the way they clipped Monckton’s graphs to avoid showing his URL!). But that is a bit strange because they did link to your first post in their post.
    There is much discussion of the RC censorship policy here [link to CA “Is Gavin Schmidt Honest” thread]. The experiment conducted by Jonathan, #441, is particularly instructive.

    lucia (Comment#13602) May 14th, 2009 at 6:55 am

    PaulM-

    The comment being lost is not that big a deal to me. I didn’t save it. It just mentioned that I had asked Monckton what he did and explained with a brief bulleted list.

    That said: I have a negative opinion of RC’s comment policy. But hey, it’s their blog.

    On the missing URL from Monckton’s graph at RC. I know they clipped Monckton’s graph. I don’t think much of any author taking active measures to make it unnecessarily difficult for readers to find the originals underlying the source someone is discussing. Gavin did that when he altered the Monckton’s graphic to remove the URL. Altering a graphic to make the source difficult to trace goes beyond just blog sloppiness that can sometimes result in bloggers forgetting to link.

    I should have referred earlier to the long thread at CA referred to by Paul. The “Is Gavin Schmidt Honest” thread contains a long and detailed discussion regarding censorship policies at RC, and readers interested should take a look at that thread.

    Note also that Lucia acknowledges that at least some apparent censorship can instead be something to do with the spam filter or other innocent reasons. She also acknowledges RC’s right to exercise blog censorship policies as they wish. “But Hey. Its their blog.”

  3. MikeN Says:

    So how does one post rejected RC comments?

    rcrejects: Just copy the RC comment when you post it ie, when it says “waiting for moderation” and paste into a new comment box here. Fill in the username and e:mail address and post. If it needs tidying up, we will do that, but otherwise we will post it as it arrives. Unless of course it breaches our moderation policy when we will snip and explain our snip. Our moderation policy isn’t formally expressed, but we will snip wildly OT topics (unless they justify a separate thread), abusive comments, and allegations of ‘f…d’ and similar non-acceptable words.

    Our commitment is to encourage fair discussion from all sides of the debate. However, we have noticed on other blogs that the moderation approach adopted by the blog proprietor has a big impact on the tone/style of the blog, and we want to maintain a civil blog above all. So we will moderate as we see fit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: