They're out! buzzers, thamnophis, and pits

[SnakeDude]

Video has been removed, won't let me delete the post. Probably my last post, not because of this but because the forum has rapidly become (in my opinion) an area where very few herpers new to the hobby are accepted and taught but rather chastised by the online cliques of the obviously more experienced and knowledgeable herpers for making small mistakes. I've had this experience several times. This video wasnt really an example of this, as I can see everyone's point of view and the points were made (mostly) respectfully. But seriously, people are made fun of and cut down very often on this site because of small mistakes.

My point is, all of us started out as inexperienced, somewhat ignorant, and possibly even reckless. But your never going to teach someone how to respect wildlife if all you tell them is to stop taking selfies with snakes because they're obviously seeking attention by doing so. Were all here because we love reptiles, can't we teach, not ridicule??

[bgorum]

Tailing? If I were a wiser man I would probably keep my mouth, (or keyboard), shut. But I guess I'm not that wise. Also I should probably say what I have to say in a PM, but I've seen too many similar post, (admittedly on facebook, not here), to not say what I have to say publicly. I can see in the video that you guys are young and since I'm a high school teacher I know that young people can lack judgement. (So can a lot of older people as well).

Tailing is the least of the sins I see in this video. I'm far more bothered by the obvious stress placed on the prairie rattlesnakes, presumably at a den. Dens are important. How do you know that the stress you place on these snakes wont have an adverse effect on their survival, cause them to abandon that den, etc. The well being of the animals always has to come first.

[nhherp]

I cant say much to tailing. It is a useful technique when demanded to be utilized.

Im in agreement with bgorum.

Im betting the viridis were found on the hill in the background, sitting coiled outside the hiberniculum enjoying the 4 week progression into spring. It is Denver.

They were hooked, tonged, tailed, removed to the flat ground for a mass photos session. That is the detrimental action in this event and what you are going to most likely be ongoingly chastized for, and with good reason. A healthy den can be ruined with such behavior. Please consider the lasting impact such actions have.

On a side note. Yesterday I too found a new den by sheer accident on a hike with my son, friend and dogs..
It contained -- Molossus, Atrox, and klauberi.
All 3, laying on top of each other and intertwined in together.
Only one large specimen was moved and that to prevent a dog being sent away from getting near it, as it was on the outskirts of the rock cul de sac.

By not touching any, and being considerate to actions which may make them not return, or not lay out so blatantly I ensure future sightings.

I hope to be able to revisit this site for the rest of my life as the chance of anyone finding this place is 1 in 1000000. I know of no other place to see all three crotalus sp., (hopefully 4 if viridis show themselves) in one place together.

-N-

[BillMcGighan]

I have to support Bill (bgorum) and nhherp on this. There does seem to be an increase on "boys gone wild" posts here recently.

To the OP - guys, all the old guys here have done crazy, goofy, sometimes dangerous and irresponsible acts, so we understand where your coming from, your need for the adrenaline rush and to be noticed. It's all part of males growing up.

Now you've done it, good for you, but don't expect respect for doing it. You've disturbed animals for no apparent reason, took wanker shots (selfies) with your amygdala hanging out, so now try moving to the next level of herping.

Except for fossorial hunting, you'll discover special satisfaction, feeling of accomplishment, and respect for nature sneaking up quietly, snapping some in situ pics, and evaporating away, so the animal never even knows you were there. You guys are better than that.

The difference between an honorable act of heroism and a plane stupid act is not the act; it is the reason for the act.

[SnakeDude]

To all who replied: the rattlesnakes were actually found exactly where they were in the video, nearly piled on each other. though once disturbed they assumed defensive positions. They were only tonged when we took pictures, and then put directly down. I can and have seen the satisfaction in leaving them alone, and observing from a distance. Often, that's what I do. But they weren't in a legally protected area, and were never moved from the den. I'll go ahead and delete this. Thanks for the constructive criticism, though.

[jonathan]

Video has been removed, won't let me delete the post. Probably my last post, not because of this but because the forum has rapidly become (in my opinion) an area where very few herpers new to the hobby are accepted and taught but rather chastised by the online cliques of the obviously more experienced and knowledgeable herpers for making small mistakes. I've had this experience several times. This video wasnt really an example of this, as I can see everyone's point of view and the points were made (mostly) respectfully. But seriously, people are made fun of and cut down very often on this site because of small mistakes.

My point is, all of us started out as inexperienced, somewhat ignorant, and possibly even reckless. But your never going to teach someone how to respect wildlife if all you tell them is to stop taking selfies with snakes because they're obviously seeking attention by doing so. Were all here because we love reptiles, can't we teach, not ridicule??

SnakeDude, I don't look at all the new herper posts, but I read all the ones that introduce themselves on the California forum or the NorthWest forum, and the welcome is warm and respectful.

I don't know about the main forum, but I just looked through the first page of it just now, and all the responses to newer herpers are kind and helpful.

My guess is that you've seen a couple negative examples and that's colored your perception. Of course, the response to your own post is coloring your perception as well. But it seems like the vast majority of newbies get a great reception.

I was a newbie myself here on this site back in 2007, and got nothing but great help. I really grew up as a herper here.

[Brian Hubbs]

Oh, c'mon Jonathan...I'm sure you just read those responses in 2007 incorrectly. They probably actually made fun of your name, said you looked like a weirdo, told you not to look for herps, and to move to a foreign country. Let's interpret things as they really are....

And SnakeDude...just be a man, ignore the idiots and post what you want. If people don't like it, tell them off...I do...
But, seriously, if you're in the right, explain why...if not, apologize and promise to repent. I'm sure you will be forgiven.

[Scott Waters]

Hubbs pretty much nailed it.

To be in any public arena, you had better get some thick skin. Especially if you're doing things that you KNOW will create some tough responses. Like Brian said, if you REALLY believe in your position then explain it. If not, then curl up in a ball and go to FB where everyone can be kicked off anyone's page or group for completely subjective reasons. If that makes someone happy, then go for it. I know some people really like the FB dynamic because they can "throw someone off if they want". Well, not here. This is a painful existence at times because we DON'T have the facebook mentality on moderation.

Basically, people need to put on their big britches if they want to hang here.......and thousands do, like Mr. Hubbsy.

Scott

[Noah M]

people need to put on their big britches

I gotta do more hiking - my britches are getting too big

[BillMcGighan]

CJ0000, you may have been just eating too much!




Ian (OP), if you still read this stuff, I genuinely hope you stay with the forum.
FB is not a way to improve yourself in an activity or ideology. It's great for sharing experiences with friends, family, advertising business, communicating with clubs, etc.


For learning skills, it's a type of intellectual inbreeding where you can surround yourself with like-minded individuals and start parroting "group-speak". You never rise above the dumbest member.

You see this in all walks: people with strong political ideas surround themselves with only like-thinkers and the group starts to believe its own propaganda for fact; religious folks often immerse themselves in their own kind, denying access to people who disagree, and start believing they are the only true believers; some scientific groups are not immune of the same and by "un-friending" folks with opposing ideas, go off the deep end, ignoring the main principles of science.


On a forum, you can confirm your positions or learn why you were doing them in less than the best way.

Brian is right, though this may be his first time : to grow intellectually in herpetology, you need to argue your position, learn from the discussion, and even admit sometimes to crossing a line.

[chris_mcmartin]

FB is not a way to improve yourself in an activity or ideology. It's great for sharing experiences with friends, family, advertising business, communicating with clubs, etc.


For learning skills, it's a type of intellectual inbreeding where you can surround yourself with like-minded individuals and start parroting "group-speak". You never rise above the dumbest member.
. . .
On a forum, you can confirm your positions or learn why you were doing them in less than the best way.

. . . to grow intellectually in herpetology, you need to argue your position, learn from the discussion, and even admit sometimes to crossing a line.

[jonathan]

Bill hit it on the nose. On facebook people post some pictures, a bunch of people say "great shot!" and "like" the post, and then a couple months later you can't even find it. No depth of discussion, little back-and-forth, and little real learning.

[chris_mcmartin]

On facebook . . . No depth of discussion, little back-and-forth, and little real learning.

...but post a pic on FB of someone freehandling a venomous snake, and you'll get a LOT of back-and-forth--but still no real learning.

[gbin]

You see this in all walks: people with strong political ideas surround themselves with only like-thinkers and the group starts to believe its own propaganda for fact; religious folks often immerse themselves in their own kind, denying access to people who disagree, and start believing they are the only true believers; some scientific groups are not immune of the same and by "un-friending" folks with opposing ideas, go off the deep end, ignoring the main principles of science.

Exactly which scientific groups might those be, Bill? Certainly I've seen the occasional individual scientist go this way, but that's to be expected given the fact that scientists are people and so prone to all the things both good and bad to which people are prone. But as a profession, science puts an inordinate amount of effort into self-correction - into weeding out individuals and/or their work if they don't/it doesn't live up to scientific standards (which isn't at all the same as simply rejecting these individuals' ideas) - so I don't see how such a group could survive. And after a now fairly lengthy career as a scientist, I don't recall ever encountering such a group, either.

I think you're making a great point overall. Don't spoil it by saying things which aren't true just because they sound good to you for whatever reason. (Or are you considering a very few like-minded people who hang out together personally or professionally a "scientific group" just because they number more than one? If that's the case, I think you should be more careful in your choice of language; "scientific group" certainly sounds as if it's formally organized and likely large to me, and I suspect to others as well.)

Gerry

[jonathan]

You see this in all walks: people with strong political ideas surround themselves with only like-thinkers and the group starts to believe its own propaganda for fact; religious folks often immerse themselves in their own kind, denying access to people who disagree, and start believing they are the only true believers; some scientific groups are not immune of the same and by "un-friending" folks with opposing ideas, go off the deep end, ignoring the main principles of science.

Exactly which scientific groups might those be, Bill? Certainly I've seen the occasional individual scientist go this way, but that's to be expected given the fact that scientists are people and so prone to all the things both good and bad to which people are prone. But as a profession, science puts an inordinate amount of effort into self-correction - into weeding out individuals and/or their work if they don't/it doesn't live up to scientific standards (which isn't at all the same as simply rejecting these individuals' ideas) - so I don't see how such a group could survive. And after a now fairly lengthy career as a scientist, I don't recall ever encountering such a group, either.

I think you're making a great point overall. Don't spoil it by saying things which aren't true just because they sound good to you for whatever reason. (Or are you considering a very few like-minded people who hang out together personally or professionally a "scientific group" just because they number more than one? If that's the case, I think you should be more careful in your choice of language; "scientific group" certainly sounds as if it's formally organized and likely large to me, and I suspect to others as well.)

On my facebook account I have a large number of scientists and scientists-in-training as friends, and there is often discussion of why religious folk should be excluded from teaching or practicing science. This went so far as guys hunting down the personal information of science instructors to discover if they were evangelical Christians, professors saying that they would discourage any religious students from attending their class, serious talk of the need for some sort of litmus test to keep Christian believers outside of biology, etc. There are a lot of people who feel this way - it's not just a couple of bad apples - and at least publicly, it doesn't get a whole lot of pushback from other non-religious people.

Inbar and Lammers 2012 showed that there was widespread political bias in the social and personality psychology fields, with liberal psychologists admitted that they would discriminate against politically conservative colleagues in paper reviews, hiring, collaboration, and funding, all else being equal. This discrimination had pushed to the point where few conservatives were even in the field, and those who were were afraid of disclosing their political views to their colleagues (in fact, most social psychologists underestimated how conservative their colleagues were).

Gross 2013 and Redding 2013 extended those findings to other psychological disciplines as well, and the problem is serious enough that Duarte et al 2014 demonstrate that it has been ongoing over 50 years and has actively harmed the field. The six researchers in that paper propose the start of active efforts to reduce the hostile environment and discrimination that has kept many conservatives out of the social psychology field.

That's all just psychology, primarily social psychology, which due to its nature is particularly likely to be introspective about such things. But it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to see that it has happened in other fields as well - in my experience, most of all in biology and physics, far less so in mathematics, computer science, or engineering. Discrimination and preference for those like ourselves is an ugly truth that permeates every human community, and it is only fought against with active efforts, not by pretending it away.

[gbin]

On my facebook account I have a large number of scientists and scientists-in-training as friends, and there is often discussion of why religious folk should be excluded from teaching or practicing science...

Right, and there isn't any difference between scientists and scientists-in-training, nor between loose Facebook chatter and organized action.

Likewise, of course, between any other informal gathering of scientifically minded people and a bona fide group of professional scientists.

(And certainly jonathan never grossly exaggerates or otherwise seriously misrepresents the facts - to put it in as kindly a way as I can think of - in order to try to win an argument, either. )

It's funny how often people with relatively little or in some cases virtually no actual exposure to scientists always seem to know them so much better overall than do actual scientists who have spent several decades in the profession...

Gerry

[jonathan]

It's funny how often people with relatively little or in some cases virtually no actual exposure to scientists always seem to know them so much better overall than do actual scientists who have spent several decades in the profession...

Is that statement actually supposed to be in reference to me?


Now, if there is any debate about anything I actually said, I'll respond. Since nothing I actually said was challenged, I'll let the personal experience and published papers continue to speak for themselves.

[jonathan]

abstract:

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative “overall,” there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

final paragraph:

But what is perhaps the most important issue—an issue that we believe most psychologists, regardless of political background, will find troubling—is that conservatives are barred from discussion and are forced to keep their political opinion to themselves, coupled with a denial of the severity of this issue. We found this in our quantitative data, as described in this article. But perhaps even more telling is what we found in our qualitative data. At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department “could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them.” Various participants described how colleagues silenced them during political discussions because they had voted Republican. One participant wrote that “it causes me great stress to not be able to have an environment where open dialogue is acceptable. Although most colleagues talk about tolerance, and some are, there are a few vociferous voices that make for a closed environment.” Some respondents wrote that at times they felt reluctant to ask certain questions because these hinted at a conservative identity. But an environment that stimulates open discussion and where hypotheses may be raised regardless of their political implications can only benefit our field. Even those who fundamentally disagree with conservatism will agree that silencing political opponents will not convert them. By excluding those who disagree with (most of) us politically, we treat them unfairly, do ourselves a disservice, and ultimately damage the scientific credibility of our field.

[jonathan]

abstract:

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of nonliberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

final paragraph:

We have focused on social (and personality) psychology, but the problems we describe occur in other areas of psychology (Redding, 2001), as well as in other social sciences (Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013). Fortunately, psychology is uniquely well-prepared to rise to the challenge. The five core values of APA include “continual pursuit of excellence; knowledge and its application based upon methods of science; outstanding service to its members and to society; social justice, diversity and inclusion; ethical action in all that we do.” (APA, 2009). If discrimination against non-liberals exists at even half the level described in section 4 of this paper, and if this discrimination damages the quality of some psychological research, then all five core values are being betrayed. Will psychologists tolerate and defend the status quo, or will psychology make the changes needed to realize its values and improve its science? Social psychology can and should lead the way.

[gbin]

... if there is any debate about anything I actually said...

I'm happy to put it more bluntly for those who for whatever reason might not understand:

Real debate requires honest discourse, and isn't possible with someone who is willing to be dishonest to try to set up and/or win arguments, as jonathan has amply proven himself to be here and in many other places on these message boards.

The example ready at hand:

I myself said that I've known occasional individual scientists to reject opposing ideas out of hand as Bill described, but that I've never known any scientific groups to do so and and that I've a very hard time believing that it happens given how much effort scientists put into weeding out the nonscientific. So jonathan bombards the thread with verbiage and copy/pastes of text about individuals (not scientific groups) discriminating against other people based on political bias (not rejecting opposing ideas), pretending that such was in contention so he can then win a point in a foolish game that's really only being played inside his own head.

Gerry

[jonathan]

Gerry, argue the issue, not the person. There's simply no need to engage in personal attacks here. You don't know much about me or what goes on inside my head at all, so I'm going to ask you politely to stop talking about me.

if you had read the papers, you'd see that both ideas and people were discriminated against. And while the surveys asked individuals about the bias they participated in or experienced themselves, the individual bias was so widespread that it had a profound effect on both the composition and the activities of the entire group. Both papers were quite clear that the bias had a group effect and was not just an individual issue.

And Bill was certainly talking about bias against individuals with different ideas than oneself. Remember his actual initial statement, "some scientific groups are not immune of the same and by "un-friending" folks with opposing ideas, go off the deep end, ignoring the main principles of science." This was a clear example of a group of scientists that marginalized people with opposing ideas until they no longer were part of the group, and lost touch with some of the principles of science as a result. The direct negative impact such discrimination has had on the field is detailed in the 2nd paper.

[jonathan]

I understand why it might be hard to accept my position. We tend to search for evidence that will confirm our existing beliefs while also ignoring or downplaying disconfirming evidence. This confirmation bias is widespread among scientists. It is extremely difficult to avoid confirmation bias in everyday reasoning – and most attempted measures like courses in “critical thinking” may temporarily suppress confirmation bias, but they do not eliminate it. Even research communities of highly intelligent and well-meaning individuals can fall prey to confirmation bias. And confirmation bias can become even stronger when people confront questions that trigger moral emotions and concerns about group identity – as we are doing here.

Being intelligent only enhances the degree to which you experience confirmation bias, as IQ is positively correlated with the number of reasons people find to support their own side in an argument, and is uncorrelated with the (much lower) number of reasons people find to support the opposing argument. Highly intelligent people are demonstrably slower to admit when they are wrong than less intelligent people (see Stanovich, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought). That may explain why some very intelligent people tend to double-down on their own arguments so strongly, yet rarely see the value in opposing arguments.

I hope it is really clear here that I am only detailing a basic aspect of human nature that could be applied to any intelligent person, and not accusing anyone of a personal character defect in the slightest. What I just said was basically taken word-for-word from the research.

[gbin]

Gerry, argue the issue...

I'm happy to put it more bluntly for those who for whatever reason might not understand:

Real debate requires honest discourse, and isn't possible with someone who is willing to be dishonest to try to set up and/or win arguments, as jonathan has amply proven himself to be here and in many other places on these message boards.

The example ready at hand:

I myself said that I've known occasional individual scientists to reject opposing ideas out of hand as Bill described, but that I've never known any scientific groups to do so and and that I've a very hard time believing that it happens given how much effort scientists put into weeding out the nonscientific. So jonathan bombards the thread with verbiage and copy/pastes of text about individuals (not scientific groups) discriminating against other people based on political bias (not rejecting opposing ideas), pretending that such was in contention so he can then win a point in a foolish game that's really only being played inside his own head.

Gerry

[jonathan]

Gerry, I asked you already to stop the personal attacks against me and argue the issue at hand.

Simply copying-and-pasting your own statement again doesn't help me, and it doesn't help anyone else.

Everyone in this thread can read. I respect them enough to believe that they can read what you've said, and what I've said, and evaluate the arguments themselves. If there has been any deception about the actual content of the thread, they will pick up on it just fine and I will be ostracized as a discontent who just wants to argue and debate rather than being considered a valued and honest member of the community.

Unless you actually respond to the substance of my statements and not your imaginations about what's going on in my head, I'm done here.

[gbin]

... if there is any debate about anything I actually said...

Gerry, argue the issue...

Gerry,... argue the issue at hand.

I'm happy to put it more bluntly for those who for whatever reason might not understand:

Real debate requires honest discourse, and isn't possible with someone who is willing to be dishonest to try to set up and/or win arguments, as jonathan has amply proven himself to be here and in many other places on these message boards.

The example ready at hand:

I myself said that I've known occasional individual scientists to reject opposing ideas out of hand as Bill described, but that I've never known any scientific groups to do so and that I've a very hard time believing that it happens given how much effort scientists put into weeding out the nonscientific. So jonathan bombards the thread with verbiage and copy/pastes of text about individuals (not scientific groups) discriminating against other people based on political bias (not rejecting opposing ideas), pretending that such was in contention so he can then win a point in a foolish game that's really only being played inside his own head.

... And how dare I not adopt a view jonathan's dishonestly attributed to me so he can argue with that rather than what I've actually said!

Gerry

[BillMcGighan]

Well, as often you do, Gerry.
You slice a talking point that may or may not be related to the real world discussion and use it as a springboard for a highjack rant.

My statement was an example of how sometimes even scientists are people with all the frailties and prejudices of being human.
It was not an attack on science, which I am an ardent supporter; it was just noting that a social media allows even like minded folks who are sworn to a doctrine of cause and effect, data collection, hypothesis based in factual indicators, duplication of results, etc., can stray.

An example:
I was privy to a conversation between a group of researchers doing Timber rattlesnake studies. One individual presented an excellent paper, based on his research.

At the end of the presentation, he mentioned the study site Timber population was declining. Another herpetologist asked why.
The presenter then pontificated that commercial collectors were taking animals from this not-very-well-known site, and selling them to Europeans, because that was a huge market. Another academic herpetologist asked if he had proof. He had none except the chatter he heard on facebook.

The summary of the following FB discussion was that it was well known and that there were already viable populations of Timbers established in Europe, so he heard. Like-minded individuals chided in with allot of "ain't it awful."
Another field herpetologist voiced his dissent from this idea which then caused him to be effectively shunned.

Is this an attack on science and principles? Absolutely not.
It's just an example that we're, after all, simply human.

[gbin]

Well, as often you do, Bill.
You respond to my accurate, meaningful criticism as if it were something other than it is, in particular as a reflection of some kind of terrible personal flaw of mine.

My statement was an example of how sometimes even scientists are people with all the frailties and prejudices of being human...

If that were all it was I'd have said nothing, or maybe even chimed in with agreement.

As I already - and quite specifically (despite all of jonathan's nonsense) - pointed out, there's a difference between saying individual scientists are prone to human weaknesses, which you and I obviously do agree upon, and saying "scientific groups" are succumbing to and acting upon such weaknesses, which you claimed to be the case and with which I strongly disagree. You know this difference exists as well as I do, so why not just acknowledge you misspoke (which we all do from time to time, especially here online) and leave it at that? Ah, right, because you don't like me. Sorry, Bill, but I'm afraid that's your personal issue, not mine, no matter how much you might want to pretend otherwise.

I liked part of your example (of what we agree on, of course, that occasional individual scientists go astray), by the way. As you can probably guess from some of the things I've posted here at FHF (you know, in some of my other "highjack rants" ), had I been present, I might well have been that scientist who asked the presenter for proof of his statement that collectors were responsible for the timber rattlers' decline at his study site. I have in fact done that very thing at least a few times in the past, though only once with respect to timber rattlers, specifically. (I guess those were just "highjack rants" of mine in those settings, eh? )

As for the remainder of your example, which I guess was meant to suggest (without actually saying) that a handful of researchers chatting informally on Facebook equates to a "scientific group," I suspect you know as well as I do that "scientific group" has a particular connotation, namely a formally organized and likely large group of scientists acting in concert. (Try Googling "scientific group" sometime and see what kinds of responses you get. Or ask a few colleagues to define it for you and see what they say.) Whether you realize it or not, language matters, and without my correction you could have conveyed (I believe you were conveying) something very different than you intended. But you have a personal issue in that you don't like me, so I suppose you can't simply come out and admit that, and be done with the matter. Oh well.

I'm curious about one thing, though. At the end of the example you provided, did you happen to speak out against the dissenter being effectively shunned? Or were you instead one of those who participated in it? You know, as you just tried to label me a troublemaker rather than dealing honestly with my sincere criticism, in an apparent attempt to promote the idea of effectively shunning me here. Such behavior is nothing to be proud of, to be sure, but to be just as sure it's another one of those common human frailties, so I suppose you shouldn't be too hard on yourself about it. Just hard enough to try to change, I'd say.

Some would even argue, and I'm certainly one of them, that how one responds to criticism for a mistake s/he's made is much more telling about what kind of person s/he is than is the mistake itself.

Gerry

[BillMcGighan]

Well, Gerry, you derailed another one!
Stamp the side of your fusilage with another kill.


In the interest of seeing how you'll play your game when others don't play, the "group" was not a specifically named group, but rather a group of individuals who were a subset of a bigger formal group. They do not represent the larger group. If I indicted a formal, organized group of scientist, I would not have hessitated stating a name.

If I give you that will your sky turn to the same color as everyone else in the world?



Major issue here is that your tangential interjection had nothing at all to do with considering whether to stay as a forum member, or hunker down in a self back patting world where there is no room for intellectual growth. If our young friend, who originally posted a less than thought out video, had come around to reconsidering the forum over FB, I'm sure you've now really scared him off.

As far as Jonathan, he usually produces well thought out responses that you seem to miss as well. I don't think he, or anyone else can hurt you, more than you hurt yourself, even sitting at home wearing your Golden Helmet of Mambrino, and trying to friend some guy named Sancho Panza on FB.

[gbin]

Well, Gerry, you derailed another one!
Stamp the side of your fusilage with another kill.


In the interest of seeing how you'll play your game when others don't play, the "group" was not a specifically named group, but rather a group of individuals who were a subset of a bigger formal group. They do not represent the larger group. If I indicted a formal, organized group of scientist, I would not have hessitated stating a name.

If I give you that will your sky turn to the same color as everyone else in the world?



Major issue here is that your tangential interjection had nothing at all to do with considering whether to stay as a forum member, or hunker down in a self back patting world where there is no room for intellectual growth. If our young friend, who originally posted a less than thought out video, had come around to reconsidering the forum over FB, I'm sure you've now really scared him off.

As far as Jonathan, he usually produces well thought out responses that you seem to miss as well. I don't think he, or anyone else can hurt you, more than you hurt yourself, even sitting at home wearing your Golden Helmet of Mambrino, and trying to friend some guy named Sancho Panza on FB.

You apparently looked right past a fair bit of my post, Bill, in your eagerness to go after me for criticizing something you wrote because you have some kind of a personal issue with me. Of most potential use to you (if you manage to get yourself under control):

I suspect you know as well as I do that "scientific group" has a particular connotation, namely a formally organized and likely large group of scientists acting in concert. (Try Googling "scientific group" sometime and see what kinds of responses you get. Or ask a few colleagues to define it for you and see what they say.) Whether you realize it or not, language matters, and without my correction you could have conveyed (I believe you were conveying) something very different than you intended.

At the end of the example you provided, did you happen to speak out against the dissenter being effectively shunned? Or were you instead one of those who participated in it? You know, as you just tried to label me a troublemaker rather than dealing honestly with my sincere criticism, in an apparent attempt to promote the idea of effectively shunning me here. Such behavior is nothing to be proud of, to be sure, but to be just as sure it's another one of those common human frailties, so I suppose you shouldn't be too hard on yourself about it. Just hard enough to try to change, I'd say.

Some would even argue, and I'm certainly one of them, that how one responds to criticism for a mistake s/he's made is much more telling about what kind of person s/he is than is the mistake itself.

Gerry

[chris_mcmartin]

I suspect you know as well as I do that "scientific group" has a particular connotation . . .Whether you realize it or not, language matters, and without my correction you could have conveyed (I believe you were conveying) something very different than you intended.

Kinda like using the word "trafficking" when naming people who legally trade in pythons, huh?

[gbin]

I suspect you know as well as I do that "scientific group" has a particular connotation . . .Whether you realize it or not, language matters, and without my correction you could have conveyed (I believe you were conveying) something very different than you intended.

Kinda like using the word "trafficking" when naming people who legally trade in pythons, huh?

To you, anyway, Chris. (But then maybe you spend too much time reading things that use "trafficking" only in its most negative connotation, to the extent where you no longer recognize - if you ever did, I guess - that it actually has a perfectly benign broader meaning and that plenty of us still rely on that meaning.)

"Traffic"/"trafficking" can be looked up in the dictionary (as you likely should have done before challenging me on my use of it), though, whereas "scientific group" lacks a dictionary definition, compelling one to fall back on common usage. And despite whatever Bill might pretend because he's upset with me, it does indeed have a pretty clear common usage that backs up my criticism of his use of it.

Nice, if unsuccessful, try at scoring a point in whatever foolish game you're playing, though. Maybe you'll be more successful at triggering a dogpile here, if Bill isn't. I guess it's something you can hope for...

Gerry

[fringe]

This thread is a good example of why there was a mass exodus from the FHF. It starts out fine, but gradually digresses into an arrogant and self righteous tone, slamming other social platforms and singing the praises of how the FHF is the pinnacle of spirited debate. It ends in a usual fashion with a typical FHF narcissistic hijacking.

A social platform is only as good as the folks participating. The reason this place has a "painful existence" isn't because of the moderation mentality, it's because most everyone left or quit participating. It's a shame, this used to be a rockin' forum.

[Kelly Mc]

This thread is a good example of why there was a mass exodus from the FHF. It starts out fine, but gradually digresses into an arrogant and self righteous tone, slamming other social platforms and singing the praises of how the FHF is the pinnacle of spirited debate. It ends in a usual fashion with a typical FHF narcissistic hijacking.

A social platform is only as good as the folks participating. The reason this place has a "painful existence" isn't because of the moderation mentality, it's because most everyone left or quit participating. It's a shame, this used to be a rockin' forum.

This FHF thread has had 948 views since March 23rd..

Yeah its a real barren wasteland

[jonathan]

This thread is a good example of why there was a mass exodus from the FHF. It starts out fine, but gradually digresses into an arrogant and self righteous tone, slamming other social platforms and singing the praises of how the FHF is the pinnacle of spirited debate. It ends in a usual fashion with a typical FHF narcissistic hijacking.

Social platforms are not human beings whose feelings might get hurt if you say something bad about them. The only social platform that was "slammed" was facebook, and there certainly is no sin in pointing out that facebook has limitations. That's not saying that Facebook can't be used - I have an account myself - but a world in which everyone abandoned online discussion boards in order to post on facebook alone would be a very, very shallow world.

A social platform is only as good as the folks participating. The reason this place has a "painful existence" isn't because of the moderation mentality, it's because most everyone left or quit participating. It's a shame, this used to be a rockin' forum.

A quick survey of the various subforums shows that there's been participation in about 91 threads between April 1 and April 5. Most of those threads have hundreds and some even thousands of views. And my guess is that because that span includes Easter weekend, that it was actually less active than an average 5-day span. Clearly there are many, many people who haven't left.

Yes, there are 2-3 people who can make this a painful place to be on certain threads. They're not going to be banned, so we will live with that. But only 1 or 2 of those 91 threads have anything like that going on.

That's why this is a board line thread. But note that it is the ONLY board line thread that anyone has posted on in more than a month, and there has only been 5 board line threads in the last 5 months. The number of threads that go rotten is quite few.

[gbin]

This thread is a good example of why there was a mass exodus from the FHF. It starts out fine, but gradually digresses into an arrogant and self righteous tone, slamming other social platforms and singing the praises of how the FHF is the pinnacle of spirited debate. It ends in a usual fashion with a typical FHF narcissistic hijacking.

A social platform is only as good as the folks participating. The reason this place has a "painful existence" isn't because of the moderation mentality, it's because most everyone left or quit participating. It's a shame, this used to be a rockin' forum.

The above post, "fringe's" first and only to date here at FHF, is almost certainly a good example of how known individuals with known personal grudges use anonymity to attack people they don't like in an internet forum from a seemingly new front, and to make it appear as if the denigrating view they want held of those people is widespread.

Is anyone wondering who the source of the cowardice and malice behind "fringe" really is? Not me, as I don't care to concern myself with miscreants just because they've placed me on some kind of foolish enemy's list. I do wonder, though, how they manage to live with themselves behaving so dishonorably...

Gerry

[Kelly Mc]

Fringey said :

This thread is a good example of why there was a mass exodus from the FHF. It starts out fine, but gradually digresses into an arrogant and self righteous tone, slamming other social platforms and singing the praises of how the FHF is the pinnacle of spirited debate. It ends in a usual fashion with a typical FHF narcissistic hijacking.

A social platform is only as good as the folks participating. The reason this place has a "painful existence" isn't because of the moderation mentality, it's because most everyone left or quit participating. It's a shame, this used to be a rockin' forum.

The trite rhetoric and hyperbole seem vaguely familiar. That, along with critiquing others for being self righteous, with a numero uno post of self righteousness.

All behind a cloak of complete drive by anonymity.. Yes the hiding really gives ones opinion that extra pow!

[fringe]

This FHF thread has had 948 views since March 23rd.. Yeah its a real barren wasteland

I guess you could count views as a form of participation, but I was talking more in terms of actively participating in discussions and adding something to the threads. In that sense, I think the actual number of replies (and quality) portion of participation has gone way down over the past several years.

Social platforms are not human beings whose feelings might get hurt if you say something bad about them. The only social platform that was "slammed" was facebook, and there certainly is no sin in pointing out that facebook has limitations. That's not saying that Facebook can't be used - I have an account myself - but a world in which everyone abandoned online discussion boards in order to post on facebook alone would be a very, very shallow world.

The OP never mentioned going to another social platform, he just criticized the FHF for the way newbies are handled when they make mistakes. Heck, xxxHerperxxx was roasted over his antics time and again, eventually he learned and became a respected contributor. I don't have a problem with the way this member's post was handled, I just didn't see the need to bring up another social platform. The posters in this thread chose to bring up FB’s inferiority to the FHF. I’m not clear on the correlation between the OP’s original complaint and bringing up the limitations of another social platform. I'm fairly certain this same post would have been chastised on most respected FB herp pages.

A quick survey of the various subforums shows that there's been participation in about 91 threads between April 1 and April 5. Most of those threads have hundreds and some even thousands of views. And my guess is that because that span includes Easter weekend, that it was actually less active than an average 5-day span. Clearly there are many, many people who haven't left.

We need to define participation in relation to a forum like the FHF. I'm looking more at the active participation and the quality of that participation, not just lurking. If this was a porn site, then yes, views would count as the highest form of participation. I’m talking more in terms of engaging the users of this forum to actually type something in the threads. If we were to compare 2014 to 2010-2011, I’m betting you would see a significant difference in terms of “participation”, especially with respect to the quality of threads and replies. I agree, many people haven't left, their accounts are still active, they just don't actively participate like they used to.

Yes, there are 2-3 people who can make this a painful place to be on certain threads. They're not going to be banned, so we will live with that. But only 1 or 2 of those 91 threads have anything like that going on. That's why this is a board line thread. But note that it is the ONLY board line thread that anyone has posted on in more than a month, and there has only been 5 board line threads in the last 5 months. The number of threads that go rotten is quite few.

Understood and I agree, to a point. In the past, you had enough quality posters to drown out the funk and maybe even engage the OP along with a few of the 1000+ viewers. I don’t think that’s the case these days simply because folks don't care enough to engage. Regarding the board line only having a thread per month in the past 5 months, there used to be a lot more threads in the board line. Back in the day, some of the best threads started or ended up in the board line.

My hypothesis that threads like these were a factor in folks not wanting to participate as much in discussions could be incorrect. The bottom-line is that folks aren’t as engaged like they used to be, especially the members who've been with this forum since the beginning. That's not to say that the current participants aren't quality participants, it's more that the volume of that quality has gone down. It would be interesting to take a poll with the current members to see what they think of the FHF these days.

[Kelly Mc]

Well, at least we got you, Fringy!



Edited. Reason? To "like"

[Kelly Mc]

"I don't see the need to bring up another social platform" - fringe

" Need" ? No one has to have a "need" to bring up anything.

Facebook embarrasses itself that lame-o.

[fringe]

Facebook embarrasses itself that lame-o.

Here's a pro tip: social media sites are only as good as the folks who participate in them. There are plenty of FB pages that are fine, others not so much. Same with phpBB forums. I find that sites that dish out a hard core line of "telling it like it is" often can't handle getting constructive criticism in return. Kinda like Brian Barczyk's recent photo faux pas.

[Kelly Mc]

I'm being mischievous. And harbor a bias against the invasive tone and psycho/socio programming that feels creepy.

I'm glad FHF isn't facebooky.

[Kelly Mc]

Also, twice on this thread I noticed Fringe in effect, "call people out" in a potentially embarrassing and altogether Unnecessary way.

In the deep south in a particular demographic of folks, they call that bein' messy. A perfect term.

Im not even what you would call a fan of the famous guy, and the other guy from here, wow, what a d*** move.

As far as I know FHF and Facebook are cool with each other, they are completely different and you don't make any sense. I think you need some fresh air or look up from your devices once in a while. You are spinning in spacy arbitraries that dont even matter.

[Kelly Mc]

Maybe some "social platforms" are the zillion headed baby of the human desire to Gossip.

[fringe]

Also, twice on this thread I noticed Fringe

No need to refer to me in the third person. I haven't left the thread, I'm still here.

in effect, "call people out" in a potentially embarrassing and altogether Unnecessary way.

I'm pretty confident xxxHerperxxx doesn't post here anymore since he hasn't logged on in two years. The only reason I brought him up was because he was the best example to the OP. He was young and posted similar things, got his butt kicked, ended up listening and turned into a respected contributor.

Brian, ok, that was a a bit of a dig. It just reminded me of folks defending the lack of quality posting on the FHF as compared to a few years back. He's holding a venomoid, get's rebuked, turns around and holds a venomous cottonmouth just a few weeks later. Get's rebuked again by the internets. Instead of giving a good reason why he had back to back photos like that, he points to how much he's done for the industry. Probably a bad example, couldn't resist.

As far as I know FHF and Facebook are cool with each other, they are completely different and you don't make any sense.

I'm not sure what your point is here. My point was simply that a social networking site can't really embarrass itself or be lame-o by itself. The users are the ones who determine if a site is lame-0 or not. Even then, just because I think reddit is lame-0 doesn't mean that it is.

I think you need some fresh air or look up from your devices once in a while.

Excellent point. I'm going outside without my device right now.

[Kelly Mc]

Me too

[fringe]

I totally forgot about this thread that happened over in the AZ forum earlier in the year:
http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... =4&t=21311

I check in to this and other FHF forums almost daily when I'm home. Many of the forums have really slowed, almost to a halt. If this fragmentation doesn't start reversing we might have a hard time with group efforts relating to laws and conservation proposals, let alone having enough people to argue with gbin...

Hubsy pretty much summed up what I was saying.

[Kelly Mc]

Fringe you're tacky.

[gbin]

This thread is a good example of why there was a mass exodus from the FHF. It starts out fine, but gradually digresses into an arrogant and self righteous tone, slamming other social platforms and singing the praises of how the FHF is the pinnacle of spirited debate. It ends in a usual fashion with a typical FHF narcissistic hijacking.

A social platform is only as good as the folks participating. The reason this place has a "painful existence" isn't because of the moderation mentality, it's because most everyone left or quit participating. It's a shame, this used to be a rockin' forum.

I totally forgot about this thread that happened over in the AZ forum earlier in the year:
http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... =4&t=21311

I check in to this and other FHF forums almost daily when I'm home. Many of the forums have really slowed, almost to a halt. If this fragmentation doesn't start reversing we might have a hard time with group efforts relating to laws and conservation proposals, let alone having enough people to argue with gbin...

Hubsy pretty much summed up what I was saying.

The above posts, "fringe's" first and last to date here at FHF (all five of "fringe's" posts in this thread being his only contributions to FHF), are almost certainly good examples of how known individuals with known personal grudges use anonymity to attack people they don't like in an internet forum from a seemingly new front, and to make it appear as if the denigrating view they want held of those people is widespread.

Is anyone wondering who the source of the cowardice and malice behind "fringe" really is? Not me, as I don't care to concern myself with miscreants just because they've placed me on some kind of foolish enemy's list. I do wonder, though, how they manage to live with themselves behaving so dishonorably...

Gerry

[fringe]

Fringe you're tacky.

What is tacky? Bringing up a thread from 3 months ago discussing how the FHF seems to have less active involvement or quoting Hubbs? If you choose the later (or both), you're implying Hubbs is tacky. It was his quote and he participated in that thread, which I didn't think was tacky. If you think I'm tacky for implying that Gerry likes to argue debate, I think that's a proven fact.

The above posts, "fringe's" first and last to date here at FHF (all five of "fringe's" posts...

Why must people refer to me in the third person when it's obvious I'm still actively participating in this thread?

are almost certainly good examples of how known individuals with known personal grudges use anonymity to attack people they don't like in an internet forum from a seemingly new front, and to make it appear as if the denigrating view they want held of those people is widespread.

If you're referring to my quote from Hubbs about no one left here to argue debate with you, c'mon now, you'd be lying if you said you weren't the king of debates here on the FHF. There's just not enough takers left to challenge you. On a side note, a quick search of your posts using the keywords 'personal' and 'attack' seem to reveal a theme.

[gbin]

It is increasingly apparent that "fringe's" posts to this thread, his only posts to date here at FHF, are nothing but examples of how known individuals with known personal grudges use anonymity to attack people they don't like in an internet forum from a seemingly new front, and to make it appear as if the denigrating view they want held of those people is widespread.

Is anyone wondering who the source of the cowardice and malice behind "fringe" really is? Not me, as I don't care to concern myself with miscreants just because they've placed me on some kind of foolish enemy's list. I do wonder, though, how they manage to live with themselves behaving so dishonorably...

Gerry