What to do with ABC2019

[Christophe]

Easy: at each bickering (and various and varied insults that YOU denounce ...) you are at least 2 ... except perhaps Obamot who this week blew a hose and insult "in the void" ... at times. ... no doubt he forgot his pills ... Sanitary times are hard ...

In short 2 it makes 2 teams of 1 ...

It is enough to count the bickering to constitute the teams!

[ABC2019]

So ok I propose 1 week of ban per "team" ...

No but it's not okay? I am not part of any team!

that's why it would be good to have the criteria to know why we end up in a team ...

I proposed one: we take the last 50 posts and we count the proportion that are only insults, without argument. At least it has the advantage of being relatively objective.

[eclectron]

In addition the concept of opinion does not really apply in physics ... it is true or it is false and your narrow vision is false.
Let's move on ....

YOU think my vision is wrong and I think your vision is wrong. Explain to me why you would be more right than me?
And why would it be me who should be banned and not you?

already tell me where is the flaw in what I exposed
what are you saying yourself, apart from an apprentice physicist slogan who doesn't understand the context.

Why should I be banned?
For insults (light) to annoy the public (however heavy)?

[ABC2019]

Easy: at each bickering (and various and varied insults that YOU denounce ...) you are at least 2 ... except perhaps Obamot who this week blew a hose and insult "in the void" ... at times. ... no doubt he forgot his pills ... Sanitary times are hard ...

well everyone can find themselves bickering with everyone, for example I agree with Izzy on the HCQ and not on the climate, and Guy is the opposite ...

the basic problem for me is; a sanction is to sanction reprehensible behavior that violates a rule.

Chat on a forum and not to agree, it is not forbidden on a forum , that I know of.

insults can be prohibited. Or other things, like the call for murder or pedophilia. But in law when one condemns, it is obligatory to a) specify the rule (the article of law) which was violated and b) present the evidence. It is a basic protection against arbitrariness, and dictatorships are precisely dictatorships because they do not bother with this kind of scruples.

So me when I ran a red light in front of the cops and they took 4 points away from me, I didn't protest because I knew I had violated a rule. But I don't see why it wouldn't be the same on a forum :

a) specify which rule was violated
b) show evidence that she was raped (at message # tant)

that seems the minimum to me.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

And it continues ... no, but can't you see that he is leading you (us) by boat since his registration ??? He takes people for idiots ... Even on Futura-Science they realized it. I revamped almost all his posts on the two climatic topics, it's more than obvious, try (without throwing up), it's edifying.
Ps: He starts again on the Ivermectin topic ...

[ABC2019]

already tell me where is the flaw in what I exposed
what are you saying yourself, apart from an apprentice physicist slogan who doesn't understand the context.

Why should I be banned?
For insults (light) to annoy the public (however heavy)?

I did not ask for your banishment, it is you who asked for mine. I'm just asking why if you thought that was a valid reason for banning, why should we decide I'm wrong and not you. On what basis?

The most logical solution is to say that in case of disagreement, we stay on a disagreement and there is no need to ban neither one nor the other.

[eclectron]

a) specify which rule was violated
b) show evidence that she was raped (at message # tant)

a) intelligence
b) almost everywhere, well on what I read ...

Am i good?

[ABC2019]

And it continues ... no, but can't you see that he is leading you (us) by boat since his registration ??? He takes people for idiots ... Even on Futura-Science they realized it. I revamped almost all his posts on the two climatic topics, it's more than obvious, try (without throwing up), it's edifying.
Ps: He starts again on the Ivermectin topic ...

So the rule for you is that we must ban forums those who don't agree with you?

If it is a written rule of forum, ok, I won't post on it anymore. But I'm waiting for Christophe to confirm that it is indeed one.

[Christophe]

And why would it be me who should be banned and not you?

Do you understand the concept of teams now?

[Christophe]

[But I'm waiting for Christophe to confirm that it is indeed.

We can wait a long time ...