google.com

[August1991]

I have noticed that google.com is occasionally shown as a user on this forum. I assume that this is google's "search programme" visiting the site and collecting data.

At the same time, I have noticed that if one enters certain terms into google, this forum is often listed in the top ten results.

I think everyone should keep in mind that anything posted to this forum becomes public knowledge and easily found through google.

I am strongly in favour of free speech. I think even one-trick dogs should be allowed to perform over, and over, and over. But let's be polite about it. Try to avoid one-line, name-calling posts.

This is a good forum, perhaps the best in English-Canada. For better or worse, it is now more apparently in the "public eye". Greg, IMV, you have every right to ban a poster - but please warn before you ban.

[Newfie Canadian]

I assume that this is google's "search programme" visiting the site and collecting data.

Yep.

Googlebot is Google's web-crawling robot. It collects documents from the web to build a searchable index for the Google search engine.

[kimmy]

I think everyone should keep in mind that anything posted to this forum becomes public knowledge and easily found through google.

Excellent. I assume this means "meritudinous" willl soon be in widespread public usage. I can hardly wait; the royalties should be immense.

-k

[Greg]

This is a good forum, perhaps the best in English-Canada.  For better or worse, it is now more apparently in the "public eye".  Greg, IMV, you have every right to ban a poster - but please warn before you ban.

Thanks August!

There are always plently of warnings before I take action such as banning a poster. The only exception to this is if the posters does something extremely above and beyond the acceptable level of discussion ie. death threats, etc.

If you have any questions or comments related to the moderation of this forum, please feel free to email or PM me anytime,

Cheers,

Greg

Admin

[Tawasakm]

If you have any questions or comments related to the moderation of this forum, please feel free to email or PM me anytime

Or perhaps start a thread in support or questions? Picking an example at random... one could start a thread asking what the requirements regarding sources and the providing of evidence may be. On the other hand that may not work so well.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dera Tawasakm,

I am afraid that this is out of the hands of the moderator, and must be solved by the posters. In my opinion, the poster should be expected to provide evidence of claims only if questioned or asked to do so, unless they wish to stave off future questioning by posting the source in the fiirst place. If someone gives a rebuttal, then he/she should provide evidence to the contrary. This is purely etiquette, mind you, for this is pretty much an opinion forum only. If anyone makes spurious claims with no evidence, then that poster probably should be ignored.

The moderator simply wouldn't have time to verify claims or opinions on this site, and therefore can't really take a stand on the matter, unless a poster was making outrageous claims that were obviously 'trolling (holocaust denial, for example), in which case simply reporting the post is all anyone could do.

[kimmy]

Dera Tawasakm,

I am afraid that this is out of the hands of the moderator, and must be solved by the posters. In my opinion, the poster should be expected to provide evidence of claims only if questioned or asked to do so, unless they wish to stave off future questioning by posting the source in the fiirst place. If someone gives a rebuttal, then he/she should provide evidence to the contrary. This is purely etiquette, mind you, for this is pretty much an opinion forum only.  If anyone makes spurious claims with no evidence, then that poster probably should be ignored.

The moderator simply wouldn't have time to verify claims or opinions on this site, and therefore can't really take a stand on the matter, unless a poster was making outrageous claims that were obviously 'trolling (holocaust denial, for example), in which case simply reporting the post is all anyone could do.

This is well-said, Fleabag, and I agree completely. Individual situations will always dictate such things. If someone asks me to believe something completely ludicrous (like, say, "Apocalyptic Pentacostals are taking over North Africa!") I will certainly not believe them without being shown cold hard evidence. If I'm going to present claims that I know people are going to dispute, I usually make some effort to have my information checked out beforehand so that I can defend my views. I think that if you're writing a report for your professor, you'll have an idea of which claims you'll need to footnote with supporting documentation.

-k

[Tawasakm]

Dear All,

And where did I ask for increased moderation? I asked for a clarification of the rules and guidelines which is a completely different thing. I would also point out that Greg PROMISED TO DO SO and never did. Which is why I raise this point.

[Tawasakm]

I quote this from Dec 2 2004, 06:41 PM

I apologize for not responding quicker to this thread.

I have however, read over everyone's opinions, which I think have been extremely positive and useful, and will be responding in more detail in the coming days. The workload involved with MLW and Policy.ca, along with the looming deadlines of my Masters thesis, have been increasingly heavy of late, so please understand that I appreciate everyone's opinions and I would like to provide a detailed and well thought-out response.

You all deserve as much,

Cheers,

Greg

Admin

Emphasis mine.

Maybe people think I'm being a stickler but I do think I was patient before making a point of it. I also realise that 'promise' is too strong a term.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

My apologies, yet again, for not being clear. I did not mean to imply that you were after the moderator to sort out things...

And where did I ask for increased moderation?

but I can understand how you would draw that conclusion from

I am afraid that this is out of the hands of the moderator,

.

Perhaps I could have said, "I, like you, wish that there were more specific rules (though they could only be 'rules of thumb') and guidelines regarding sources of information, but I fear that enforcement of such a policy commitment would be beyond the reasonable means and time constraints of any moderator". (or some other such blather, but hey, blathering is my forte).

[Guest eureka]

It would help, too, if posters did not exaggerate the claims(?) that they are responding to (Kimmy).

I told you where to find that information and I believe that Harpers magazine is just about the most credible source in the USA.

The other one about climate warming: you could find it in a Guardian/Observer issue of May last year. It has also been in the Press several times since I posted.

Since those "claims" have been publically addressed many times since, I would think that common knowledge would suffice for information. Much as a Court would take "Judicial Notice" of something that is known and indisputable.

One thing that becomes tiresome in imternet discussions is that it seems that most cannot believe in the idea that others may have some knowledge. Facts are only to be believed when they are posted on some Web site. The same applies to what may even be Primary source material of a Poster.

[kimmy]

If I recall, when I challenged you to provide documentation for what seemed like a fantastical claim, you clarified that they were merely a fast-growing group, then gave me a citation so vague that it would have taken me a full day to find the article to determine to what extent it supported your claims.

All of this in the context of a discussion where you said I was too ignorant to be allowed to vote because I assumed that your mention of dangerous religious fundamentalists was a reference to radical Muslims and not Apocalyptic Pentacostals.

Probably an excellent example of the sort of attitude that has irritated Tawasakm.

-k

[Guest eureka]

I don't think you are correct in your recollection. I did not say that the Pentecostals are merely a fast growing group: I said what I said. In my recollection, the article said that they claimed 400 million members worldwide but that it was probably an exaggeration and that there were more likely half that number. Still a huge and the fastest growing religious organizarion.

It also described how they and the Wahabis had become a parallel government in some North African cities; actually a government by default. The city of example was, I think, Morrocco.

I also told you that the artticle was in a back issue of Harpers some time last year. That copy I said I would look for but I do not have it since I give my copies away after a little time. But it is there.

The other piece on the Pentagon's study of climate change where it forecast global disaster; global war and a few other pleasant times in the quite near future was reported in the Guardian as I told you. Since I posted that, there have been numerous press references to the study so it should not be necessary to "link" it to one who is media oriented.

As for what I am supposed to have said about your ignorance, I, quite obviously did not. I never talk of any one that way. I suggest that you must have mislaid your sense of hulour in reading whatever it was that I said.

If I am irritating Tawaskasm, that is too bad. T. is an intelligent and thoughtful poster but inclined to want everything explained and linked.

I rarely use the Internet for research and I am not going to spend my life doing so to satisfy those kinds of demands for support. I post what I know and have spent considerable effort in acquiring the information over the years. These discussions are just that; discussions and not a class research project.

I never have on any occasion posted misinformation about anything. If I know something, I will post that. Or, I will argue about almost anything without demanding evidence for things that do not obviously need evidence.