-4

This is the chatroom:

The Garden of Eden

This is the remark:

...have you seen the latest heresy video posted by Veritasium on YouTube? To think he's supposed have a PhD in physics education really makes me wonder about the education faculty in Australia; but then again, Norman Wildberger is from there also.

2
  • 6
    You're aware that fifteen days elapsed between the posting of that remark and the freezing of the chatroom, right? How do you know for certain that the two events were related? – F1Krazy Nov 17 '20 at 15:44
  • 2
    Note that his was also asked on SE-meta meta.stackexchange.com/questions/356755/… so not much point in moving the question somewhere else. – Fizz Nov 17 '20 at 16:39
8

Your premise seems to be that I am a one-eyed supporter of the Australian Education system that I so often champion and will stop at no lengths to protect it from a harsh attack.

Well, when I say "often champion", it is a topic I don't think I have ever mentioned on this site before, except perhaps anecdotally in chats about the different systems.

Well, okay, not a harsh attack, but a weak subjective argument extrapolating from two anecdotes.

Well, okay, not any lengths. I wouldn't go too far. I wouldn't delete the comment, delete the room, suspend the user, or anything that extreme! But I would certainly freeze the room two weeks later! That will show them, and protect my beloved education system (well, educations systems, because they are state-based in Australia!)

This is such an egregious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and lazy insult that I am having great trouble imagining it hasn't been posted in an attempt to provoke me, but what it actually provoked was a huge belly laugh.


As I explained to you in chart already:

This chat room was created about 3 months ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with Skeptics. It appears the creator was trying to avoid visibility from users and mods of sites it was related to. In fact, some of the topics discussed were an anathema to the Skeptics ethos. Normally, we are fairly relaxed about what is discussed in the chat. I gave it little thought, because I thought it would die out and disappear. However, two things happened. Artificial efforts were made to stop the room from being naturally frozen when the conversation died. And it appears that it has been confusing users into thinking it is the main chat room, and posting in there rather than here in the Hub of Reason. For that reason, I decided that it was time to help the room and its lapsed conversation into the archives.

So, if you are looking for the actual triggers: it was this and this.


Meanwhile, if you are looking for actual posts in that chat that I object to, I'll give you some freebies to help you:

I was unimpressed by the religious test placed in the description and at the beginning. Skeptics.SE is welcoming to people of all religions, not just those with a bible. Importantly, it is also welcoming to people who do not have a religion, who are disproportionately represented in the Skeptics community.

I was unimpressed that the room was being used to drag experts reluctantly into personal conversations to satisfy one user's personal curiosities rather than using the appropriate sites to let them answer questions for everyone.

But this isn't again the Code of Conduct or any limitations that the community has agreed on, so I didn't act.

12
  • 2
    Your last paragraph is very much illogical, toh don’t know what happened between me and Calvin, so don’t just assume what you see. – Knight admires Chappo Nov 18 '20 at 5:19
  • 1
    @KnightadmiresChappo: That was one example of several. – Oddthinking Nov 18 '20 at 5:30
  • 1
    @Oddthinking - Yeah , I thought Garden Of Eden" is the main chat-room , so I posted there , you made an exact guess.Btw thanks I will surely visit "Hub of Reason" frequently since I am the great fan of skeptics SE. – SwiftPushkar Nov 18 '20 at 12:00
  • 1
    Just to add a slightly different perspective, the mods had discussed this room shortly after its advent, and found no issues other than it being odd. Finding that it's been confused for Skeptics main chat while also naturally dying is reason enough for its closing. – fredsbend Nov 18 '20 at 18:37
  • 1
    Now that I've thought about it, I think I'd like to propose a tighter scope on skeptics chat rooms. They should either have a direct relation to a specific post on skeptics, be about the site, or general skeptical pursuits. I don't like the events following this aberration and would very much like to prevent it in the future. – fredsbend Nov 18 '20 at 20:30
  • 1
    @fredsbend: When you have a proposal, let's take it to a separate Meta question and get some community approval. – Oddthinking Nov 19 '20 at 3:19
  • Well, the room was first opened in August 2020. I imagine that was the reason why the OP thought it odd that it should be closed without any explanation. chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/112109/2020/8/22 Why not add an explanation for its closure. Why not apologise instead of mocking a user in front of others? The question is asking "why" the room was closed, I did not read it as an attack against you. – Mari-Lou A Nov 24 '20 at 12:23
  • Your premise seems to be that I am a one-eyed supporter of the Australian Education system that I so often champion and will stop at no lengths to protect it from a harsh attack. Really? Where exactly? So no one can ask why a chat room was suddenly closed after 3 months? – Mari-Lou A Nov 24 '20 at 12:27
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA: "Why not add an explanation for its closure." I did, both in chat and repeated here. – Oddthinking Nov 24 '20 at 13:38
  • @Mari-LouA: "I did not read it as an attack against you" Probably because you didn't notice the edits that others made to the original question, before it was migrated here (and similarly on Meta.SE) after the OP offensively tried to imply that I froze the room because of my nationality. – Oddthinking Nov 24 '20 at 13:41
  • I didn't see any edit history, and thus presumed it was the original post. Please accept my apology. – Mari-Lou A Nov 24 '20 at 16:22
  • "I did, both in chat and repeated here" I meant when the room was closed, you provided the explanation here, when the closure was challenged. Explaining that the room was dying on its feet and its content bore little relevance to the site would, I imagine, have been enough. – Mari-Lou A Nov 24 '20 at 16:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .