sceptics, creationists and intelligent designers are 'trolls' - an Internet jargon term defined by Brook as 'people who intentionally post false or controversial messages to gain attention or foment a conflicting style of debate.'
Brook advises people not to 'feed trolls by engaging them on their terms'.
He claims they can be overcome by 'good science - evidence and ideas ...'
I am always suspicious if somebody moots an idea and then says that no opposition may be tolerated. In the moral sphere it is possibly more understandable than in the scientific, eg] Murdering infants - what is there to debate?
If your science however, cannot stand the scrutiny of public debate, then clearly, however much you huff and puff and try to stifle the voices of dissenters, there will always be a doubt about the validity of what you postulate.
We return once again - in a marginally different guise - to the refusal of Dawkins, Jones, Attenborough et al to debate their failed evolutionary hypothesis. [Mustn't give credibility to 'these people' - it makes them seem respectable.]
Mackay, Wieland, Sarfati and many more scientists of repute are just itching to take on people like this ignorant oaf in proper, televised debate.
I have often made the point that anybody truly convinced in their factual base would want to debate the science in public. How sweet to be able to humiliate the opposition whom you so actively despise. But apparently this does not motivate them. I wonder why that is? - It certainly ain't nobility!
He truly is RUNNING SCARED and this tactic is oh so transparent.
