[papsosouid]

I find it interesting that you characterize his personal opinion as expecting "everyone on the internet to cater to his expectations", while demanding that he cater to your expectations of "politeness". People posting deliberately misleading pseudo-scientific nonsense do not warrant some false amiability. His nonsense needs a firm rebuttal, just as homeopathy and chakras and crystal therapy and all the other quackery does.

[MartinCron]

The expectation of politeness is a meaningful social norm, not just a personal opinion.

Also, politeness and civility isn't the same as false amiability. You can (and should) give firm rebuttals in a civil way. There's nothing false about it.

[papsosouid]

The expectation of politeness as a meaningful social norm does not apply to con artists.

[MartinCron]

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. We absolutely should be polite and civil to con artists, charlatans, schemers, scammers, phonies, bronies, and quacks. When you coarsen the dialogue, it negatively impacts everyone in the community, not just the con artist.

[illuminate]

There is no dialogue with sociopaths, nothing constructive but to figure out how to waste less time and energy on them in the future.

Every minute spent trying to get anything back is a minute you will never have back.

[papsosouid]

I don't think so. Con artists take advantage of people's unwillingness to confront them and the desire to remain "polite" and "pleasant". They benefit from it. On the other hand, it most certainly does not negatively impact everyone in the community for people to be blunt with con artists. You may feel it negatively impacts you, but it doesn't negatively impact me.

[MartinCron]

I guess I am not being clear. I totally advocate confronting con artists. I even agree that there is a moral imperative to call out con artists. I just think it can and should be done in a civil way.

I don't want to hang out at a place where people are yelling, even if they aren't yelling at me.