the many flavors of science

This thread started off as "should we have a biodynamic forum?" and now it does not contain the discussion I wanted.  So I renamed the thread.

-----------

I wonder if there might be interest in a forum for biodynamic stuff.

I'm not much into biodynamic stuff, but several people that I very much respect are.  And it seems like there is enough cross pollination between the two, that it could be worthwhile to have a forum here dedicated to it.

Based on what I have written elsewhere you can guess how I feel about it, and I'll leave it at that for now in the interest of diplomacy.

My thinking is that it would not be FOR you two.  It would be a forum that the two of you would probably skip over. 

At the same time, maybe we have several people that would enjoy it and find great value.    And then as they talk about that sort of thing, I suppose there would be less of that sort of thing in the other forums - because they have a place to talk about that.

Suppose that a large-ish biodynamic community grew here.  And then those folks wanted to also talk about green building, or alternative energy projects, or organic living .... 

I'm thinking it has a lot of potential for the folks that groove on biodynamic, and for the folks that don't.    But, the first step is to see if we have enough people to talk about that sort of thing at all.  Enough to bother with having a forum.

I think a lot of biodynamic stuff works, but probably not for the reasons it's practitioners think it does.  I think it would be a very productive area to attempt to figure out which aspects work, and why, and embrace those aspects as part of the 'permaculture toolkit'.  I suspect a lot of the reason it works is because you get to spend a lot of time communing with nature and planning out when you are going to do stuff, so you bond with the land, observe what's going on a lot more, and when you follow a plan you actually get round to doing it rather than putting it off. 

One thing that really grabbed my attention was the way water could be purified by pouring it along a flow-form (is that the right name - my memory is awful).  It is claimed that you can pour stinking filthy water along this thing and it will smell sweet by the end.  It also turns out that the shape of this thing slows down the flow and aerates the water completely, which would have the effect of eliminating smelly, partially broken down organic matter.  It just seemed to me like whoever had discovered the effect had discovered something really useful but hadn't got the science bit right.

And it seems to me now that there are almost certainly a whole load more things out there which are being used very successfully, but the science of it isn't known.  Yet. 

So from my own viewpoint, I'd say that there is a place for a biodynamic forum, but I bet it's going to lead to trouble before it leads to insights.  Unless we all tread very carefully and aim to learn from each other and not to bash each other or belittle each others belief systems. 

Burra Maluca wrote:
I think a lot of biodynamic stuff works, but probably not for the reasons it's practitioners think it does.  I think it would be a very productive area to attempt to figure out which aspects work, and why, and embrace those aspects as part of the 'permaculture toolkit'. 

I would be interested in learning more about those aspects.

Let us briefly examine an example of the strong form of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible. The logical positivists maintained that the meaning of a (non-analytic) statement consisted entirely in the predictions it made about possible experience. They maintained, further, that metaphysical statements (which were obviously not put forward as analytic truths) made no predictions about experience. Therefore, they concluded, metaphysical statements are meaningless—or, better, the ‘statements’ we classify as metaphysical are not really statements at all: they are things that look like statements but aren't, rather as mannequins are things that look like human beings but aren't.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#MetPos

Quote from Burra Maluca

I think a lot of biodynamic stuff works, but probably not for the reasons it's practitioners think it does.  I think it would be a very productive area to attempt to figure out which aspects work, and why, and embrace those aspects as part of the 'permaculture toolkit'.  I suspect a lot of the reason it works is because you get to spend a lot of time communing with nature and planning out when you are going to do stuff, so you bond with the land, observe what's going on a lot more, and when you follow a plan you actually get round to doing it rather than putting it off.

I agree completely with Burra.

Learning more about something and deciding I don't want to do it is still learning.  The metaphysical part is something I've never looked into until I googled the above quote.  Burying a cow horn filled with quartz for a year and then spreading it over a field is ...interesting.

All of the biodynamic folks I have met have been very accepting of permaculture techniques and of permaculturalists.

The only hostility I have seen has been permaculture folk being hostile to biodynamic folks that think biodynamic is too woo woo:  "HEY!  What you're doing is STUPID!"  and I have seen permaculture folk being hostile to other permaculture folk:  "Hey!  You didn't sing the permaculture song MY WAY so you can't call what you do permaculture!"  I don't like this kind of hostility at all.

I like the idea of having a farm right next door to a biodynamic farm and seeing the practices that go on next door and how it works for them.  I would like to be next door to Brian Kerkvliet or Jacqueline Freeman.  I'm sure I will learn a great deal.

I like the idea that there is a spiritual element to what they do.  It could turn out to be that they are right.

As for the tone of science on this site.   For every moment I see of what I think of as "good science", I have seen two where science was used as an inappropriate weapon.  And I have probably only deleted about half of it.

Frankly, maybe the site could use a healthy dose of woo woo to help set a better pace and I should ban more of the science-as-weapon folks.

paul wheaton wrote:
All of the biodynamic folks I have met have been very accepting of permaculture techniques and of permaculturalists.

The only hostility I have seen has been permaculture folk being hostile to biodynamic folks that think biodynamic is too woo woo:  "HEY!  What you're doing is STUPID!"  and I have seen permaculture folk being hostile to other permaculture folk:  "Hey!  You didn't sing the permaculture song MY WAY so you can't call what you do permaculture!"  I don't like this kind of hostility at all.

I like the idea of having a farm right next door to a biodynamic farm and seeing the practices that go on next door and how it works for them.  I would like to be next door to Brian Kerkvliet or Jacqueline Freeman.  I'm sure I will learn a great deal.

I like the idea that there is a spiritual element to what they do.  It could turn out to be that they are right.

As for the tone of science on this site.   For every moment I see of what I think of as "good science", I have seen two where science was used as an inappropriate weapon.  And I have probably only deleted about half of it.

Frankly, maybe the site could use a healthy dose of woo woo to help set a better pace and I should ban more of the science-as-weapon folks.

Then why did you even bother to ask?

paul wheaton wrote:
As for the tone of science on this site.   For every moment I see of what I think of as "good science", I have seen two where science was used as an inappropriate weapon.  And I have probably only deleted about half of it.

Frankly, maybe the site could use a healthy dose of woo woo to help set a better pace and I should ban more of the science-as-weapon folks.

I am assuming that I am the biggest offender of "science as a weapon" so I'm guessing that my words aren't going to count for much here, but I think that you are viewing it wrong. Science is a tool, just like math is a tool (you like math don't you?). If Bob the poster makes an empirically testable claim part of his identity, say that chickens will die with out soy in their diet, and Alan the poster comes along with an anecdote that shows that chickens can survive with out soy (and this is the sort of question that can be answered pretty conclusively with an anecdote) or Steve the poster brings a science study of chickens on various diets either way Bob is going to feel like he has been attacked. It's not what Steve or Alan have done, it's the fact that Bob invested too heavily in something he shouldn't have.

If you reject science, you hand over the public perception of the truth not to the people who are yielding to reality, but to the people who make open honest discussion most difficult. A good conversation should be about finding what is right, not who is right, if everyone has an open mind then no one gets in trouble for bringing evidence to bare on the situation.

gary gregory wrote:
Then why did you even bother to ask?

Apparently, I have interests that are are different than yours.

but I think that you are viewing it wrong.

I am viewing it wrong for your site.

It turns out that for my site, my view is perfect and without flaw.  

Since this is about my site, then you have just made it very clear that you don't belong here.  Your choice is the same as always, Emerson:  find a way to be here on my terms, or leave.

Science is a tool, just like math is a tool

And a gun is a tool.  And a sword is a tool.

If Bob the poster makes an empirically testable claim part of his identity, say that chickens will die with out soy in their diet, and Alan the poster comes along with an anecdote that shows that chickens can survive with out soy (and this is the sort of question that can be answered pretty conclusively with an anecdote) or Steve the poster brings a science study of chickens on various diets either way Bob is going to feel like he has been attacked. It's not what Steve or Alan have done, it's the fact that Bob invested too heavily in something he shouldn't have.

Yes, I know.  You prefer an adversarial approach to science.  Which is not okay on my site.  Just because you want it to be so over and over doesn't mean I am ever going to cave.

If you reject science, you hand over the public perception of the truth not to the people who are yielding to reality, but to the people who make open honest discussion most difficult. A good conversation should be about finding what is right, not who is right, if everyone has an open mind then no one gets in trouble for bringing evidence to bare on the situation

.

I don't reject science.  I don't think anybody here does.  I think that your statement suggests that somebody on permies.com rejects science.  Which I don't think is true.  I think that this suggests that somebody on permies.com (maybe me) is less than perfect.  And that is not acceptable.  

Today could be your last day here at permies.com, Emerson.  I suggest that you choose your next words very carefully.  In fact, I think the odds that today is your last day is now about 90%.  But you've been to this point about six times before.

You think you are enlightening me.  You're not.  You're annoying me.  I spent a huge part of my corporate whore career trying to get scientists and engineers to move forward instead of having their ongoing conflicting god complexes.  I have seen a thousand flavors of bullshit slung at others in the name of "good science" or "the truth" or "uncontestable fact".  The bottom line is that such fallacy takes 20 times longer to unravel than to sling.  

And, at the same time, there are lots of people that seem to REALLY understand science - but they generally don't go on and on about "the truth", "good science" or "uncontestable fact".  Those people were the people I could work with and count on for progress.   Frankly, I'm sick of listening to bullshit with a coat of "the truth" on it and having my stuff inappropriately challenged.

As for good conversation involving open minds:  I agree with that.  I find it interesting that you feel the need to point that out to me.  It's as if you think I don't already subscribe to that.

I believe that a good open conversation can be beneficial to many.  A closer tie with nature could certainly help all of our plots.  My limited interactions with biodynamics advocates, however has not been very pleasant.  They seemed to come as the missionaries did...not to improve, but to convert.  It might be interesting to see how it pans out, but I would hate to see it evolve into a situation where it became "us" vs "them".  I have seen forums turn ugly when somebody mentioned spraying his trees to save them and the organic growers turned on him as if he was the devil.

I am not saying that it's wrong for your site, I'm saying that it doesn't fit with the broader reality.

Science is not adversarial, thought the practice of it does involve some harsh scrutiny. I am not advocating for adversarial relationships, when you let go of positions and do not make them personal then someone pointing to a flaw in your position is not an act of an adversarial nature, it's an act of working together, which is why I'm here, to work together to explore the topic of sustainable agriculture. I bring a lot of information not just about what science has found, but also about the way that science is done, the way that we should do science, and the ways that we fool ourselves. This information is valuable, and according to my email and PM box it is valued, though the public reception in the open feels kinda like that scene from Blazing saddles at times.

John Polk wrote:
My limited interactions with biodynamics advocates, however has not been very pleasant.  They seemed to come as the missionaries did...not to improve, but to convert.  It might be interesting to see how it pans out, but I would hate to see it evolve into a situation where it became "us" vs "them".  I have seen forums turn ugly when somebody mentioned spraying his trees to save them and the organic growers turned on him as if he was the devil.

I see your point.  I can see something like that happening. 

I think I've driven off most of the hostile permies ("sing my permaculture song or your can't call it permaculture!").  I'm thinking that there could be a variety of the biodynamic folks that would be a fit for here.  Folks that we can get along with.  Frankly, I like the idea of them pollinating a lot of our discussions.

Emerson White wrote:
I am not saying that it's wrong for your site, I'm saying that it doesn't fit with the broader reality.

Science is not adversarial, thought the practice of it does involve some harsh scrutiny. I am not advocating for adversarial relationships, when you let go of positions and do not make them personal then someone pointing to a flaw in your position is not an act of an adversarial nature, it's an act of working together, which is why I'm here, to work together to explore the topic of sustainable agriculture. I bring a lot of information not just about what science has found, but also about the way that science is done, the way that we should do science, and the ways that we fool ourselves. This information is valuable, and according to my email and PM box it is valued, though the public reception in the open feels kinda like that scene from Blazing saddles at times.

And you hit the nail on the head. 

you:  I think you are viewing it wrong.

me:  my view is right for this site.  if you wanna stay you need to do things my way.

you:  I think you are still viewing it wrong.

me:  bye.

The real clincher was that you had emails and PMs from folks supporting you.  That sent a chill down my spine.  I think you should take your wisdom and create a site that competes with permies. Something that "fits with the broader reality."  Hopefully, the people sending you PMs and emails will go to your new site.

I like science, and I realize that many things known today wll be archaic in a few years.       
What I don't like is the absolute view some take that science is all good, or that current science should go unchallenged. Once you go to prove something there is an element of adversary there
Questioning science or anything is how we learn and discover.

Science does not "prove" things.  It attempts to.  A scientist may come up with a new theory, and publish his work.  His peers immediately jump into the fracas, some trying to validate his work, while others trying to discredit it.  After a given time, his theory is either accepted as true, or debunked.  Maybe a generation later, new knowledge comes along, or better tools for evaluating previous studies.  New research goes into the project, and quite often turns his "truth" into "We used to believe..."


I worked for 7 years on a research vessel.  Saw many scientists, of many flavors.  Some were hard working, dedicated scholars.  Some were there strictly for the grant money, or worse yet, their egos.

As I understand it, science develops theories which are either robust or not robust.  I don't know if "truth" is actually a factor in science these days.  Scientific theories are always provisional.

Science doesn't seem to be able to explain or provide robust theories for everything experienced by humans, as far as I can tell.  At least not so far.  Of course it might in the future. 

Polk
Your post is in the right spirit,but contains my favorite wrong idea. Science can prove nothing because by design what the scientific meathod does is test models. Just because a model works does not  mean that it is truth.

But! Science does a good job at finding the flaws in a bad model. Because of this it is the business of researchers to propose an idea then try like hell to prove themselves wrong.

Brice Moss wrote:
Because of this it is the business of researchers to propose an idea then try like hell to prove themselves wrong.

Scientists are humans and so this ideal is sometimes not achieved by individual scientists, and sometimes perhaps not even by the scientific community!    I'm sure a lot of folks have their pet theories, which is why it is possible to find "scientific documentation" supporting opposite conclusions.    From my own personal point of view, science seems to provide explanations for a lot of things which aren't well explained by other methods.  Doesn't mean the scientific explanation is "the truth."  If there is "truth" it may not even be understandable by the human brain - I tend to think the universe and whatever if anything is outside or beyond the universe is probably too big for our mortal minds to entirely grasp. 

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
Scientists are humans and so this ideal is sometimes not achieved by individual scientists, and sometimes perhaps not even by the scientific community!     I'm sure a lot of folks have their pet theories, which is why it is possible to find "scientific documentation" supporting opposite conclusions.     From my own personal point of view, science seems to provide explanations for a lot of things which aren't well explained by other methods.  Doesn't mean the scientific explanation is "the truth."  If there is "truth" it may not even be understandable by the human brain - I tend to think the universe and whatever if anything is outside or beyond the universe is probably too big for our mortal minds to entirely grasp.   

Excellent post, Ludi. 

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
Doesn't mean the scientific explanation is "the truth."  If there is "truth" it may not even be understandable by the human brain

Thank you Ludi,  You've just explained without any 'college' words exactly why the longest lasting and best supported scientific models are called theories rather than capital  'T' truth. do you mind if I stash your whole post there forfuture use because itts often terribly difficult to explain to someone how I can know that the notions they are forwarding are bunk but can't assert that I know the truth.

my favorite philosophy proff Doc. Spencer would sum it up saying "the history of science is a long list of bad ideas we have eliminated"

Thank you and please be my guest. 

@ Brice.  If you reread my post, I started off saying:  "Science does not prove anything.  It attempts to."

This is a good read to learn how true scientific research is accomplished.

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119529&WT.mc_id=USNSF_1

I'm going to quote someone who used to be more active on these forums who wrote to me something I thought was brilliant about biodynamic methods and folklore versus science:

an example of what I'm talking about. Biodynamics has a 'recipe' for a soil amendment where you take manure, pack it into a bulls horn, liberally soak it with urine, then bury it on the full moon and then dig it up on the next full moon. (i'm simplifying the recipe for sake of brevity). On surface this looks like alchemical goofiness with a liberal helping of hocus pocus.

But, being me, I started examining and looking for the nugget of truth in it that would lead to the results they were claiming about increased soil fertility and biological activity. First I thought it was just the fact that they were amending manure into the soil and had created a rube goldbergian process to just make that more difficult. But then I started really looking at what each part would bring to the mix if translated to our cultural context.

manure packed into a horn = organic matter packed into an unsealed water-proof container

buried on a full moon, dug up on the next full moon =  for a culture without a calendar, using the moons as a marker of time would make complete sense. this would translate to just bury for 4 weeks

soak it in urine = adding a nitrogen rich nutrient that is also an antiseptic, which would kill/reduce any potentially bad biological activity already present in the manure, cow horn, or in the handling and creating a clean canvas for introduced bacteria, microbes, and fungi

Burying it = once sterilized by the urine, you'd need to 'cure' it in biologically active soil to re-introduce the bacteria and fungi that are healthy for soil.

since you have a container packed with rich organic matter and soaked with a nutrient rich solution, you basically create a biological hyper accelerator that allows the soil microbes to flourish and go nuts in a semi-protected environment for 4 weeks.  So it's not really hocus pocus, it's science...just no one's bothered to update the language.

Once I started realizing that and doing some basic translations, I started looking at the traditional storehouses of information in both the pacific northwest cultures as well as my own celtic heritage.  There is a vast treasure trove out there, just waiting to be translated and it's information put back into use.  That whole 3 million year history of pre-agricultural trial and error exists in legends, lore, and festivals/ceremonies. We just need to decypher them

I'm wondering about the importance placed on doing it on the full moon in the modern context, when we have calendars to keep track of time.  I have a feeling, but don't know for a fact, that it would be very important to Biodynamicists that one bury and dig up on the full moon, even though it is only necessary to leave it in the ground for a month.  The problem with some folkloric kinds of information is that practical aspects of it such as using to moon phases to keep track of time get lost in translation and the moon phase itself becomes important, not that it is a way of keeping track of time but because of some "energetic" property of the moon. 

Right, Ludi. We have farmers almanacs that are all about planting or harvesting at different moon phases, too, so I agree that there could be more to the moon phases than just a random four weeks.

I just like the idea of pointing out that there could be some science-based or translatable benefits behind what might otherwise be considered folkloric methods.

There is a lot that we still don't know.

I just want to clarify that I personally don't know or believe there are special energetic properties to moon phases which would affect the growth of bacteria and fungi.  Just that it seems evident some people believe there are special properties.    In my opinion it needs to be studied more before we can claim "this is science."  Just because it looks somewhat plausibly sciencey doesn't mean it's actually based on science.   

Jocelyn Campbell wrote:
I'm going to quote someone who used to be more active on these forums who wrote to me something I thought was brilliant about biodynamic methods and folklore versus science:

Now we're getting somewhere.    Those observations you quoted are the basis for what we do.    Observing,trial and error, etc.     Lots of folklore and "old wives tales" is spot on and I do a lot of it in my life.   I think we are all quite capable of figuring out what works for ourselves.

IF, by chance, someone wanted to find out which microbes,chemical reactions,ect,etc,etc, went on inside that horn to create all that wonderfulness they could do a scientific study to TRY to find out more about the process.    

Large corporations use the word "SCIENCE" like a big flyswatter to quash questions and suggestions so they can control their market share.   That is not science but greed and has caused a lot of disrespect for the scientific community.

The article I quoted is a good example of science for the sake of discovery and nothing else.   What some corporation or other entity does with that information might not be truly science.    

What I can say as ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that I will spend part of the day in our garden sitting on my comfortable garden bench with Van Morrison turned up as loud as possible.

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
I just want to clarify that I personally don't know or believe there are special energetic properties to moon phases which would affect the growth of bacteria and fungi.  Just that it seems evident some people believe there are special properties.    In my opinion it needs to be studied more before we can claim "this is science."  Just because it looks somewhat plausibly sciencey doesn't mean it's actually based on science.   

Since this is the tinkering forum, I feel it is important for me to say:

1)  I think it is totally okay for somebody to say that they plant by the moon and that they think it is best. 

2)  I think it is totally okay for somebody to say that they don't worry about moon phase and they plant based on the calendar, or when the crocus blossoms have opened, based on average last frost date, or research that suggests a particular date or time,  or for any or no reason - and they think that is best.

3)  I think it is not okay for anybody to say that anything in 1 or 2 is anything less than "the best" for those folks that think it is the best.  A person can stand by their position as their position as long as they don't suggest that their position is universally better for all.  A person can try to learn more about he position of another.  And a person can respectfully attempt to persuade.

4)  Along with what Ludi said:  I really don't want to see any more stuff about how one person's science can beat up another person's science. 

5)  I think it is fair to present research as a basis for one person's position. 

6)  It is inappropriate on this site to present research to "debunk" somebody else's position.

gary gregory wrote:

What I can say as ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that I will spend part of the day in our garden sitting on my comfortable garden bench with Van Morrison turned up as loud as possible.

I propose that science is inadequate to explain why you do so! 

compounding hunches:



Part of the mission of the forums is to move us, not just to permaculture, but beyond permaculture.

I think there are some people that enhance the velocity to beyond permaculture.

And I think there are some people that impede the velocity to beyond permaculture.

And I think there are some people that have a different direction which seems, to me, to be going backwards.  A reverse velocity, if you will.

Since my goal is to nurture this forward velocity, it seems to be wise to remove the roadblocks.

Since my goal is to nurture this forward velocity, it seems to be wise to remove the roadblocks.

Let me try to re-phrase that in how I think I understand it.

So even though folks try to follow your guidelines and enjoy participating in the forums you will still ban them on a hunch that they are not moving your personal agenda forward fast enough?

gary gregory wrote:
Let me try to re-phrase that in how I think I understand it.

So even though folks try to follow your guidelines and enjoy participating in the forums you will still ban them on a hunch that they are not moving your personal agenda forward fast enough?

That's not the way I interpreted it. 

I watched that video almost determined to not like it - and then I recognised in it something that felt very familiar but I'd never really got my head around before.  Lots of people have ideas.  But they are often incomplete.  Finding that missing piece of the puzzle is difficult unless you are regularly exposed to lots of other ideas.  When you do stumble on that moment, I know from experience that it really can be like a eureka moment, but you can wait years for it and then it comes from somewhere and someone totally unexpected.  But finding those pieces when they are buried in arguments about why those ideas can't possibly be right is all but impossible as it's too burdonsome to plow through endless rhetoric when all you want is to to be exposed to zillions of pieces that your subconscious meticulously tests for fit against the rest of the puzzle you've managed to piece together. 

Hopefully, if you piece your puzzle together, you share it around in case your puzzle was the bit that someone else was looking for.  And slowly we all do our bit to put together new and exciting pictures. 

I think Paul is saying that he doesn't really want people who post stuff that smothers potential new pieces of the puzzle.  But he does want anyone with any interesting pieces to put them where they can be seen and tried out by everyone else.

gary gregory wrote:
Let me try to re-phrase that in how I think I understand it.

So even though folks try to follow your guidelines and enjoy participating in the forums you will still ban them on a hunch that they are not moving your personal agenda forward fast enough?

Close.

If I think they are impeding my personal agenda.  

I want a place where when I visit with folks I can mix my ideas with their ideas and come up with even better ideas.  

Some folks are just hell bent on a direction that is contrary to my direction.  They do seem to have fun on my forums, but they suck a lot of the fun out for me.  

Let me be clear: me.  me. me. me.

Some folks grove on this environment.  This site is for those folks.

Some folks say it has to be "for everybody" or they have some other idea on how it should be.  Those folks need to go somewhere else.  

About 90% of the conversations that go on here, I don't care about.  But those conversations are a style that I'm okay with.  And those people are my kind of people.  So the community moves forward into awesomeness without me.  

And then there are conversations that are going on that I do care about.  And those are an excellent growth space for me.   Hot diggity!

I predict that only 1 person in 20,000 is a fit for this site.  That means that 19,999 would be happier to go somewhere else.  

It's been weird how there are so many people that seem to groove on my arrogance and obnoxiousness.  So my plan is to stick to it and have fun!

Burra Maluca wrote:
I think Paul is saying that he doesn't really want people who post stuff that smothers potential new pieces of the puzzle.  But he does want anyone with any interesting pieces to put them where they can be seen and tried out by everyone else.

I like that. 

Many cultures have practiced very unscientific realities and created paridise/permi like landscapes.I might not groove on ritualized esoteric practices,but I have no doubt ,the intention put forth through such activites produces results.Reality is what you can get away with.I agree that we should be pushing the boundries of sustainability here regardless of its adherence to standard protocol.

It's been weird how there are so many people that seem to groove on my arrogance and obnoxiousness. 

wow!  Yes, I agree.  And what a huge responsibility it becomes to keep them happy and still wield your sword of banishment in a way that does not eliminate the ones whose hunches could complete the virtual paradise you seek.

gary gregory wrote:
wow!   Yes, I agree.   And what a huge responsibility it becomes to keep them happy and still wield your sword of banishment in a way that does not eliminate the ones whose hunches could complete the virtual paradise you seek.

It is usually not an easy decision.  With some of these i have spent a year trying to find an alternative to banning.  then a lot of weighing the ups and downs.  And the deluge of people emailing me saying "ban him - he's ruining everything". 

It is a dirty job.  Each person banned surely feels a great deal of venom towards me.  And each person surely has friends that will also feel venom towards me.  These decisions are not made lightly.

In the end, I have to choose what is best for the community I am trying to build.