Hello,

I'd like to inform that the moderator team together with our admin Plazma Inferno! has noticed and is aware of the current state of Sciforums, where too much posting is nonsense and that we have somehow lost path and haven't taken strong actions where they should have been taken.

We are working on a policy and a concrete plan to make this place more credible and serious, more appealing to members who want to have a quality discussion, while still remaining a fun and a free thinking place to be.

This planning might take a few weeks, so please be patient. All I can say is that we are enthusiastic and committed to make Sciforums better, and that any changes shall be made gradually, in a non shocking manner.

This time we intend not to drift with the changing circumstances, but shape this place according to one vision.

When ready, the Policy will be posted in Open Government for discussion, and prior warnings shall be made before any changes that will be done according to the plan.

That is all,
please stand by...

Is my sense of impending doom real or imagined... I wonder...

<The ground rumbles.>

Well it is for the best.

Here comes the Stalinism IceAgeCivilizations warned us about.

Well, at least Matt Marr didn't have a prophecy on this. :D

oh i can tell you exactly how to fix this place.

1. Institute mass bannings, including all those who argue (excluding me)
2. Delete all non-scientific threads
3. Require a minimum amount of letters in order to post, around 1 sentence worth.
4. Reorganize the forums
5. Develop a complaints forum
6. Remove all moderators and if someone recieves 5 reportings then instantly delete the entire thread.
7. Put me in-charge

Get rid of Skinwalker and James R, we would then smell freedom, those two are the poster boys for "politically correct," a term coined by Joseph Stalin.

Get rid of Skinwalker and James R, we would then smell freedom, those two are the poster boys for "politically correct," a term coined by Joseph Stalin.

Do you see the storm clouds gathering over your head, Ice? :p

Yeh, I've been wiping the floor with those two for months now, I'm at "Strike Two" on their ban schedule (though I've been banned about four of five bans already actually), so yeh, they have a choice, ban me or continue to get embarrassed, a hard decision for them no doubt.

Everybody knows they are politically correct full-blown Darwinites who don't like to be made to look bad, so we'll see how much they may have grown up, distressing times for the Darwinite Gestapo.

Get rid of Skinwalker and James R, we would then smell freedom, those two are the poster boys for "politically correct," a term coined by Joseph Stalin.

Considering the past and my acceptance when posting rather unusual and vivid topics, ie sexual in nature, I must review and submitt to James R being fair an impartial. Most moderators are fine, infact I don't ever recall anyone but Absane and James R even PMing me :C~

Oh well... I luV u

Ok, then James R is a perverted politically-correct Darwinite, we'll go with that.

He's also been known to quote from dirty books about the laws of gravity. Let's stone him.

No, just demote him from mod, so we can see what he's got without the badge.

No, just demote him from mod, so we can see what he's got without the badge.

If you review my postings as sderenzi he could've banned me back then, I had to request it for him to even do it :shrug: so yea he's not mean :C my posts were rather weird back then, but it's fun to reread them from time to time.

I am done posting for the most part I think.. all questions I had are now answered.

No, just demote him from mod, so we can see what he's got without the badge.
And then we can stone him?

Ok, then James R is a perverted politically-correct Darwinite, we'll go with that.

This is a science forum, and neo-Darwinism is the accepted theory of species formation. You haven't countered with a scientific theory of your own, only faith-based ones.

You can stone him, I'll pass.

Certainly I have spidergoat, evolution without abiogenesis, the supposed abiogenesis which is merely an unfounded hypothesis, it is clearly a faith based notion.

A scientific proposition would need to be falsifiable. Me and others that respect the methods of science object to you for ignoring the basics of science, not necessarily for offering an alternative theory that we happen to disagree with.

You support one hypothesis for the origin of life, I support another, you support one type of evolutionary theory, I support another, so what's the big wup?

I lurked for a while before I actually started posting. It is definitely a much more interesting, fun place now. How boring would it be if all we had was science to discuss/debate:confused:

We have a little "sunshine" now. :D

p.s. James has given me more infractions than all the other guys combined.:(

That's the problem, you think your faith-based idea deserves equal consideration to scientific hypothesis. It doesn't. It's not falsifiable.

1. Institute mass bannings, including all those who argue (excluding me)
2. Delete all non-scientific threads
3. Require a minimum amount of letters in order to post, around 1 sentence worth.
4. Reorganize the forums
5. Develop a complaints forum
6. Remove all moderators and if someone recieves 5 reportings then instantly delete the entire thread.
7. Put me in-charge

#2
this is a non-scientific thread...if it gets deleted than there will be no #2 suggestion you have made here...:rolleyes:

James R is intimidated by blondes with opinions.

Abiogenesis is not falsifiable either.

James R is intimidated by blondes with opinions.

personal attacks on James R...bear poisoned ban fruits.

http://www.naturenorth.com/summer/pivy/images/pivyberr.jpg

James R is intimidated by blondes with opinions.

LOL. Most guys I "intimidate" don't give me infractions. :D

Isnt samcdkey a natural blonde?

Yes.

That's the problem, you think your faith-based idea deserves equal consideration to scientific hypothesis. It doesn't. It's not falsifiable.
since when are they trying to falsify the natural origins of life?

why is it that any alternative theory on the origins of life automatically faith based?

since when are they trying to falsify the natural origins of life?

why is it that any alternative theory on the origins of life automatically faith based?

unless it has no proof...it is just a belief/faith

it seems every experiment they do to affirm a natural origin for life falsifies it a little more.

it happened like so, but don't you dare ask us to prove it.

the ones that have an agenda to force this on our students are hard at work.
it seems they will stop at nothing to squash all competition.

how dare you to say that life had natural origins when EVERY ATTEMPT to prove it has failed.

the ones that have an agenda to force this on our students are hard at work.
it seems they will stop at nothing to squash all competition.

how dare you to say that life had natural origins when EVERY ATTEMPT to prove it has failed.

I think the real question here is: can everything in this life be proven?

I think the real question here is: can everything in this life be proven?
what is it that can't be proven AND all debate on the matter is squelched?

what is it that can't be proven AND all debate on the matter is squelched?

Who are you/Who am I?

this subject really ticks me off.
ask all high schoolers if they know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. it is not pointed out to these students that science has not solved the riddle of lifes origins, and why is that?

you a scared to death they will ask questions.

Who are you/Who am I?
troll. have nothing to offer then don't post.

James R is intimidated by blondes with opinions.

Then he must intimidate himself.

:rolleyes:

I lurked for a while before I actually started posting. It is definitely a much more interesting, fun place now. How boring would it be if all we had was science to discuss/debate
Indeed. Imagine a forum named sciforums actually discussing science.:rolleyes:

We have a little "sunshine" now.
Ya.

If that's what you wish to call it.

I think the real question here is: can everything in this life be proven?
No. But that does not mean we should stop searching and refer only to a religious book and say 'God did it'.

I think you should begin a thread on whether or not people believe in god. Post a poll with it too Bells. Call it "Do you believe in god - yes or no?" and make it the ultimate deciding factor on the members thoughts.

I for one believe only in humans, and god has nothing to do with them :p

the evidence is overwhelming that life cannot be created naturally.
every attempt to do so has failed.

if the above two statements don't tell you something then maybe you need a brain transplant.

edit:
i must clarify and say that after 50 years of trying life has yet to be created in the lab.

I thought sam said she had a "short dark bob" haircut?:confused:

the evidence is overwhelming that life cannot be created naturally.
every attempt to do so has failed.

if the above two statements don't tell you something then maybe you need a brain transplant.

Then aliens made us, but certainly no everlasting deity!

Then aliens made us, but certainly no everlasting deity!
you'll notice i never said one word about "god" creating us.

there is a difference between "god" and the supernatural.

Hey Bells, I'd be afraid of myself too if I were James R.

I lurked for a while before I actually started posting. It is definitely a much more interesting, fun place now. How boring would it be if all we had was science to discuss/debate:confused:

We have a little "sunshine" now.

p.s. James has given me more infractions than all the other guys combined.:(

YOUR A SOCK PUPPET:)

Then he must intimidate himself.

:rolleyes:




yeah OK!

i must clarify and say that after 50 years of trying life has yet to be created in the lab.

How many years did man attempt to build working flying machines?

Just ballpark it---no need to really do much research.

the evidence is overwhelming that life cannot be created naturally.
every attempt to do so has failed.

if the above two statements don't tell you something then maybe you need a brain transplant.

edit:
i must clarify and say that after 50 years of trying life has yet to be created in the lab.

It's axiomatic that life was created naturally.

How about if we ban all idiots on my Ignore list? You guys know I am Mr. Objectivity...

How many years did man attempt to build working flying machines?
Just ballpark it---no need to really do much research.
we are not talking about isolated haphazard attempts.
the search for the origins of life is a world wide concerted effort.

It's axiomatic that life was created naturally.
dispite the complete lack of lab results?

it would seem it would be by natural causes, but a lack of positive lab results is telling.

No. But that does not mean we should stop searching and refer only to a religious book and say 'God did it'.

My middle school science teacher had a single policy for class discussions, written assignments, and tests- no answers could contain a God or Bible reference. My best friend said he was "stifling her religious freedom".

He was one of the most brilliant teachers I have had the privilege of encountering. He retired after more than 50 years teaching small town Christian kids to THINK. Imagine that.

One of the faithful here said that it must be proven with an experiment tens of thousands of years in duration, but it would be proven when that experiment was completed, therefore, we should believe it happened too long ago.

He's also been known to quote from dirty books about the laws of gravity. Let's stone him.

"...are there any women here?"

http://img.youtube.com/vi/ZNeq2Utm0nU/2.jpg

we are not talking about isolated haphazard attempts.
the search for the origins of life is a world wide concerted effort.

Ok, you won't play along.

We have been trying to cure cancer, as a world-wide, concerted effort, for more than 50 years. Is it your belief that a cure for cancer is impossible?

Don't you think that an application to a living system, such as a disease cure, is a bit simpler than creating a living system from inorganic material?

IAC:

Please stop trolling this thread. Thankyou!

Hello,

I'd like to inform that the moderator team together with our admin Plazma Inferno! has noticed and is aware of the current state of Sciforums, where too much posting is nonsense and that we have somehow lost path and haven't taken strong actions where they should have been taken.

We are working on a policy and a concrete plan to make this place more credible and serious, more appealing to members who want to have a quality discussion, while still remaining a fun and a free thinking place to be.

This planning might take a few weeks, so please be patient. All I can say is that we are enthusiastic and committed to make Sciforums better, and that any changes shall be made gradually, in a non shocking manner.

This time we intend not to drift with the changing circumstances, but shape this place according to one vision.

When ready, the Policy will be posted in Open Government for discussion, and prior warnings shall be made before any changes that will be done according to the plan.

That is all,
please stand by...

Might I suggest a 'delusion' subforum?

1. If a thread starter issues a claim without evidence then off the thread goes to the delusion subforum and the thread starter gets a delusion infraction.

2. If a thread participant issues a claim without evidence then he gets a delusion infraction.

3. Upon 'n' delusion infractions, a person's posting is restricted to the delusion subforum for some number of days.

:)

Since when is engagement in a discussion trolling? I was going with the flow of the conversation, now you butt in.

Don't you think that an application to a living system, such as a disease cure, is a bit simpler than creating a living system from inorganic material?

You're missing the point, and proving mine in the process.

First, you're missing the point because leopold is aparently saying that because we've been trying for so long and faiing, obviously it must be impossible. This is quite a foolish contention, as I've pointed out in two different examples.

Second, you're proving my point becaue if we can't cure cancer after having spent so much time working on it, how should we expect to make life in a test tube after only 50 years (leopold's estimate) of trying?

So the question remains---how long should we work on a problem before we throw our hands up and claim it is impossibe?

Ok, you won't play along.

We have been trying to cure cancer, as a world-wide, concerted effort, for more than 50 years. Is it your belief that a cure for cancer is impossible?
the fact of the matter is as long as the results are elusive then all possibilities are, well, possibilities. do you agree?

First, you're missing the point because leopold is aparently saying that because we've been trying for so long and faiing, obviously it must be impossible.
no, that isn't what i've been saying


how should we expect to make life in a test tube after only 50 years (leopold's estimate) of trying?
the miller experiment was conducted in 1953.
i take that as a start date.

IAC: Please stop trolling this thread. Thankyou!


Asking a troll to stop. :rolleyes: Can we also find you at the beach trying to sweep back the incoming tide?

Just ban him already! And also ban Sandy while you're at it for being the most devisive troll on SciForums. And also leoplod99 if he continues to bang on and on and on and on and on and on and on about abiogenesis not being "proven". These simple actions will noticably improve SciForums.

suck it hercules.
post the evidence that abiogenesis has been proven.

I AM NOT A TROLL OR A SOCK PUPPET. STOP CALLING ME THAT!:mad:

Good job, the lazy ad hom'ers need sorting out good un proper.

Might I suggest a 'delusion' subforum?

1. If a thread starter issues a claim without evidence then off the thread goes to the delusion subforum and the thread starter gets a delusion infraction.

2. If a thread participant issues a claim without evidence then he gets a delusion infraction.

3. Upon 'n' delusion infractions, a person's posting is restricted to the delusion subforum for some number of days.

:)
Yeah the problem is this wouldnt be a scienceforum anymore if that's how this place started opperating (dangerously close to opperating that way already though i have to say).
The problem is much as people dont really like it, all theories start out as small seeds of ideas without a shred of evidence to them - just a tiny little inkling.

What you basically want to do is label all original and as of yet unproved thought as delusion and draw a line under established human knowledge.

Its like complete anti-science, but it illustrates the problem with almost any science forum ive come across, they just become this sort of prop for established theories. And become havens for the intellectually impotent.

just because humans have failed to create life doesn't mean that the theory is wrong every failer gives more info

Crunchy Cat, none of us perceives the objective reality as it is. We're all delusional.
I don't think anyone has the authority to say who is delusional and who is not.

Many called Einstein delusional, and brothers Wright, and other great inventors and scientists.

the fact of the matter is as long as the results are elusive then all possibilities are, well, possibilities. do you agree?

In principle I do agree, but some solutions are better than others. That is, science should reject out of hand those solutions which require supernatural influences to get things done. The scientists (or, the logical person's) view should be that nature can be understood analytically. Otherwise science (and logic) are useless.

Perhaps you are willing to abandon these approaches. I am not.

You deserve a cigarette. Just one puff man. You know you want it.

Yeah the problem is this wouldnt be a scienceforum anymore if that's how this place started opperating (dangerously close to opperating that way already though i have to say).
The problem is much as people dont really like it, all theories start out as small seeds of ideas without a shred of evidence to them - just a tiny little inkling.

What you basically want to do is label all original and as of yet unproved thought as delusion and draw a line under established human knowledge.

Its like complete anti-science, but it illustrates the problem with almost any science forum ive come across, they just become this sort of prop for established theories. And become havens for the intellectually impotent.

Not quite. I am fine with ideas, speculation, and hypothesis. What I am saying is that if someone claims "There is a rabid tinfoil space monkey living in my cereal bowl" then I want to see pictures.

Crunchy Cat, none of us perceives the objective reality as it is. We're all delusional.
I don't think anyone has the authority to say who is delusional and who is not.

Many called Einstein delusional, and brothers Wright, and other great inventors and scientists.

I mostly agree. That is why the scientific framework works on speculation, hypothesis, and theory. The models adapt as new evidence arrives. My suggestion is to route zero-evidence claims (not speculations but actual claims of truth) to a delusional depot. Consider this person for example:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61066

Our model of human psychology predicts with astonishing accuracy that this individual is schizoprenic and VERY delusional about his claim.

You deserve a cigarette. Just one puff man. You know you want it.
i've sent you a PM.
you are the type of mentality that beats on women.

Get over yourself. You're the type of mentality that stones heretic.

Love is in the air

In principle I do agree, but some solutions are better than others.
i would say that some solutions seem better.
That is, science should reject out of hand those solutions which require supernatural influences to get things done.
why?
The scientists (or, the logical person's) view should be that nature can be understood analytically.
life from lifelessness is totally illogical. there is nothing anywhere that comes close to explaining life. yes, yes, yes, science has all these grandiose hypothesis that supposedly explains how we got here, but they fall flat on their face when put to the test.
let me ask you ben, what is it that leads you to believe that things become alive? what logic must i follow for me to believe?
Perhaps you are willing to abandon these approaches. I am not.
i haven't suggested we abandon anything

So does anyone else has any suggestions for our new policy or plan of action?
We already have the first draft for the policy, and the plan is also somehow shaping up, but right now it looks more like a shoggoth from the short story "At the Mountains of Madness" by H.P. Lovecraft.

It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train – a shapeless congerie of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter. ”
— H. P. Lovecraft, At The Mountains of Madness

Shoggoths are protoplasmic entities of mutable form and are considered to be among the most frightful entities of the mythos. They look like gigantic amoebae made of tar with eyes on the surface, often depicted as able to spontaneously form body parts and organs at will. An average Shoggoth, when a sphere, was about 15 feet across, though later ones grew much larger and had greater intelligence. They reproduce through binary fission, and are commonly shown as capable of tremendous feats of strength, such as tearing apart large machinery.

The shoggoths are terrible things to behold—even the Mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred, author of the Necronomicon, was terrified by the mere thought that they might have existed at all on Earth.

i have a rule and that is if you wouldn't say it in church then don't post it here.

Not quite. I am fine with ideas, speculation, and hypothesis. What I am saying is that if someone claims "There is a rabid tinfoil space monkey living in my cereal bowl" then I want to see pictures.
Ok cool, although the problem with that is you can very rapidly turn delusion into just what appeals of doesnt appeal to your sensibilities.
I dunno im pretty much happy with the way it is, you really have to give voice to everything ultimately, even if its stuff you dont like (creationism, religion).
I think you have to do this otherwise its a very steep slippery slope tomorrows total dogma which im pretty sure none (most) people dont want.

Yes, if positions are patently foolish, it will come out in the wash.

spidergoat,
i also feel that all assholes should be treated equally.
i'm still waiting on your list of acceptable assholes.

avatar,
thanks for bringing this thread back on target.
i forgot what the purpose was.

i have a rule and that is if you wouldn't say it in church then don't post it here.

...following than...

spidergoat,
i also feel that all assholes should be treated equally.


So, you would curse in church? :bugeye:

why?

What do you mena why? By definition, maybe?

there is nothing anywhere that comes close to explaining life.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it illogical.

i haven't suggested we abandon anything

Implicitly or explicitly, it's all the same. You suggest that the problem is too hard, so we should find ways around having to ask the question.

So, you would curse in church?

It must be the nicotine withdrawal.

...following than...



So, you would curse in church? :bugeye:

He's a Myuunitarian. It's cool with us.

Avatar, choose in which direction "you" want sciforums to go, then ban/kick all that does not conform. It might be harsh but if you want to mold your community you have to make a choise and follow true.

It is a simple question of the level of control you wish to enforce, do you allow the user to drive or kick the user to the backseat and assume control yourself

Crowd control can be subtler than that. :bagpuss:

Crowd control can be subtler than that. :bagpuss:

translation:

Sniping people's IP's out of the system

What do you mena why? By definition, maybe?
what, or whose, definition would that be?



Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it illogical.
i believe i asked you to explain it it to me so that i could see how logical it was.



Implicitly or explicitly, it's all the same. You suggest that the problem is too hard, so we should find ways around having to ask the question.
i never said or implied any such thing.
i DID say the riddle of life hasn't been solved.

spidergoat,
i also feel that all assholes should be treated equally.
i'm still waiting on your list of acceptable assholes.

avatar,
thanks for bringing this thread back on target.
i forgot what the purpose was.

Just don't call a member that.

Just don't call a member that.
i sent a PM to sam telling her what you did.

why don't you sent her a PM and ask her what she thought about it.

so, i guess by your response that anyone calling anyone else an asshole in the forums you moderate will get an infraction. right?

Yes, but ass-wipe is keen.

It would be nice if SciForums was properly moderated again. The forums are better when the the threads aren't polluted with nonsensical posts and one-liners from posters who obviously have nothing of value to contribute, but simply can't stop themselves from posting anyway.

Have you considered limiting the number of posts per hour? It might help the members to be more selective in which threads they choose to participate. Just a thought. Good luck Avatar. It wont be easy.

But of course, with x number of posts per hour, few of Skin's and James R's opponents would make longer posts, for fear that all that work would be deleted, the Stalinist-like moderators' dilemma, what will they do

i sent a PM to sam telling her what you did.

why don't you sent her a PM and ask her what she thought about it.

so, i guess by your response that anyone calling anyone else an asshole in the forums you moderate will get an infraction. right?

I could ask sam what she thought, and she would probably not care. That's the way she is. I don't find it acceptable, and I hope anyone called that or other vulgar names would bring it to my attention by PM.

HEY SPIDERGOAT,
you gonna respond to post 94?
are you a mind reader or something?

I could ask sam what she thought, and she would probably not care. That's the way she is. I don't find it acceptable, and I hope anyone called that or other vulgar names would bring it to my attention by PM.
this doesn't answer the question "will anyone calling another member an asshole in the forums you moderate be given an infraction?"

i'm going to be honest with you spidey, i believe you went stupid because of my participation in this thread about the origins of life.

the above will be confirmed when and if another asshole is mentioned and that asshole doesn't get an infraction. i'll be watching.

plazma,
what happens to moderators that discriminate?

What? You're tripping. I'm not vindictive like that. I could overlook an instance of that by mistake, but I assure you, if it is brought to my attention, I will deal with it. I might just delete it and not give an infraction. Such is my perogative as moderator. A first offense might just be deleted, but I noticed you have a problem with cursing, more than one post on just that one thread, and it's not the first time.

Here is an acceptable use of the term:
conservatives don't descrate graves liberals don't either descrating a grave doesn't make a liberal or a conservative it makes you an asshole

I jsut thought of something.

Maybe you could have a "member dispute" forum. If one member thinks another member has wronged him or her in some way, they can have their own thread, to talk out their problems. If one member chooses to not be reasonable, (s)he can be properly penalized. All of the comments in the thread would be limited to the parties involved, and possibly a moderator to keep it clean.

Make the banning/penalizing of the worst cases a public, as opposed to a private, affair. Get the plantiffs and defendants involved, and if one of the two members clearly shows a pattern of abbusive behavior, appropriate action can be taken. The moderators will still have the final say, but at least this way there will be a more public record of bannings and disputes.

Just a thought. Maybe it's too much trouble to have someone acting as a judge, but maybe not, because it doesn't have to be a real-time thing.

Ok leopold. I won't entertain your objections to reason anymore. I'll say one more time why you're wrong, and you can have the last word, as I am sure you will. then you and IAC can go dance in the land of faeries and wood elves, and leave the science to the scientists.

By definition, science seeks to go as far as it can in explaining the natural world without resorting to outside influences. Read Bacon, or any of the science philosophers---it was only when science decoupled from religion in Europe that the Enlightenment occured.

This being said, there is nothing wrong with believing that life cannot be formed in a lab. You must admit, though, that this isn't a scientific attitude. The scientist will say, "we just haven't figured out the process yet", and you will say "That's because you can't". All discussions will end this way, necessarily.

Accepting that science cannot do something signals the breakdown of logic. It means (necessarily) that there are things in this world which science cannot prove. If this is true, then there is no reason to accept any of the previous results of science---our logic is shown explicitly to be incomplete, and thus all of our logic is suspect.

One implies the other, and if you want to say that "producing life in a laboratory isn't possible", then you have abandoned science.

That's irrelevent to this discussion. I didn't even remember he contributed to the origins thread until he mentioned it.

Ok leopold. I won't entertain your objections to reason anymore.
avatar,
there needs to be a rule that people like ben don't put words in posters mouths.
i have not objected to reason and ben should be forced to retract the above statement.
I'll say one more time why you're wrong, and you can have the last word, as I am sure you will.
yes you are sure because of the garbage in this post.
i am not wrong when i say science has not solved the riddle of life.
you yourself stated that if that is the case then all possibilities are that, possibilities. but yet you go on to say . . .
then you and IAC can go dance in the land of faeries and wood elves, and leave the science to the scientists
nice double standard.


then you will say "That's because you can't". All discussions will end this way, necessarily.
another statement i never made and you should be forced to retract it.

all i asked from you is a logical explanation of why life from lifelessness is logical.

the evidence is overwhelming that life cannot be created naturally.
every attempt to do so has failed.

if the above two statements don't tell you something then maybe you need a brain transplant.

???

this whole deal of the origins of life reminds me of the following:
12 people fille into a room.
a picture is passed down the line.
11 of the 12 say they see something that isn't there.
when the twelfth person looks at the picture he "sees" the same thing as the previous 11.

sorry guys, the picture isn't right.

???
and? so?
i stand by my statements.

another thing that needs to be done is to do something about skinwalkers nazi moderation style and his abuse of moderation powers.
i've already mentioned this to james, i've also pointed it out in a thread or two, i've also mentioned it to spidergoat by PM.

yet another thing that needs to be done concerns the following:
dance in the land of faeries and wood elves
something similar pops up when religion is discussed.
skinwalker, hercules rockefeller, and numerous others are notorious for saying such things. this practice needs to stop.
yes, of course this is a science board. well in that case get rid of the religion forum then.

this practice needs to stop.

ooooooh.

Yes, they should get rid of the religion forum, since this is a science forum.

ooooooh.
the mods and admins are asking for the posters input on shaping sciforums future and this is all you can offer?

the mods and admins are asking for the posters input on shaping sciforums future and this is all you can offer?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1416489&postcount=102

another thing that needs to be done is to do something about skinwalkers nazi moderation style and his abuse of moderation powers.
i've already mentioned this to james, i've also pointed it out in a thread or two, i've also mentioned it to spidergoat by PM.

Hopefully, the "thread or two" you pointed out to James R is the one where you threw a hissy fit and announced you weren't returning to the Religion subforum anymore.

You know. The one where you have about 20 deleted posts. The one where I only deleted about 3 or 4 of your posts -each clearly off-topic; bickering; or meta-discussion that should have been in PM.

You made it seem like I deleted your posts, but they're each still there, soft-deleted and with a note that says, "post deleted by leopold99."

It's interesting how those that don't get to bicker, flame, & post their off-topic posts are the ones complaining about "nazi moderation."

I don't typically respond to the silly, childish nonsense complaints like this since it is clearly a continued form of trolling/baiting with an attempt to manipulate the moderator into caving on principles.

I don't care who you are: if you troll/bait/insult/post off-topic nonsense, I'm going to moderate it. I'll deleted the post or give an infraction. But I don't give two shits who you are. Naturally, since I'm also willing to be vocal against superstition and the paranormal, calling claimants out on their assertions and insisting that scientific claims be backed with science and not pseudoscience, the pseudos, nutters, zealots, and woo-woo's all figure this means I'm out to censor their "right to free speech" when I delete their trolling/baiting/insults.

I'm tempted to say, "dumb asses," but I won't.

This will, however, be the last word I have on the topic. Bitch and whine to whom you like. Don't forget that any post I've ever deleted is still there, Soft-deleted, and ready for review by James R. or Plazma.

I'm tempted to say, "dumb asses," but I won't.

But you did. Reported.

Administrator's Notice:

This thread went off topic. I'm sorry, but I have to close it.

Purpose of this thread was to announce our activities on SciForums policy in forthcoming days.

I hope that in days that come, good solution both for members and for forum will be found.

You'll have a chance to discus and to suggest additions for solution that will be exposed to you.