Administrative

The “Mark Fergusson” Troll

23 Comments

OK, since the creature has nothing but ad hominem, and has been using multiple email addresses (152.130.15.12, 66.44.31.203), I’ve decided to take the rare action of banning the troll.

23 thoughts on “The “Mark Fergusson” Troll”

  2. Think this is the 2nd person I have seen banned while commenting here and the other was for threats of violence. It is pretty hard to get banned on Rand’s site but it is incredibly easy on AGW alarmist and other Democrat sites. Free speech just isn’t a value Democrats have for people other than fellow Democrats.

    1. Heck, most of those sites, including ones by prominent warmists, will edit your comments to say something completely different and then ban you. It’s become a running joke.

      Perhaps Andrew should conduct some experiments at Skeptical Science or elsewhere posting some of our arguments under a pseudonym. It might be an eye-opening experience.

      1. You can run that experiment yourself if you’ve time.

        Another thing that annoyed me at WUWT is that I’d get into arguments with “Smokey”, raise a few points, and suddenly only his comments, and not mine, would be appearing, it looked like I’d walked away giving the win to him, recently it was discovered that “Smokey” was a moderator (under a different name).

        1. That’s pretty low.

          When I got banned from Wired for speaking conservative, literally I have the screen shots to prove it, I complained to every single editor and while none of them responded to me or reinstated my commenting privileges the mod was either fired or had his name changed and all references to him were scrubbed from the Wired site and their commenting service.

          Some moderators are just power trippers.

    2. It’s not all one way, even a mild mannered fellow like me is banned from WUWT, the irony being that so many who comment on that site think that Anthony isn’t like those AGW alarmist sites that’re always banning people. Oh, and that there’s almost no limit to the nastiness of the comments you can get away with there – as long as your nastiness is directed at “alarmists”.

      1. “It’s not all one way”

        Ya, you are right. I guess it is just easier to spot when it happens to you. The problem is that while we have first amendment rights enshrined in law, they no longer are enshrined in our culture. Moderation can be good in a case like burfturder or whatever his name was but people shouldn’t get a ban because of their political views or whether or not they have the proper beliefs on global warming. It is a little troubling right now that in America we have a professional journalist class that will ban for these reasons. It is antithetical to their very existence.

        1. The first amendment doesn’t apply here; the amendment constrains government power, not communication between individuals.

          1. That is precisely what I said. It is important to remember, though, that freedom of speech is also a cultural value and not just a legal construct regarding the government. That is why we imposed limitations on the government regulating free speech in the first place.

            Values are not always legal or illegal. You can act unethically without breaking any laws.

    3. How on Earth did you manage to get banned from WUWT? Not many people have accomplished the feat, and usually by being breathtakingly repetitive and moronic, or spouting bizarre conspiracy theories like HARP and Chem Trails, and far more than once.

      1. How would you know how many have been banned?? Do they have a list of banned people somewhere?

        I ticked Anthony off on a couple of occasions by committing the ultimate sin – pointing out he was wrong. (on one occasion Anthony was claiming that a claim of “ice free at the North Pole” meant “ice free Arctic”, then there was that problem with “Smokey”, and non of my comments at WUWT were as unkind as a few of those I’ve made here on Rand’s site.

        I say “banned” because my comments no longer appear – and it’s not an “awaiting moderation” thing.

        2. Give us a link to see where your comments begin and stop. Given the very vituperative comments I have seen allowed there, I do not believe you.

          2. Given the very vituperative comments

            Go find me a vituperative comment by a “warmist” (I don’t need one from a “skeptic” – those are all over that site)

          3. We have no way of knowing what your subsequent comments were. Did they run afoul of the site policies? Did you present multiple links? Did you use any profanity, or offensive terms like “denier”? Did you send a note with the word “moderator” in it to alert him or her to possible autonomous diversion into the spam bucket?

            As for “Go find me…”, I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are trying to convince me. I know for a fact they get quite vituperative, having been on the receiving end, so you’re not going to convince me they don’t.

            A lot of us here have had vigorous debate on WUWT with people of your persuasion. And, we’ve likewise been peremptorily prevented from posting to warmist sites like Open Mind and SkS. We’ve seen where posts at such sites have been altered after the fact. From my vantage point, your tu quoque looks very weak.

          4. Meh, I take him at his word. I don’t recall ever seeing Andrew W ever write something here that would get him banned someplace.

          5. I don’t. I’ve visited the site for years and had many strong debates. I’ve had a few posts not show up myself, but it was generally because it got lost in the spam queue because of some keyword or other. People every so often ask the moderator to search for a post that fails to appear. It happens.

            But, I’ve seen a wide variety of posts and an active debate, nothing like the one-sided circle jerk you see at typical warmist sites. I believe the proprietor is above-board, and am more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  3. The 152. IP address is from the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
    The 66. IP address is (most likely in Lanham, Maryland) from rcn.net, a broadband provider in the DC Metro.

      1. Or he’s a private citizen logging on with a device at a VA hospital or other VA facility.

        That would be like assuming that I worked for Starbucks or for the City (via their Library) if one were to check the IP address from where I sent the majority of my job applications this past summer.

        I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just pointing out that it might not be someone who actually has a job or that the person might not actually work for the V.A.

  4. Reminds me of Paul Spudis’s site. If you mention commercial space in a positive light that comment never sees the light of day.

Comments are closed.