Tuesday, March 09, 2010

The wheat and the chaff

In any system there is always a level of noise that interferes with the essential communicative process, at some point the noise becomes so severe that any message is liable to become swamped by it.

It pains me to do this, and I know what the reaction of those who will suffer most from this decision will be, but I am going to employ much stricter moderation on this blog from now on.

There is level of debate below which nothing is served by prolonging it. I am not trying to convince those who are dyed in the wool in their opposition to change there ways, that is, short of a miracle, impossible. Neither is my blog aimed at the convinced on the other side, I have no need of merely flattering egos in a mutual support club.

My aim is to appeal to the middle, ground, the as yet unconvinced in any direction, and in order to do that I have to filter out the noise.

It is a blog owners prerogative to allow what posts xe will, and there are many out there who are so strict they brook no opposition at all, which of course equally leaves me out when I try and comment on that territory.

I have to say enough is enough, and realise that those whose monofixated rants which end up as no more than prolonged 'bar room' 'Punch and Judy' arguments have no place in the comments section here. Those who left out cannot in any event claim discrimination as the internet and the blogosphere gives them ample chance to continue thosee arguments elsewhere. I happen to believe, not without reason that they are not sufficiently convincing in any case to gain an upper hold on any reasonable legislature or academic consensus, and so I will leave them too it in the 'flat earth land' populated by straw men and over emotional demagogues.

The matters I wish to discuss are far too important for the serious players to be put off by that level of noise.

I want anyone posting here to feel secure in the knowledge that their reason and sensibility will not be assailed by pointless and petty 'grudge' arguments, nor grade school scientific howlers adduced to support unsustainable hypotheses.


oscilor said...

What was the problem with my post then? You rise to the bait of the punch and judy posts and reply to them, but when I say something constructive, it's totally ignored. You're fast losing any credibility you ever had with me.

I'm not making grade school scientific howlers and I realised way before you did that the best way to convince the researchers is to become one of them. I'm no arse licker either who just agrees to be smug, if you have seen any of my comments elsewhere or knew anything about my history.

I guess I'm sinking to your level just by writing this, but I've not had much sleep and don't really care.

I'm moving on from autism anyway. It served a purpose by helping free me from the stranglehold of schizohprenia, but i don't want sucked into another pseudoscientific category. I have other conditions that have a valid biological basis and more impact on my life, and their support groups do not go on the way the autism community (with the exception of Gestalt that i'll continue to support) does.

oscilor said...

On second thoughts, delete my last post. I don't really care why you ignored my post. It's your blog. Say what you want.

The author said...

Oscilor, do not imagine that I spend every hour of the day watching my blog like a hawk to see who has commented.

It follows that I am more likely to comment on a negative post in order to refute or dismiss it, than one I generally agree with.

I have moved the discussion of my ethics campaign elsewhere because I do not want to attract the zombie fest of the usual suspects, JB jr, Harold Doherty, Jon Mitchell etc. who it is pointless to try and persuade anyhow because they have no wider audience to persuade anyway.

Being as it is my intention to attract serious and well known researchers to this cause, I cannot imagine either that they would wish to participate in any debate which is well trolled by Punch and Judy artists.

oscilor said...

Ok, that is what I first thought, but I am not sleeping well and paranoia and loss of inhibition and the general atmosphere in these parts got the better of me.

I think you are right to take this elsewhere. I have mentioned it to a few people who have no special interest in autism and they were shocked, so I think you will get support from people generally who do not have an ax to grind.

I will get on with my own thing, which is not about autism, as that does my head in, and is not a good model for what I want to say, but is still very much about neurodiversity.

Robin P Clarke said...

Laurence, I think your moderating rationale here is sound, given circumstances such as you describe and are well-enough illustrated in the timewasting emptiness just above here. Some sites do manage a reasonable level of contribution without pre-moderation; I guess manage thus so long as one can.
By the way, regardign the notion that "in the land of the blind the one-eyed is king". In reality far more likely that that one-eyed will first be declared mad, then declared evil, and then executed as an arch-criminal. Countless examples exist. Why else are we right now ruled by the most incompetent of entities? (But then maybe your title is with knowing irony?)