He is actually way more uptight than most people here, but he hides it. He doesn't hesitate to report posts that offend his ideals or at least the ideals he pretends to have.
I'd need to see evidence of that, and also hear an explaination from Baron. Since Baron is so fond of pointing out hypocrisy in others, I suspect that he may report posts simply to see if the moderation is as zealous in applying the rules to posters other than him. From what I have seen, once you're on the shit list, you are targeted. It's essentially a downward spiral.
I know of at least two occasions where he reported my replies for ageist statements that I made against him. Fortunately, none of the moderators cared.
Yes, I've seen several posters attack Max on the basis of his age. Do you think that is acceptable?
I believe most do. Most people on the board are open-minded enough that they can be persuaded to alter their beliefs even a little based upon the statements of others, especially when those statements originate from others who already hold similar ideals as they do.
I recently made a poll which suggests that a significant proportion of the membership (40+%) have NEVER persuaded people to alter their beliefs on sciforums.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98816
As such, I'd argue that it's more than just Baron Max and S.A.M who are being inflexible. Indeed, I'd have to conclude that the very environment of a public debate forum is not conducive to productive discussion. So when people complain about 'trolls' refusing to concede a point or engaging in posturing, all I can think is 'what do you expect?'
I've also noticed a trend where those who complain about the inflexibility of posters have a tendency to attack those who have the audacity to disagree with them. So it shouldn't come as any surprise to them that the poster won't be bullied, harassed and belittled into conceding a point, even if they are in the wrong.
As James R has shown, baron is not interested in critical thinking or opposing views.
Of course Baron is interested in opposing views. He's always putting them forward!
He will simply reiterate debunked points over and over and over in order to maintain his image.
You're describing a fair proportion of people on sci.
And worse: baron trolls with no agenda of logical argumentation.
I don't agree. Sometimes Baron offers up sound logic. Sometimes he offers up shit logic. Sometimes he engages in hyperbole and conflates another poster's views. Sometimes he's right on the money and catches them being inconsistent. Some of his posts are crap. Some of them ain't.
The other agenda pushers that you are talking about are actually trying to make a point.
As is Baron. Sometimes his points are utter crock and based on fallicious logic and hyperbole, but he's still trying to make a point.
Max on the other hand is a persona non grata who never posts anything scientific
From memory, Baron has posted in the science subforums. And even if he does not post anything scientific, why should he? Can't he simply express his opinions and criticise the views of others without being censured?
I imagine that if you visit Max's real life house, you will find nobody living there except for an old and probably overweight slob sitting at his computer nude and surrounded by an absurd number of cats.
No wonder he reported you.
