Cranks, Trolls and Other Blessings of the Online World

Hi,I am much of a newbie, but it seems to me that the cranks mentioned here are all creationists/believers. Is that always the case?

Well you'd expect the cranks that turn up on this site to be anti-evolution.But apparently there is at least one that isn't - Alan Cresswell (NOT Dr. Cresswell) - see the "Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection" thread.

Thanks!That thread is ...words fail me.

MrJack,I've been told that I'm a crank, and I sort of like or admire the description in Percy's post. I have plenty of invites out, however, so plenty of the dinner table talks, walks with family and friends. But, I like to write, it makes me think more clearly, know what's going on in my mind, and find the stimulation of questions releases that. All without publication, which is tedious, a waste of time, I'm afraid.Meanwhile, I get to watch other people thinking. As a philosopher, that's what I study most of all--what happens when people think.The nice thing about these sites is that anyone can ignore cranks (except, as many report, we are irresistible!) In my value system, freedom is the top, being the availability of choices. I put some insights out there, people can choose to read them or not, respond or not.Strive to understand or not. Change or not. So, not only do I get the pleasure of thinking and writing, and learning about human thinking, but no one is necessarily bored. And some might actually become better company for my God, Jehovah, who has ideas about all of us.Intellectual sparing. Prevent Alzheimer's. Would you really begrudge me the computer space, and hope?We are Homo sapiens, remember.Stephen

What do people think of the idea of creating a new forum called Crank's Corner (or we could have a contest to name it). When the rating system is installed, those who find themselves in this category would find their posting privileges restricted to this forum and Free For All. Or perhaps we should rename Free For All Crank's Corner?--Percy

Thank you for that insightful reply, Stephen.Best,Jack.

I don't think so... Free for all implies being able to bring up a wide variety of topics and get them taken seriously. Crank's corner would mostly be the oposite; a wide variety of topics which are not taken seriously.[This message has been edited by Melchior, 03-02-2004]

I dunno Percy. I'm not sure I like the idea of this kind of restriction. In the first place, who is elected to decide whether a particular poster is a "crank"? Popular opinion? Talk about potential for abuse! Even with the definition of internet crank you posted in the OP, every creationist that comes on this site could theoretically be labelled "crank". Who'd we argue with then?Secondly, the forum already has an effective (albeit ad hoc) method for dealing with persistently obnoxious posters - restricting them to one thread or one forum (witness the various posters who've been relegated at one time or another to the "Free for All").Third, unless the person is actively spamming the site, even a crank can be of value: a lot of good science is trotted out on this site to show how a crank is, in fact, a crank. Closing that off would defeat one of the main attractions (for me, at least) of this web forum versus others. It's what sets evcforum apart from the herd of other discussion boards.Finally, it greatly bothers my libertarian-leaning soul to see additional "rules" added. I feel that this would tend to stifle debate, rather than improve the quality. In spite of the troops of "Evolutionist Slayer Teens for Christ" creationists that pop in and out of here like flashbulbs and bail out after one post, the most engaging discussions have been with people who would quite likely fall into the "crank" category: think Peter Borger, etc. Mammuthus and I did some of our best work with Borger... If people find a particular poster to be worthless, then all they need to do is cease responding to them. Even Syamasu occasionally stimulates some worthwhile replies (the assertions are useless drivel, but the replies are good ones...).Summing up - I don't like the idea of new restrictions. After all, even the dimmest bulb sheds some light.

Here's a query for anyone:The word crank in its usual usage refers to a device that gets some machine wound up and going. This is generally a favorable device, and one can see a connection between that usage and the use of the term in a discussion. Cranks could crank up the discussion, get it going. Admittedly, the cranking process is "cranky," makes an unpleasent noise, is laborious, and should not go on too long. But, when things get stalled, a crank could be quite handy. So, why is the term so pejorative?I get a similar thought, thinking about being a nut, or a nutcase. Nuts are amazing. Besides being the fruit of really old trees, and having the power to make another great tree, they are full of poly-unsaturated fats that make anyone who eats them have a good heart, and good mind. And the proteins in nuts are good for the neurotranmitters that make one think clearly. Why when we call a person a nut are we being pejorative? Again, I can see where a person who is dealing with really long-term issues, in a healthy way, might be told, as a complement, that they are "nuts."And trolls. Now, I believe I am right in thinking a troll refers not to someone lurking under a bridge with evil intentions, but to someone looking to lure someone into something. We are borrowing the term from fishing, where one drags a baited hook through the water after a boat. So, internet trolls would be "fishing for men." Now, both trolling for fish, and fishing for men, are honorable enough occupations. And believers in Jesus on this forum had better be fishing for men, or they are hypocrites. His invitation to be with Him at all was contingent on wanting to be trained to be a fisher of men. Yet, somehow, the term has pejorative notations here. Wonder why.Finally, about lurkers, people who sit in on a debate without entering in. Well, again, this is pejorative, somehow, even though it can only lead to good. The "lurker" themselves are made to think in new ways, and their potential attention to the debate makes it more interesting to the debaters. And what harm is done?It's weird to me that we would use terms that ought to be complementary, as derogatives.Any thoughts?Stephen