According to the Cipher Mysteries WordPress dashboard, more than 43000 comments have been posted (and approved) here. (Akismet tells me it has deleted more than 690,000 spam comments.) Moderation is a thing I have to do every day, and over the last six months this has got progressively more time-consuming (and boring). As a result, the comment policy here has to change,
No ad hominems
I’ve had more than enough of commenters’ taking ‘ad hominem’ potshots at each other (and indeed at other people who rarely if ever contribute to Cipher Mysteries). So, new comment moderation policy #1:
“Any comments containing a potshot aimed at a person (rather than, say, at a theory) will now get binned in moderation”.
So it’s still OK to comment “Proposal X sounds a bit ridiculous to me” (because 95% of supposed explanations for cipher mysteries are indeed ridiculous): but, for example, saying “Person Y’s proposal X sounds delusional to me” is an ad hominem, because you are in effect saying that Person Y is delusional.
As an aside, if you want anyone reading your comment to think of it as anything more than the sound of a yappy dog yapping somewhere off in the distance, you might perhaps consider augmenting your opinion with some reasoning? Or a fact? Or… anything, really? To anyone accustomed to Reddit this might sound like an impossible quality bar, but honestly, you can do it, trust me.
One Stupid Pseudonym per Commenter Is Plenty
I’ve also had my fill of people posting under multiple stupid pseudonyms. If you’re going to use a single stupid pseudonym, that’s your business and it’s entirely fine by me. But I’m now really strongly minded to start binning comments left by people using multiple stupid pseudonyms, because it’s just pointless noise.
If you’ve got an opinion about a given cipher mystery, that’s great (and it’s even better if you can justify that opinion in some way), so I’m normally happy to allow it through. But from the point of view of anyone trying to read all these comments (let alone moderate them), constantly swapping between in-joke / mildly-humorous names is just a pain in the neck they can do without.
So, commenters, please do me and everyone else here a big favour (that costs you basically nothing), and stick to a single stupid pseudonym. If that’s [email protected] (or whatever), fine. But just one.
Many decades ago, I wrote computer games under the pen-name “Orlando M. Pilchard QC”, so fully appreciate that there are numerous reasons why commenters might want to use a pen name. But one stupid pseudonym per commenter is enough for this site.
No Racism / Sexism / Homophobia etc
Giving people the freedom to express their opinions on cipher mysteries really isn’t the same as giving them a platform for expressing their racist / sexist / homophobic / etc opinions as well. If you’re desperate to do the latter, it really shouldn’t take you more than a couple of minutes to find a suitable social media platform, so please do that instead, thanks. Why people even begin to think this might be acceptable here, I have no idea. But it’s not.
And I’m also a bit tired of people testing out my moderation boundaries in this respect – so I may well start to delete comments that treat Cipher Mysteries moderation as a kind of lab rat to be incessantly prodded, simply because – speaking as the rat who’s being prodded – it’s not something I want.
@ Nick.Orlando. That is a very nice name. I also approve otherwise. Everyone should express themselves politely. Not to offend anyone. etc. Write to the point and don’t argue about some nonsense here. Which solves no problem and therefore no mysteries.
Hear hear
Thank you.
Well this just got boring 🙁
Hallelujah!
Nick Pelling: so what about those humourless, barbed responses that you in your moderators hat find so hard to resist, particularly the snide asides aimed at Cipher mysteries commenters you’d rather see gone. How do the new cencorship rules figure in there?
Thanks Nick – the “ad hominems” we’re getting a bit rough, as well as often nasty & boring and possibly discouraging people with something to contribute from engaging. I will miss a couple of the pseudo commenters – I quite enjoyed some of Bob Dylan’s offerings!
I smell a fake, Len.
Guess my Dixson Yarmouth wouldn’t get a run now. Or Clint Oris.
Excellent. Lurch isn’t a stupid pseudonym by the way. Maybe it was stupidly given to me as a nickname way too long ago…and it stuck 😁
Kara: I’m sure you have plenty more where they came from.
Some lessons are learnt late in life, eh Nick?
Petebowes: I may yet delete every comment with the word “Dome”. Should free up a gigabyte or so on the server.
One of those non herdable cats got your tongue, eh Nick?
[cheap generic bald insult] you are, and [cheap generic bald insult] you will always be .. although I could suggest a hard plastic bristle brush that may or may not invigorate the moribund blood vessels that disfigure what must have been a relatively outrageous head of hair ..
Beatlewise …
Well done, Nick, the sense of humour we always knew you had has at last emerged, though with a little less hair than what was evident in your earlier days.
Over and out.
john sanders: the cipher-mystery-discussion-to-badmouth ratio needed fixing, and there are plenty of people here who actively contributed to that, herd or no herd.
Nick Pelling: just so long as we all stick by the old truism….and we don’t cook our own geese, we should get along fine.
+1
The Dutch Lion being our national symbol and our freedom of speech being one of our most highly regarded values, that last remark is a huge compliment.
Nick, thanks.
7 up
Nick,
About your hypothetical comment: “Person Y’s proposal X sounds delusional to me” I agree that it is likely to be interpreted by many as if the subject of the sentence is not the proposal but the proposer.
I don’t agree that the issue is improved by denying Person Y the right to be identified as author of that proposal.
Given that the subject of the sentence *is* the proposal, not the proposer, then the issue really comes down to what other term you would want used to describe a proposal which, in your opinion, is based on a mis-perception of data or secondary evidence?
The history of science is full of instances where judgements and theories were developed based on false perceptions. Anyone who believed them can be described as deluded without implying that they were in any constantly delusional state of mind.
To use a Voynich example, I’d still say “Person Y’s proposal that the manuscript includes a drawing of a spiral galaxy sounds delusional to me” – even though I know the person who proposed it was a reputable astronomer who never had a moment’s mental instability in the psychiatric sense.
I’m not arguing your decision about what comments you delete – it’s your blog.
I’m saying that sometimes comments which are may be poorly phrased and yet neither ill-motived nor inaccurate.
Just a thought.
Diane: yes, the proposal was the subject of the (hypothetical) sentence, and the (hypothetical) commenter was calling the proposal “delusional”. And yet it is close to impossible not to read that (hypothetical) sentence as an ad hominem attack on the (hypothetical) proposer – so my point was actually about how ad hominems can take many forms, not just the obvious ‘playground name-calling’ ones.
In your example about the “spiral galaxy” (Voynich Manuscript f68v3), perhaps you should find alternatives to the word “delusional” that actually mean what you want to mean. Wasn’t the point of that story that it was Newbold’s bad cryptology and bad history that led the poor astronomer into an ill-considered position?
Everyone should write clearly and distinctly. (and not ad hominem). To avoid any bad comments.
However, an example of a “spiral galaxy” is given here, so I would like to put things in perspective. So Newbold and his stargazer is ad hominem. And a pretty big ad hominem.
Of course, I could write you what is written on the page and what the picture expresses. But I think there are enough scientists who don’t need it and will find out what the picture means on their own over time.
It is, of course, important to read the text of the manuscript.
Congratulations Nick,
The action you’ve taken will benefit the Somerton Man conversation greatly. The Somerton Man Mystery still has a way to go.
Nick,
I guess in that case, we might substitute ‘misguided’ or ‘insufficiently researched’ or something, though they omit the key point – that the theory depends on an initial and persistent misperception-and-misinterpretation.
About the deluded idea of ‘a spiral galaxy’ – as best I can gather it was not pressure from Newbold who tended to believe what was told him by any ‘expert’ but rather another instance of a specialist’s assuming that his own Gladstone bag of tools must contain one able to open the meaning of problematic drawings of unknown origin and provenance because they seem to refer to e.g. astronomy, or botany and so on. I feel very sorry for Newbold because his basic error was a very prevalent one, still. He paid more attention to *who* to believe, than *what*.
I guess that getting people to shift from personality-focus to data-focus is the main point of your new moderation policy. So count me in.
@calypso with all due respect freedom of speech yes but you did question the point of someone’s contribution berating it , stating “TEDIOUS, VERBOSE, COPY, PASTE, CUTTOTHECHASE, GETTOTHEPOINT, LENGTHY, IRRELEVANT, SPAMMER, KLETSMAJOOR.” in a sense stopping the person from contributing and in essence the freedom of speech you so vehemently are defending. Further more calling some one KLETSMAJOOR is not nice and in my opinion personal. Please practice what you preach.
Big Footy fans tuned in to this milestone ‘Kumbaya’ thread might yet be wondering what the heck the saying ‘ad hominem’ is all about. No it’s not some excotic middle eastern dish one has with their doner kebab or tabbouleh ghidah. Put into simple football jargon (all codes) it means ‘playing the man and not the ball’. First I heard the fancy descriptive phrase was in perusal of Diane O’Donovan’s fine works, then seeing it creep into general useage until it has now taken over from ‘in my honest opinion’ as the most popular on line phrase. So big heads up for Diane for starting the trend; So too Gordon Cramer and Peter Bowes for their words of praise for the Nick Pelling’s timely initiative. Now we must play ball or take our more descriptive discourse elswhere.
Peteb: [reams of baldness-related musings removed] So what’s with Gordon’s showing up here to give …uh Nick a big heads up for implementation of the New Deal?
If I ever get to London again I’ll buy you a beer.
With a quick stop off in gorgeous French Indochina to see Slanders.
Qantas always used to stop in Bangcock before the [swear] took over. Trucial states now. The sand can’t be good for the Rolls Royces. Ours used to be the best in the world as Qantas would up-spec them to do the sub-Arctic route to Joburg. Speedbird 9 should ring a bell for British derring do.
If some retarded student does not know what the word “ad hominem” means, then let him read what his colleague John S. wrote about football. This means that the football player was kicked in the knee instead of the ball by a defender. That can happen too. Such a Ronaldo could tell.
Em – Going for another ad hominem? If you had not noticed, freedom of speech was severely limited here for months due to trolling and spamming. By guess who confessed to that. So don’t be surprised when at some point people are going to speak out against it. Most importantly, I did not name ANYONE in that message, so whoever reacted to it must have clearly felt adressed. There is no excuse whatsoever to react to such a message in such an agressive, abusive and intimidating manner – or to even start defending it for that matter. So don’t start lecturing me.
Kara van Farque
If someone like your good self gets away with insulting Vietnamese by calling their country French Indochina, same with Thailand’s government and Royalty in Bangcock [sic], then the possibilities seem endless. My response to the “Slanders’ for sanders pun is that whilst being dull witted and unimaginative, the user was kindly respectful in using a capital S ….Thanks to PeteBowes for his kind suggestion to relocate in a more user friendy environment but, no thanks I tried there once, remember?
John Sanders … my apologies for the late response but I had an appointment at the hairdressers this morning that ran an hour or two overtime as they were quite at a loss as to how to fashion a cut that would deal favourably with the outrageous, no, luscious growth of curly blonde hair I’ve been blessed with for the last 78 years. Some of the young girls in the salon, who themselves could be described as quite luscious, insisted on taking a few pics of my newly-coiffured head for their picture wall, up there next to George Clooney and a vigorously endowed Tom Cruise. Then, bless them, they asked if I would accept a couple of bottles of Phillip B Russian Amber Imperial 355 ml shampoo.
How could I refuse?
Pete bowes: know what you’re saying, and of course there is a life lo lead even when your freedom of speech has been reduced to mere pleasantries, small talk and getting to know other on line punters, now all suddenly pleasant and boring.
My own situation remains unchanged and in fact with our New Years celebrations in full swing it can be a little hectic. We have six lovely prawn peelers at our beck & call cooking up a storm and fussing over their adoring menfolk at home. I might add we get in and help if necessary such as the the usual home repairs and dome- stic duties.
I’m insulting nobody by saying that the best of Vietnam is the French aspect. I mean why else is Australia full of Vietnamese bakeries who make better croissants and luncheon rolls than any man in gay Paris? Have you checked out the Opera House?
Apologies earlier as sub Antarctic corrected to arctic. The Rolls-Royce RBs remain the same. Brilliant little engines. When they spool up and start to bandsaw I’m in heaven.
…..For those not familiar, New Years celebrations where I am are called Tet which I did include in my last post to PB. Seems that my ‘Tet’ was WP dashboarded out to accord with strict new cencorship provisions; or did it fall foul of Nick Pelling’s new Akismet ap.
Thank you for your response John Sanders, and it may help for you to know that my current vehicle has just had a problem diagnosed with its oDOMEter and as a result I’m forced to use the wife’s Honda Tamara Dome NX’03, a tidy little unit she isn’t using while having treatment for an enDOMEtria condition.
By the way, how’s your research going on the classic Japanese DOME car makers model, DOME-0? Apparently it sold very well on their DOMEstic market.
John Sanders: never saw that comment, so Akismet probably didn’t like it for some reason. Without Akismet (or something similar), I think blogging would be close to impossible.
Petebowes: apparently today is Domesday. *sigh*
Put us out of our mystery [generic bald head insult], what is it about your nickname that is unacceptable?
Petebowes: this blog is “Cipher Mysteries”, not “Sledging Daily News”.
The more you talk about my head, the more it looks like you’ve run out of anything to say about the Somerton Man.
Doesn’t matter what a contributor says here, Dome, there is never a follow up … research is one thing, evidence another.
Steve H. & Co…your approach to CM’s restriction in comment privilages by taking your straight talking dialogue to a possibly less tolerant competitor may not be the wisest move you’ve ever made. However I have a game changing proposition that you may wish to considrr in order to supplant your unique off beat style into the tedious Charlie Chuckles conversation. Back on 19 November 2018 one Gordon Cramer took control of ‘anemptyglass wikia/Fandom site, originally set up in 2015 by ex CM contributor ‘sue d’nhin’ who later disappeared. The move was intended merely to spite it’s main contributor ‘We’ @ john sanders and as a consequence has since remained virtually dormant. In recent times I’ve received overtures from wikia/Fandom to renew my former association thereto which I declined due to my my situation. They are rather anxious to get someone to take over the presently inactive site which is well set up and ready to take it’s rightful spot at the top with it’s emphasis being on strong truth seeking relevant conversation. Should some articulate type who’s not intolerant towards a little colourful “how’s your father” reasoning, be interested, then this be your opportunity to get this sorry Tamam Shud bum chum show back on the straight and narrow as it once was.
@ JS – I think that Nick & Pete & Gordon all do a good job on the SM mystery and there is also Derek Abbott’s Facebook page. I’m terms of new evidence for old or new theories I think things are trickling out & from PB’s last post Charlie Webb’s family don’t have much to add & just want to live their lives without further intrusion or intrigue.
My own preferred theory is that Charlie’s death was a suicide and that he oscillated between trying to be a good family member & perhaps a Freemason (like Richard Augustus) and being in over his head with gambling.
The code may be a mnemonic for a Freemason’s song or charge , probably for a lodge that is no longer around – eg South Yarra or Cottesloe. It has the same structure & rhythm and many begin with We or Welcome. On the other hand it could be a poem. Perhaps following GC’s lead we could ask Chat Gpt to compose some poetry in the style of the Somerton Man and see where that leads…
I think there may have been some wartime involvement in making or modifying equipment for signals intelligence work, via Sher. A person to whom I have a family connection who was later a friend & associate of Sher’s trained as an electrician & became a wireless fitter in the early twentieth century. He was in the AIF First Wireless Service in WWI and was then seconded to the British Indian Army for work in Basra. From the 1930s it seems he provided technical assistance & advice to intelligence services. I note that most of the employment ads for the Red Point Tool Company are post 1945. Whether any connections were made at the time who knows… This may be the origin of comments attributed to Jessica Thomson by her daughter Kate such as, “He was known to a higher authority than the SA police”… Sher’s main gig was power tools, so any links here are pretty tenuous.
The Thomson connections & theories – eg cars, taking over the Moseley St lease, will possibly intrigue people forever.
I’ve got limited time for chasing things up but this is what I think could be fruitful:
1. Freemasons- member index cards, songs & charges.
2. More photos via the Springvale & possibly Camperdown historical societies – inc football, family & bakeries.
3. Police gazettes for Melbourne & WA for gambling- baccarat for Melbourne & street betting for Cottesloe.
I don’t think there’s a blog in this…
Jo: afraid I can’t agree with your ‘good job feelings by any of those nominated, on the contrary my own assessment would vary between undisiplined, irresponsible and pathetic; with self serving applying to all. I’m still undecided on whether to go with misadventure, self destruction, assisted suicide or murder; such in light of my disclosure of familial connections between Dorothy & Dr. John Bennett. I honestly don’t see how identifying all people in the photos can solve the case though dates may be of some help. As for the many sideshow propositions we’ve had to contend with of late, all I can say is that they have gotten totally out of control. Someone new on the scene and not familiar with main elements of the original case reading through thousands of posts would be totally baffled by what the heck its all about.
One day, Jo, someone might provide a believable explanation for the absolute abandonment of procedures with the regard to both the police investigation and the final rulings by coroner Cleland. If Gilbert and Sullivan were still around I would consider getting in touch.
To be fair JS, I agree with most of your post. I suspect that he was murdered though by one of the cases he worked on.
Peter Bowes, the procedures may have been followed but taken over by a higher authority.
Nick Pelling: perhaps you might consider also naming & shaming of persistent offenders who choose to deliberately put a different context/slant into their own contrived assessment of what others have reported. Such being merely in order to further their own malicious ends.
@calypso, trolling and spamming?? i have done none of the sort. i have presented view points and observations, possible connections of what i thought might be different way of looking at things. i merely stated that you made some derogatory comments that are not in keeping with your original statement of freedom of speech or even internet etiquette. Basically if you wouldn’t say these things to people in person do not say it in an internet forum- frustration aside – respect other peoples view points on the SM and accept that theories might not be agreed on, considered or even read. Unless backed by facts at the end of the day they are all theories- which as far as I am aware is permitted to be voiced. That is all.
Em – you are totally mixing things up with yet another inflammatory post. I did not mean to say that YOU were trolling and spamming, but in not so many words that the same person that so viciously attacked me – Steve H. & al – had confessed to it earlier on this blog – which I assume you totally missed. Speaking of derogatory comments, MY point of view – the cryptic note being a draft crew list- was on occasion also viciously attacked and shamed by yet another alias. Several people were trolled out of the blog.
And you think these attacks of YOU against me ARE acceptable and not derogatory? Stop accusing me of all sorts of things that are not true! I did NOT name anyone in that comment you keep referring to. I also did NOT say other’s points of view were not respected, I adressed the spamming. Concerning internet etiquette: even if I had mentioned a name in that comment, it is totally acceptable for people to adress trolling and spamming. Adding to that, since when are you an expert in Dutch? “Kwebbelkont” is an endearing word, that is foremost said to children. Calling a spammer “kwebbelkont” is a huge understatement. Strangely enough, you do not seem to be very bothered at all by Steve H for all he did and the names he called me. I suggest a sincere apology from you would be in place here instead of yet another ad hominem.
Cats on a hot tin roof. Love’n it more than I can say!