Monday Mirthiness – spot the troll

Josh writes: There’s been a bit of closet trolling recently, a pretence if being polite but blatantly not, and generally trying to derail posts. Fortunately we have a helpful cartoon for that.

Troll_closet_scr

CartoonsbyJosh.com

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cnxtim

So, that’s what a troll looks like, i always wondered..

Jack

Think you have 1 tooth too many.

Village Idiot

So, what’s the Village definition of a troll, and how should they be handled?
To kick off we could take Sir Christopher Monktons definition: ‘Anyone who disagrees with me’. And his response: ‘Lash out with verbal abuse, revile, misrepresent and belittle’.
Accurate and useful?

You can always tell a troll’s comments; they are a bit under-abridged…….:o)

Gamecock

Village Idiot says:
August 18, 2014 at 3:51 am
That’s not the definition of troll I learned. A troll is someone who makes a post to tweak others, intentionally setting them off for sport. In that sense, Monckton’s definition isn’t even close.

I haven’t read his blog but…

Unmentionable

5-day winds and temp forecast
European surface temperature cooling continues
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/08/23/0000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=9.42,46.79,537
It’s still Summer there, right?
On the other end, Southern polar vortex starting to become less symmetrical
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/08/23/0000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-223.19,-97.12,276

Dave Wendt

Village Idiot says:
August 18, 2014 at 3:51 am
The nominations are closed. The votes have been cast. The votes have been tallied and the results are in. By a margin greater even than a 97% climate consensus, you have been awarded the prize for the most spot on, on the nose, absolutely appropriate comment moniker ever! Your victory was so overwhelming that the trophy will be retired forthwith.

Village Idiot

Gamecock. Full disclosure on my part – I’ve paraphrased the way I have experienced the usage by Mr. M of the word ‘troll’. I’m sure I’m not alone in my view. If anyone would like to waste their time trawling through his offerings here, no doubt they could produce some examples

Scott

Nah the definition of a troll is one who brings propaganda to a data fight.

Tom in Florida

Village Idiot says:
August 18, 2014 at 3:51 am
“To kick off we could take Sir Christopher Monktons definition: ‘Anyone who disagrees with me’. And his response: ‘Lash out with verbal abuse, revile, misrepresent and belittle’.”
You left out “have my lawyers look into a lawsuit”.

Rob aka Flatlander

I vote with Scott
“Scott says: at 4:47 am
Nah the definition of a troll is one who brings propaganda to a data fight.”

Rob aka Flatlander says:
August 18, 2014 at 5:07 am
I vote with Scott
“Scott says: at 4:47 am
Nah the definition of a troll is one who brings propaganda to a data fight.”
——————————————————–
Like
cn

Jesse Fell

Mr. Watts, Do you consider it possible to enter comments on this site that express disagreement with its stance on the issues of global warming and climate change?
If you do not consider it possible, then there is no reason for anyone to enter comments expressing disagreement or raising questions.
If you do consider it possible, please give us some guidelines for expressing non-trolling dissent.
We will be much obliged.

Jesse Fell says:
August 18, 2014 at 5:23 am
Considering there are plenty of extremely well-informed comments on WUWT from people who fundamentally disagree with the editorial line of the site, I think you already have your answer.
For the record, the answer is simple: be neither dense nor obtuse and you will not be considered a troll.

M Courtney

Jesse fell, I agree that guidelines as to what is permissible would be useful.
Generally though the rules are the same as in any polite discourse.
-Don’t swear.
-Don’t ignore direct questions.
-Don’t mis-represent other people.
-Don’t be insulting.
-Do admit when you are in clearly in error.
-Do accept that people can legitimately draw different conclusions to you on incomplete information (this doesn’t mean agreeing with them).
As a socialist and a Christian I have been vigorously attacked on this blog for my views.
And I have responded robustly.
But I have not yet been banned.

M Courtney

Hmm. Perversely, my comment is awaiting moderation.

Village Idiot, Jesse Fell and any other trolls who may be reading:
A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.
Recent examples are
(a)
Nick Stokes on the Patrick Moore thread where he managed to deflect from discussion of the funding issue by repeatedly presenting a falsehood about Patrick Moore.
(b)
Village Idiot in this thread at August 18, 2014 at 3:51 am (and subsequently) attempting to start an argument about his untrue attribution to Viscount Monckton of an untrue definition of trolls imagined by and asserted by Village Idiot.
(c)
Jesse Fell in this thread at August 18, 2014 at 5:23 am pretending to attempt discussion with our host about Fell’s suggestion that it is not “possible to enter comments on this site that express disagreement with its stance on the issues of global warming and climate change”.
Richard

Lloyd Martin Hendaye

Troll from Old Danish (OD) “droll”, an elf or jester, alternatively a lurking monster, is powerfully suggestive. In Shakespeare, “troll” represents “a drab, a harlot, strumpet, trollop”– a girl, a lass, a wench.

You might be a troll if…
you sign on as “Village Idiot”.
/Jeff Foxworthy-ish

Oh, on topic:
I understand “Alligators in the sewer”, “monsters under the bed” and how “trolls in the closet” fits, but, really, wouldn’t an outhouse be more appropriate for trolls?

ren

[snip . . wrong thread . . mod]

urederra

I think the troll in the pic is rather cute.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta

@Jesse Fell
>Mr. Watts, Do you consider it possible to enter comments on this site that express disagreement with its stance on the issues of global warming and climate change?
Being a blog I assume it is fair for me to be so bold as to answer for Mr Watts.
There are numerous commenters here who from time to time present one or more views holding that mankind is creating a dangerous change in the climate through the emission of (particularly) CO2 from the burning of ‘fossil fuels’. They hold that these emissions are creating detectable changes in the global mean temperature, that this is increasing the ferocity of storms, increasing sea level rise, melting glaciers and decreasing polar ice packs, extending droughts, causing floods and over 600 other things which claims are documented on a website devoted to collecting them. They also hold that such changes are occurring now, that the ‘human fingerprint’ in these changes is detectable, and that it is urgent that the nations of the world band together to created a sort of emergency response team, answerable to no national government, to deal with this manifest threat.
The detailed commentary on the effects of this ‘man-made global warming’ are without end, the long term future consequences are alarming, the immediacy of the need to shut down as rapidly as possible all sources of CO2 emissions undeniable – in short, the narrative is long, comprehensive and detailed. There are thousands of people who disagree with up to 100% of these claims and have standing to make professional contributions on the matter.
You are free to present here any supporting data, commentary, articles, scientific papers, charts, videos and so on that support your position(s) if you subscribe to the above. That is what sets WUWT apart from the likes of Skeptical Science or Real Climate where the theme is so patently one-sided that there is no useful conversation taking place there.
You will find the denizens of WUWT to far better informed than average, many like myself are working professionally in fields that are directly in or are impacted by the decisions taken at the global level on this matter. In short, the capacity to review and comment on any assertions, pro or con the CAWG narrative is present and accounted for. Whatever is submitted, we can as a group make it better, I think.
To be labeled a troll is much more difficult here than at other sites because it is not done on the basis of holding that the CAGW narrative is true, it is on the basis of being a troll, trolling being a well understood activity on the internet. We try not to feed the trolls but they morph to give the impression of being vaguely uninformed seekers after guidance. But label them we do because of their behaviour.
There are regulars here seeking to hijack threads when it suits them or when the information presented is so damning to the alarmist cause that spending 12 hours a day trolling is better than facing yet more aspects of the reality that the AGW premise is fundamentally flawed on so many levels.
If you have a paper (or article) to present that is up to snuff in terms of content and quality you can offer to host a session and we will examine your argument. It can be very informative.
Welcome to WUWT.

jhborn

Crispin in Waterloo: “If you have a paper (or article) to present that is up to snuff in terms of content and quality you can offer to host a session and we will examine your argument. It can be very informative.”
That’s probably what Mr. Watts intends, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that “up to snuff in terms of quality” can be so applied as to suppress alternative views.
I have no doubt that Mr. Watts sincerely attempts to maintain open inquiry on his site and to give space to opposing points of view. And by all accounts he succeeds to a much higher degree than alarmist sites such as Skeptical Science. But mechanisms for enforcing a consensus operate on his site, too, as I discovered when I submitted a proposed post questioning what I’ll call the “Brown-Eschenbach Law of Lapse-Rate Conservation” (the “B-E Law”).
Long-time followers of this blog may remember posts by Willis Eschenbach and Robert Brown respectively called “Perpetuum Mobile” and “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates.” Those posts’ purpose was to refute Han Jelbring’s erroneous theory that at equilibrium the atmosphere would exhibit its dry adiabatic lapse rate: there would be a substantial vertical temperature gradient even if the atmosphere were not being mixed by the effects of solar radiation, etc. There are indeed legitimate bases for refuting Dr. Jelbring’s theory. Instead of those, however, Mr. Eschenbach and Dr. Brown employed respective versions of the B E Law.
The B-E Law contemplates two thermally isolated systems that are initially at equilibrium and for the sake of argument exhibit different lapse rates in the presence of gravity. Consequently, at least one of them has a non-zero thermal-equilibrium lapse rate. If those erstwhile-isolated systems are then thermally coupled at two different altitudes, the B E Law says that instead of decaying to zero as the now-coupled systems approach a common, composite-system equilibrium lapse rate, net heat flow between them would last forever (or, apparently, at least until their temperatures decay to absolute zero) as the two systems attempt to maintain their pre-coupling lapse rates.
Where did they get such a law? Supposedly, it is dictated by thermodynamics and Fourier’s Law in particular. But how can that be? The bases of thermodynamics are strictly empirical, whereas the situation to which they are applying it is one that according to them could never have been observed. What is their rationale for thus applying thermodynamics beyond its scope? In particular, how can thermodynamics tell us that heat flow would not simply decay to zero as the new, composite system reached its own, common lapse rate?
Dr. Brown’s following derivation of the B E Law supposedly explains it:

Two different columns of gas with different lapse rates. Place them in good thermal contact at the bottom, so that the bottoms remain at the same temperature. They must therefore be at different temperatures at the top. Run a heat engine between the two reservoirs at the top and it will run forever, because as fast as heat is transferred from one column to another, (warming the top) it warms the bottom of that column by an identical amount, causing heat to be transferred at the bottom to both cool the column back to its original temperature profile and re-warm the bottom of the other column. The heat simply circulates indefinitely, doing work as it does, until the gas in both columns approaches absolute zero in temperature, converting all of their mutual heat content into work.

Where did Dr. Brown get that “as fast as heat is transferred from one column to another, (warming the top) it warms the bottom of that column by an identical amount, causing heat to be transferred at the bottom to both cool the column back to its original temperature profile and re-warm the bottom of the other column”? In particular, how does he know that “it warms the bottom of that column by an identical amount”?
At least to this layman, that result seems remarkable. Thermally coupling the previously isolated systems gives the (now-constituent) systems access to a broader range of energies than they previously had, so their phase spaces and thus their statistics change. Yet Mr. Eschenbach and Dr. Brown seem to argue that the constituent systems would seek the same equilibrium configurations they previously had. I could detect no logical basis for so astonishing a result.
So I submitted comments questioning their logic and instead suggesting the conclusion of a paper by Velasco et al. To my way of thinking, that paper not only provided the real basis for refuting Dr. Jelbring’s theory but also showed that the B E Law is invalid. But I’m afraid that what ensued was not edifying.
Why, the response was, should anyone give any credence to some “random guy” on the Internet? My acceptance of Velasco et al. and my refusal to avert my eyes from the yawning chasm in the logic behind the B E Law was taken to evidence of “amazing ignorance of thermodynamics.” No one attempted to explain why coupled systems would not simply assume a new, different-lapse-rate equilibrium state. No one attempted to identify any false step in Velasco et al.’s derivation. In other words, the thread trailed off into irrelevancies.
And that’s the way things stood for a couple of years, until comments submitted by Dr. Brown in the winter of 2014 again addressed equilibrium isothermality. Ordinarily I just let errors go after I’ve made a few attempts to dispel them—my batting average is only about .300—but I had been so taken aback by such unscientific arguments from scientists that I again urged Dr. Brown to aattempt a more-creditable defense of his theory.

My reading of Velasco et al. is that it is a demonstration, based on no assumptions other than the basic axioms of statistical mechanics, that at equilibrium there is in fact a non-zero (albeit, for any significant quantity of gas, quite small) translational-kinetic-energy gradient in the presence of a gravitational field. If you haven’t disproved that through statistical mechanics, your “refutation” is illusory.

Again, though, he merely acted as though the B E Law had the status of F = ma:

Well, illusory except for the implicit violation of the second law. Because if a gas has a lapse rate and metal has a different one then you have perpetual motion. The only way to avoid a violation of the second law is for all material objects to come to the same thermal gradient in a gravitational field. I’m hoping you can see why this is not ever going to be the case.

Thereby convinced that we would never get more than a superficial dismissal of Velasco et al. from the scientists, I decided to dig into it myself and report the results. I wrote up an equation-by-equation description of how Velasco et al. arrived at their conclusion so that anyone who could identify an error would be more likely to do so, , and I submitted it to Mr. Watts as a proposed post.
And that’s where I witnessed this site’s consensus-enforcement mechanism first-hand. In response to my submission, Mr. Watts spiked my piece, dismissing Velasco et al.’s paper as “junk” without identifying any incorrect step in their reasoning. So I wrote another piece, this time without the Velasco et al. equations. The second piece was a more-qualitative demonstration of why the gradient would be zero only in the infinite-number-of-molecules limit. Mr. Watts would not post that piece, either.
Now, both submissions included some statistical mechanics, and at least as to the second one Mr. Watts ultimately admitted that he didn’t understand its substance. In truth, that’s partly my fault; after the effort that went into typing all those complicated equations into the first submission I didn’t put as much effort as I might have into making the second’s statistical mechanics accessible. But I don’t think the subject matter’s difficulty was the sole reason for his spiking my submission; his blog runs plenty of posts that not everyone can follow. I think the ultimate reason for spiking my pieces was that Mr. Watts thought they contained a crackpot theory.
That’s understandable, of course. There’s a “random guy on the Internet” up against two of Mr. Watts’ more-influential contributors. Although Mr. Watts no doubt does want to expose his readers to alternate points of view, he doesn’t want the site to be seen as the place where every weird theory finds a home.
At the end of the day, though, what he did was this. Despite the lack of scientific support for the, well, novel B E Law, he hosted two posts based on it, thus establishing it as this site’s de facto standard proof of equilibrium isothermality. And when he was offered a post that—with complete mathematical support—questioned this standard, he spiked it. Regardless of the intent, the effect was to enforce the local orthodoxy and suppress an alternative view.

Vince Causey

Village Idiot says:
August 18, 2014 at 3:51 am
“To kick off we could take Sir Christopher Monktons definition: ‘Anyone who disagrees with me’.
Did he actually say that as implied by the quotes? Can you give a link please?

Oldseadog

AlecM:
Oh dear……. .

@ Vince Causey August 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
Mostly, the posters Monkton calls trolls appear to be folks “pulling a Nick Stokes”. (See the “Moore tour needs some backers” thread.)
Not only was Stokes attempting to hijack the thread but he would rant incessantly even after being shown to be wrong.
One thing I’ve noticed: trolls do not like to be called trolls.
Must be a cultural thing.
Dunno.

Vince Causey:
re your post at August 18, 2014 at 6:32 am.
The statement was not made by Lord Monckton. It is a falsehood presented by the troll who posts under the accurate and descriptive title of ‘Village Idiot’.
The falsehood was refuted (by me at August 18, 2014 at 5:42 am) but your post shows that refutation was not an end to the matter. Thus, the troll has been successful in its objective of deflecting the thread from its true purpose which is amusing troll identification.
Richard

M Courtney

Thus, the troll has been successful in its objective of deflecting the thread from its true purpose which is amusing troll identification.

Or he is helpfully providing a practical experience.
Can’t believe that my father’s aggressive style gets through but I get moderated. I really need that style guide.

Getting back to “trolls coming out of the closet”,
I’m wondering whether trolls can legally marry and get equal protection under the law.

M Courtney:
Blunt statement of truth is not “aggressive”.

Dr. Deanster

From my experience .. the typical conversation with a Climate Troll goes like this:
– Poster: There’s been no warming for the last 10-15 years or so, look at the graph.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
– Poster: There’s a new study that shows IR out to space is increasing which goes against CAGW theory.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
– Poster: All the data show decreases in tornados, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc … which goes against CAGW theory.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
– Poster: according to CAGW advocates, the arctic is supposed to be ice free about now … but it’s just not happening .. look at the pictures.
– Troll: But there is a 97% consensus that CAGW is happening.
…… I think you get the picture. There needs to be a 97% somewhere in that cartoon.

richard verney

From what little I know about trolls (having lived in Norway for some time), I always thought that they usually have a tree growing on their nose. I kid you not. Whether that is the type of tree that Mann likes to give undue weight to, I do not know.

Village Idiot

Dr. Deanster: Wherein the trolling?
Richard Verney: Is making a puerile sideswipe at Micky Mann trolling?

Question:
Who is the idiot, the one who proclaims himself the Village Idiot or one who replies to one who proclaims himself the Village Idiot?

Village Idiot

John Who: Off topic (trolling?)

JohnWho:
You pose a good and on-topic question when you ask at August 18, 2014 at 7:25 am

Who is the idiot, the one who proclaims himself the Village Idiot or one who replies to one who proclaims himself the Village Idiot?

I answer, probably both but the respondent may not be a troll although the Village Idiot is. Indeed, a chosen false name is often indicative of a troll.
Richard

“A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.”
Good definition, which can be demonstrated with an example:
“There is no doubt that Climate Change has had a hand in exacerbating racial tensions in Ferguson, Mo., as the poor and disadvantaged demonstrate for Social Justice. Those who blindly deny the effect of Climate Change on poor people’s lives should acknowledge their part in disrespecting Minority voters in America today.”

Thank you for your response Richard.
But, perhaps I should clarify:
What I mean is that once someone is identified as a troll, is it then wise to pursue further verbal intercourse with them?
I will agree that one’s screen name could be indicative of a specific viewpoint.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta says:
August 18, 2014 at 6:05 am
@Jesse Fell
>Mr. Watts, Do you consider it possible to enter comments on this site that express disagreement with its stance on the issues of global warming and climate change?
You are free to present here any supporting data, commentary, articles, scientific papers, charts, videos and so on that support your position(s) if you subscribe to the above. That is what sets WUWT apart from the likes of Skeptical Science or Real Climate where the theme is so patently one-sided that there is no useful conversation taking place there.

I’ll go further. Anthony has posted input from climate orthodoxy scientists as guest blog post here. If you feel your contribution warrants a full posting here, I’d recommend submitting it to Anthony with such a request. You might be surprised. We regulars here would not be.

JohnWho:
At August 18, 2014 at 7:49 am you pose the question

What I mean is that once someone is identified as a troll, is it then wise to pursue further verbal intercourse with them?

There is no simple answer.
Whenever possible it is advantageous to ‘not feed the troll’ because the troll obtains its objective when it engenders any response.
However, a troll’s comment often requires rebuttal so it does not mislead onlookers. And that can result in a skillful troll generating a continuous interchange by use of ‘goalpost moving’ and additional falsehoods which also require rebuttal.
Please remember that some trolls are professionals who obtain remuneration for disrupting threads.
Richard

DD More

trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
Trolls just want to have fun – Erin E. Buckelsa, , , Paul D. Trapnellb, Delroy L. Paulhusc
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
That’s peer reviewed.

Neutron Powered High-Side Sideways Racer

ATTP has made a self-reference:
I guess if you don’t really know what you’re talking about, but don’t want to admit that, then that might be the only way to engage in such exchanges (ooops, is that a little too robust again, sorry).

“A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.”
and then
Indeed, a chosen false name is often indicative of a troll.
#####################
watch how the definition will grow and change to fit the circumstances.
But let’s get down to the difficultly of defining a troll.
1. Deflecting the thread onto other matters.
The problem here is the problem of judging what is germane. There is no algorithm that will
tell you when a comment is on topic or off topic.
For example, what is the topic of this post?
well its a cartoon. And the cartoon says paraphrasing “if it walks like a duck …. then its a duck”
Or the equivalent of ” I cant define pornography but I know it when I see it”
So, the topic one could argue is “what is trolling” Of course it is on topic to discuss ANY
incidence of trolling as an example to illustrate a point. And it might be on topic to discuss trolling at other blogs. its also on topic to discuss the drawing of the cartoon.
The post also has some text
“Josh writes: There’s been a bit of closet trolling recently, a pretence if being polite but blatantly not, and generally trying to derail posts. Fortunately we have a helpful cartoon for that.”
so it would be on topic to talk about politeness and rules for conversation. Its on topic to talk about thread de railing, And what does it mean to be on topic. Here we might make our case by bring in other examples.. say poster X on old thread Y. Of course then the topics of that post get brought up again.
As people make comments the topic evolves. It grows, it morphs. And then someone crosses a “line” none of us draw the line in the same place.. what is on topic to you might seem off topic to me. At this junction some Nanny throws the troll flag.. an offensive misrepresentation.
And then people argue about whether calling someone a troll is
1. OFF TOPIC
2. offensive.
Thread Nannies try to control the discourse until the jack boot of the moderator can come down on somebodies neck.
Now, go back through old posts. Look at comments. See how many times a post about
climate science becomes a discussion of politics… to some this is “on topic” to others it is
“off topic”

Josh/Anthony:
“AND THEN THERE’S TROLLS”
Grammar issue:
Shouldn’t that be “AND THEN THERE ARE TROLLS” ?
“There’s” is singular, isn’t it? Unless the grammar issue was done on purpose for some reason…..

M Courtney

Steven Mosher says at August 18, 2014 at 8:17 am.
Very good comment.
But I would argue that there are clearly defined cases where thread-jacking is trolling.
1) The thread is moved into a circular conversation. Epitomised by the Monty Python sketch (this is not an argument, yes it is, no it isn’t…). That’s the extreme case but we have all seen a discussion devolve into repetitive contradictions rather than a sharing of views and different perspectives with novel evidence being introduced. The thread is killed when it circles.
2) The thread is shifted to a subject that has recently been covered elsewhere. No new light can shed as the subject has just been covered completely. That starves the thread of value.
3) The thread is polarised by raising a subject for which there is no definitive answer but very high passions. Anyone claiming that they know the true God (or proof of none), true political creed (or ideological proof of another’s wickedness) or many cultural values such as “All modern art is rubbish”.
Those thread-jacks are trolling as the debate isn’t merely moved but mangled.

Venter

Mosher,
Hint, go through the Greenpeace Patrick Moore thread and see the trolling attempts of the person for which this cartoon was designed, if you really care, before pontificating and spouting obtuse crap.

M Courtney

And my comment is awaiting moderation again…

Steven Mosher:
Thankyou for your clear demonstration of trolling with the start of your post at August 18, 2014 at 8:17 am which begins saying

“A troll is someone who attempts to avoid or to inhibit discussion of a subject by deflecting a thread onto other matters. Often the attempt includes offensive misrepresentation of a person.”
and then
Indeed, a chosen false name is often indicative of a troll.
#####################
watch how the definition will grow and change to fit the circumstances.

There was and is no attempt to “grow and change” the definition of a troll that I have often posted on WUWT prior to stating it in this thread.
The definition was mine and the descriptive addition is NOT a modification of it.
Similarly, a church may be defined as being a place of worship, and an addition may be that the style of windows is often indicative of a church.
Goalpost moving is a troll activity. You often do it. I don’t.
Perhaps your most extreme example of ‘goalpost moving’ was when you tried to redefine the scientific null hypothesis.
The remainder of your post is an excuse for trolling based on your pretended difficulty with understanding what is “germane”. Yes, Steven Mosher, you often display that difficulty, but it is usually not clear if your difficulty is deliberate or not.
Richard