special request by James R.

What do you imagine I have to be vindictive about?

Your superiority complex. The fact that Dr lou always wiped the floor with you.

Ah. Here we go. This is where spurious throws a tantrum.

I assume you want to do this in public, rather than by PM or some more dignified manner?

From the other thread:

Sounds like you have some "issues" with me, spuriousmonkey. This isn't really about Dr Lou at all, is it? Or are you just raging at the world in general right now?

Not really. Simple fact is that sciforums glided down the abyss under your leadership.

care to deny that? Make a thread about it if you do. No need to derail another thread with your trolling.

Yes. I deny it.

I do not "lead" sciforums, except in the sense of being a supermoderator here and posting here a lot. Sciforums is not owned or ultimately controlled by me.

Also worth mentioning is that you, spuriousmonkey, were given an opportunity to lead in exactly the same way, but you thought that it was more important to play with your little friends than to try to improve the forum, so you wimped out of being a moderator yourself. What's more, you vindicated my reservations in appointing you as moderator in the first place. And you continue to do so.

You complain about my "superiority complex". Well, that's your prerogative, and I leave it to other members to make up their own minds on that.

You also claim:

The fact that Dr lou always wiped the floor with you.

You provide no examples of this, of course, so it's a worthless claim. Also, entirely a subjective one which members are able to judge for themselves, so I'm happy to leave that to them, too.

Anything else, while you're at it?

Actually, while we're on the subject of "leading" sciforums, I can't help but comment that spuriousmonkey has over 21,000 posts on this forum - the highest post count of any member - compared to my own 12,500.

It seems to me that I have had only 4/7 the opportunity to influence sciforums that he has had, judging by post count. What do we make of that, then?

Also, look who has posted most in the encyclopedia. What an opportunity for "leadership" that could be, then look at what's there and who put it there.

And spurious informs me that I'm trolling sciforums... Let's get real here.

Of course, you never take anything seriously, do you, spurious? So this thread isn't an exception to your rule, I take it.

Also, look who has posted most in the encyclopedia. What an opportunity for "leadership" that could be, then look at what's there and who put it there.

And then spurious tells me I'm trolling sciforums...

Let's get real here.

beating wikipedia:

http://www.google.fi/search?q=rodent+incisor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The only real scientific wiki entries in our encyclopedia:

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Tooth_development

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Stem_cell

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Regeneration

all entries in the category biology:
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Category:Biology

And the moderator (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1419306&postcount=32)team killed all efforts to create more.

Moreover, James R has been supermoderator for eternity. Yet, he claims that a single member has more influence then him. I would thank him for the compliment but there is no need for delusion.

Moreover, thanks for pointing out that I put indeed more effort into the wikipedia than anyone else. I'm touched by your admittance that indeed you were lying before and that I am a major contributor to this forum.

I am with spuriousmonkey.

But I disagree ( <<< improve the forum >>> ), this forum has never had its head above communal lockstep science. Science by consensus, overlorded by a religious order.

Luckily real scientists don't play silly playground games.

Might as well employ this thread so that management can explain just

what changes in management policy will improve this forum ?

Ah. Here we go. This is where spurious throws a tantrum.

A tantrum? I pointed out your trolling behaviour in the Dr Lou thread and you polarize the situation by accusing me of throwing a tantrum. Your behaviour is there for all to see. You couldn't give the thread a rest and instead insisted on trying to disrupt it. That's trolling.



I assume you want to do this in public, rather than by PM or some more dignified manner?

Why would I come to a forum to discuss via PM? Rather a silly notion. Dignified? A moderator who trolls is dignified? I would think not. A moderator who responds to the accusation of trolling by trying to deflect the situation and accuse the accuser of being unstable and not dignified? That is indeed a major case of vindictive behaviour. I wouldn't therefore be surprised it if is your modus operandus.

From the other thread:



Yes. I deny it.

I do not "lead" sciforums, except in the sense of being a supermoderator here and posting here a lot. Sciforums is not owned or ultimately controlled by me.

Very interesting perspective but in reality you were left in charge of sciforums and your policy made sciforums what it is. This is a fact. Goofyfish abandoned ship. You can't blame him. You stayed along and you made decisions. Somehow it seems rather strange you deny this. Have you not moderated in this intervening period? have you not banned?

Also worth mentioning is that you, spuriousmonkey, were given an opportunity to lead in exactly the same way, but you thought that it was more important to play with your little friends than to try to improve the forum, so you wimped out of being a moderator yourself. What's more, you vindicated my reservations in appointing you as moderator in the first place. And you continue to do so.

Deflection. What does my time as moderator got to do with your leadership of sciforums? I was moderator after the new management took over. It is worrisome that you cannot even make a basic argument.

You complain about my "superiority complex". Well, that's your prerogative, and I leave it to other members to make up their own minds on that.

How interesting. You think facts are made by public opinion?



You provide no examples of this, of course, so it's a worthless claim. Also, entirely a subjective one which members are able to judge for themselves, so I'm happy to leave that to them, too.

Anything else, while you're at it?[/QUOTE]

beating wikipedia:

http://www.google.fi/search?q=rodent+incisor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Well done! I'd love to see more of this.

Rodent incisors are a kind of niche interest, though, you must admit. :)

Moreover, James R has been supermoderator for eternity. Yet, he claims that a single member has more influence then him. I would thank him for the compliment but there is no need for delusion.

I thank you in turn for the compliment, but I'd like to point out that I didn't say you had more influence that me. I just said you had more opportunity for influence, in terms of posting. Moderation is obviously a different matter, but you had an opportunity there, too.

Moreover, thanks for pointing out that I put indeed more effort into the wikipedia than anyone else. I'm touched by your admittance that indeed you were lying before and that I am a major contributor to this forum.

I have never denied that you are a major contributor to sciforums.

I like your encyclopedia posts - well, most of them. Recently you've gone all narky about sandy, especially. It's like you've forgotten your own mantra in approaching the forum.

Are we done here?

Ah. Here we go. This is where spurious throws a tantrum.

A tantrum? I pointed out your trolling behaviour in the Dr Lou thread and you polarize the situation by accusing me of throwing a tantrum. Your behaviour is there for all to see. You couldn't give the thread a rest and instead insisted on trying to disrupt it. That's trolling.



I assume you want to do this in public, rather than by PM or some more dignified manner?

Why would I come to a forum to discuss via PM? Rather a silly notion. Dignified? A moderator who trolls is dignified? I would think not. A moderator who responds to the accusation of trolling by trying to deflect the situation and accuse the accuser of being unstable and not dignified? That is indeed a major case of vindictive behaviour. I wouldn't therefore be surprised it if is your modus operandus.

From the other thread:



Yes. I deny it.

I do not "lead" sciforums, except in the sense of being a supermoderator here and posting here a lot. Sciforums is not owned or ultimately controlled by me.

Very interesting perspective but in reality you were left in charge of sciforums and your policy made sciforums what it is. This is a fact. Goofyfish abandoned ship. You can't blame him. You stayed along and you made decisions. Somehow it seems rather strange you deny this. Have you not moderated in this intervening period? have you not banned?

Also worth mentioning is that you, spuriousmonkey, were given an opportunity to lead in exactly the same way, but you thought that it was more important to play with your little friends than to try to improve the forum, so you wimped out of being a moderator yourself. What's more, you vindicated my reservations in appointing you as moderator in the first place. And you continue to do so.

Deflection. What does my time as moderator got to do with your leadership of sciforums? I was moderator after the new management took over. It is worrisome that you cannot even make a basic argument.

You complain about my "superiority complex". Well, that's your prerogative, and I leave it to other members to make up their own minds on that.

How interesting. You think facts are made by public opinion?



You provide no examples of this, of course, so it's a worthless claim. Also, entirely a subjective one which members are able to judge for themselves, so I'm happy to leave that to them, too.


It isn't difficult to find examples. Just look at any thread where you two argue.

Anything else, while you're at it?
No, it would be nice if you would actually reply on topic.

URI:

I am with spuriousmonkey.

Not unexpected, given our history on another forum. ;)

what changes in management policy will improve this forum ?

Good question. What do you suggest?


spuriousmonkey:

A tantrum? I pointed out your trolling behaviour in the Dr Lou thread and you polarize the situation by accusing me of throwing a tantrum.

I didn't accuse you of throwing a tantrum until you created this thread.

Your behaviour is there for all to see. You couldn't give the thread a rest and instead insisted on trying to disrupt it. That's trolling.

Well, I see it as responding to your initial posts. But never mind. To avoid the argument, I've deleted all posts that are off-topic in the Dr Lou fan-club threads (a total of about 4 posts from me and 4 from you - relevant material moved here instead).

Why would I come to a forum to discuss via PM?

It depends whether your complaints are with the forum, or with an individual, doesn't it? Or whether your comments are likely to be of general interest. Anyway, here we are.

Very interesting perspective but in reality you were left in charge of sciforums and your policy made sciforums what it is. This is a fact.

I make no apologies for trying to maintain sciforums as a venue for intelligent discussion which allows a diversity of views while not tolerating idiocy and prejudice.

But I also make the point that at all times since I was appointed as a moderator, I have acted as part of a team, and the final decisions on forum directions have always been left to the site owners, at whose pleasure I serve.

Goofyfish abandoned ship. You can't blame him.

You wanted honesty, remember. Goofy left because of external work commitments, not for ideological reasons to do with the forum.

You stayed along and you made decisions. Somehow it seems rather strange you deny this. Have you not moderated in this intervening period? have you not banned?

I haven't denied moderating, or making decisions. My actions are clear for all to see. My name appears on the ban list to show exactly who I have banned, and I fully stand behind all bans I've given out. I have nothing to hide.

Deflection. What does my time as moderator got to do with your leadership of sciforums?

You are complaining that leadership of sciforums is sub-standard. But you have led sciforums, too, in many ways. So, if anybody is to blame, you're included, right?

How interesting. You think facts are made by public opinion?

No. I think opinion is made by public opinion. :D

Well done! I'd love to see more of this.

Rodent incisors are a kind of niche interest, though, you must admit. :)


It isn't really a surprise to me to see you have no clue what science is. All science topics are niche interests. That is the nature of science and the nature of individual wiki entries. I give you permission to actually switch on your brain. Bit given your track record with Dr lou I don't have much hope.



I have never denied that you are a major contributor to sciforums.
No you merely suggested that a member has more influence on the policy of sciforums than the policy maker because he had more posts. Indeed, that was a stupid remark from you.


I like your encyclopedia posts - well, most of them. Recently you've gone all narky about sandy, especially. It's like you've forgotten your own mantra in approaching the forum.

No, I havent forgotten. The forum and wiki are on a boycott since I have no intention to contribute under the current sphere of leadership. Hence I cleaned my server of all sciforums related files and pictures. Because I am not going to take a no for an answer. I want an open discussion and some clarity.



Are we done here?
Don't know. It doesn't really seem like you are trying. Probably innate quality.

I didn't accuse you of throwing a tantrum until you created this thread.

So you did accuse me of throwing a tantrum. deflection again on your part.


Well, I see it as responding to your initial posts. But never mind. To avoid the argument, I've deleted all posts that are off-topic in the Dr Lou fan-club threads (a total of about 4 posts from me and 4 from you - relevant material moved here instead).

See, I was right.




It depends whether your complaints are with the forum, or with an individual, doesn't it? Or whether your comments are likely to be of general interest. Anyway, here we are.

Why wouldn't I be allowed to discuss individuals on the forum proper? New rule?




I make no apologies for trying to maintain sciforums as a venue for intelligent discussion which allows a diversity of views while not tolerating idiocy and prejudice.

Yet, somehow you didn't.


But I also make the point that at all times since I was appointed as a moderator, I have acted as part of a team, and the final decisions on forum directions have always been left to the site owners, at whose pleasure I serve.
Nice, but the site owner wasn't there. You can't reflect responsibility on people who are not there. You made the policy.




You wanted honesty, remember. Goofy left because of external work commitments, not for ideological reasons to do with the forum.

Very interesting, but why mention this? Do we need to know why goofyfish left? The only important information is that he did leave and you were left with day to day operation of the forum. No deflection please.




I haven't denied moderating, or making decisions. My actions are clear for all to see. My name appears on the ban list to show exactly who I have banned, and I fully stand behind all bans I've given out. I have nothing to hide.

So you admit to bringing sciforums to its current state. All that deflection was for nothing.




You are complaining that leadership of sciforums is sub-standard. But you have led sciforums, too, in many ways. So, if anybody is to blame, you're included, right?

I'm actually claiming that under your leadership sciforums has developed into its current state. Well, originally it was all about your trolling and I feel sorry that a member has to point out that a supermod is trolling. Hence I made you a thread where you can be on topic. But of course soonish you introduced another topic to this thread for some reason.

anyway, try to stay on topic.


No. I think opinion is made by public opinion. :D[/QUOTE]

*Sigh*

I hate it when Mum and Dad fight.:bawl:

On a serious note, one's underwear should always be washed in private. Especially when they are filled with skid marks.

That was your thought for the day.:)

Hi You guys,

I am with the mighty bells on this one, however i would not have put it so crudely as she has.

having said that at least she has ventured an opinion unlike me who was struggling to find a way of composing a worth while post.

~~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez
zak

*Sigh*

I hate it when Mum and Dad fight.:bawl:

On a serious note, one's underwear should always be washed in private. Especially when they are filled with skid marks.

That was your thought for the day.:)

This presumes that there is underwear needed to be washed. I merely see a topic of discussion. And if we are ashamed of skid marks in our underwear then maybe we should consider washing our underwear more frequently. Do not let the skid marks form at all.

Hi You guys,

I am with the mighty bells on this one, however i would not have put it so crudely as she has.

having said that at least she has ventured an opinion unlike me who was struggling to find a way of composing a worth while post.

~~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez
zak

It's not necessary to be so modest. What has Bells posted? Let us analyze:

She conveyed the message that she is uncomfortable dealing with certain topics. She'd rather not see them.

You said that you are also uncomfortable.

Both posts contain the same information. Equal worth.


However, one could go beyond this and discover the causal origins of these statements, and then we will discover an uncharted world of depth and worth.
Politeness is not a standard trademark of an intellectual and neither is conformity. Which brings us unfortunately right back on the topic of Dr Lou Natic.

This presumes that there is underwear needed to be washed. I merely see a topic of discussion. And if we are ashamed of skid marks in our underwear then maybe we should consider washing our underwear more frequently. Do not let the skid marks form at all.



It's not necessary to be so modest. What has Bells posted? Let us analyze:

She conveyed the message that she is uncomfortable dealing with certain topics. She'd rather not see them.

You said that you are also uncomfortable.

Both posts contain the same information. Equal worth.


However, one could go beyond this and discover the causal origins of these statements, and then we will discover an uncharted world of depth and worth.
Politeness is not a standard trademark of an intellectual and neither is conformity. Which brings us unfortunately right back on the topic of Dr Lou Natic.


Dear Mr Monkey,

thank you for your feedback to my agreement with bells.

Unfortunately i did not ahve much involvmenet with Doc Lou, so it is hard for me to compose a comprehensive analsyis on the chap. having said that i dont like it when memebers are banned so as far as i am concerened (for what its worth) we should get doc lou back.

the reaons why i was "with" the mighty bells is causei felt the argument you and James were having (rightly or wrongly) were not getting anywhere.

Anyway what i bn your opinion is a standard trademark fo an intellectual?

~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

Dear Mr Monkey,

thank you for your feedback to my agreement with bells.

Unfortunately i did not ahve much involvmenet with Doc Lou, so it is hard for me to compose a comprehensive analsyis on the chap. having said that i dont like it when memebers are banned so as far as i am concerened (for what its worth) we should get doc lou back.

the reaons why i was "with" the mighty bells is causei felt the argument you and James were having (rightly or wrongly) were not getting anywhere.

Obviously, we were not getting anywhere. It takes two to tango, two to play chess, and only one person to get anywhere.


Anyway what i bn your opinion is a standard trademark fo an intellectual?


Dear Zak,

I would very much like to respond to your question with the answer; a very large penis. Unfortunately this is not a general trait of the intellectual.

I just know that the dictionary is wrong on intellectual because it presumes people can be rational. A rather false premise to start any discussion on the nature of any topic ignoring what humans are.

Obviously, we were not getting anywhere. It takes two to tango, two to play chess, and only one person to get anywhere.



Dear Zak,

I would very much like to respond to your question with the answer; a very large penis. Unfortunately this is not a general trait of the intellectual.

I just know that the dictionary is wrong on intellectual because it presumes people can be rational. A rather false premise to start any discussion on the nature of any topic ignoring what humans are.


dear Mr Monkey

thank you for getting back to me so promptly on this.

~~~~~~~~~

Take it ez
zak

dear Mr Monkey

thank you for getting back to me so promptly on this.

~~~~~~~~~

Take it ez
zak

You did notice though that I didn't reply at all although I replied?!

You did notice though that I didn't reply at all although I replied?!
:confused: :bugeye:
Hummm Mr Monkey

I hope you did notice that i simply acknowledged your response..

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

:confused: :bugeye:
Hummm Mr Monkey

I hope you did notice that i simply acknowledged your response..

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

We are most grateful for your acknowledgment of my existence. Does it mean I really exist though since you might not be real. Or maybe you are real, but I am not.

I assume an proper reply will be forthcoming at some time point in the future. We are looking forward to it with the gust of a turtle on Valium.

This presumes that there is underwear needed to be washed. I merely see a topic of discussion. And if we are ashamed of skid marks in our underwear then maybe we should consider washing our underwear more frequently. Do not let the skid marks form at all.


Or wipe.

She conveyed the message that she is uncomfortable dealing with certain topics. She'd rather not see them.
Uncomfortable? No. Annoyed? Yes.

Dead horse + beating + stick = nowhere.

However, one could go beyond this and discover the causal origins of these statements, and then we will discover an uncharted world of depth and worth.
Politeness is not a standard trademark of an intellectual and neither is conformity. Which brings us unfortunately right back on the topic of Dr Lou Natic.
Indeed.

However we should also look at the fact Lou knew what he was doing. Should it have been permanent? Frankly I have not had the time to digest the event of his banning. I am willing to bet his actions were done on purpose to prove a point. Has his point been proven? I don't really think so. The true end of his saga remains to be seen.

We are most grateful for your acknowledgment of my existence. Does it mean I really exist though since you might not be real. Or maybe you are real, but I am not.

I assume an proper reply will be forthcoming at some time point in the future. We are looking forward to it with the gust of a turtle on Valium.

eeeerrrr ok thaNKS:bugeye:

WHOS WE?

Uncomfortable? No. Annoyed? Yes.


Surely annoyed is not classified as a comfortable feeling.


Dead horse + beating + stick = nowhere.

It's a bit unfair to call James R a dead horse, even if he is.


However we should also look at the fact Lou knew what he was doing. Should it have been permanent? Frankly I have not had the time to digest the event of his banning. I am willing to bet his actions were done on purpose to prove a point. Has his point been proven? I don't really think so. The true end of his saga remains to be seen.

Oh, Dr lou was aware he was contributing on a level above the average of sciforums and you suggest he knew this and should have taken adequate action to prevent rising above the mob. Interesting perspective.

The board is full of this crap, a safe haven and beacon of light for trolls. I am proud to be a part of it.

Please direct me to the nearest science forum.

Please direct me to the nearest science forum.

Oh, I live to serve the orbs.

http://www.plos.org/

the only snag is that you need credentials to participate and scientific data.

Surely annoyed is not classified as a comfortable feeling.


No.

I get annoyed often enough to feel comfortable with it.:)

It's a bit unfair to call James R a dead horse, even if he is.
Now now. Lets not be mean and childish.

The dead horse was someone else.. and it was not James or you.

Oh, Dr lou was aware he was contributing on a level above the average of sciforums and you suggest he knew this
Lets be honest here SM, since we are through being polite.

Lou had his head squarely up his proverbial backside and he enjoyed the view there immensely. Will I miss him? Yes in a way. And no in another way.

you suggest he knew this and should have taken adequate action to prevent rising above the mob.
On the contrary. He was the "mob". He liked poking said "mob" with a stick to get a rise out of people. Kind of what my son does to the few ants nests in our back yard and then cries when they come out to bite his little hands.

In short, don't push your luck if you are not going to like the end result.

Oh, I live to serve the orbs.

http://www.plos.org/

the only snag is that you need credentials to participate and scientific data.

hmmmmmm, it looks a bit too sciencey,

I find it hard to believe that you see Dr lou as the mob or unoriginal. (to bells)

hmmmmmm, it looks a bit too sciencey,

Yes, they don't let me in, because I'm not good enough.

I find it hard to believe that you see Dr lou as the mob or unoriginal. (to bells)
He liked to antagonise people to get attention. In that he was unoriginal and the mob. It is what everyone tries to do.

Meh..

I'm going to bed. Baby will be up in a few hours.

:p

Zakariya04,
causei felt the argument you and James were having (rightly or wrongly) were not getting anywhere.
I agree with your assessment, Zak. It is a pissing competition so far. Let's see where we go from here.

spuriousmonkey,
Obviously, we were not getting anywhere. It takes two to tango, two to play chess, and only one person to get anywhere.
Seems spuriousmonkey agrees also. Now what is spurious' solution? I can only interpret his remarks to mean that only one of them can be in charge of moving sciforums forward. A mutiny, perhaps? James R's position seems to be a forum for all members, or potential members, with an emphasis on mutual respect amid cultural, political and social differences amongst the members. I have yet to see what position spurious proposes. Spurious, of course, has been a valuable contributor to the forums. I have seen noone deny that. Spurious has also been very visibly participating the current climate of 'team play', a community divided into factions that support each other, 'watch each other's back', while attacking opposing viewpoints. The use of idiotic one-liners is the preferred method, quite commonplace now-a-days. Zak, what do you think spurious's solution might be? Do you think it possible spuriousmonkey himself could at least give us a hint? Or, maybe he already has.
Dear Zak,

I would very much like to respond to your question with the answer; a very large penis. Unfortunately this is not a general trait of the intellectual.

I didn't read all of this yet, I am gonna do that in a few minutes... what's the fuss about? I'm just now waking... also I have Le Petit Beurre Biscuits :C

This is not going anywhere .........

I have always liked reading Spurious´s science posts - now rare ........
but sometimes it is easier to criticize , than to come with the solution ...........

I suggest a strong future policy - correcting any wacko - woowoo - funny posts in the science part of the forums - and accepting a bit more "relaxed" posting in the rest of Sciforums ........

Just a thought ..............

what's the fuss about?

nothing, absolutely nothing.

Zakariya04,

I agree with your assessment, Zak. It is a pissing competition so far. Let's see where we go from here.

spuriousmonkey,

Seems spuriousmonkey agrees also. Now what is spurious' solution? I can only interpret his remarks to mean that only one of them can be in charge of moving sciforums forward. A mutiny, perhaps? James R's position seems to be a forum for all members, or potential members, with an emphasis on mutual respect amid cultural, political and social differences amongst the members. I have yet to see what position spurious proposes. Spurious, of course, has been a valuable contributor to the forums. I have seen noone deny that. Spurious has also been very visibly participating the current climate of 'team play', a community divided into factions that support each other, 'watch each other's back', while attacking opposing viewpoints. The use of idiotic one-liners is the preferred method, quite commonplace now-a-days. Zak, what do you think spurious's solution might be? Do you think it possible spuriousmonkey himself could at least give us a hint? Or, maybe he already has.

If I may add something to this (of course you are quite right so far with our analysis). I can thrive in any environment. I spend my first 2000 posts basically in the science forums, mainly in biology.

When the environment changed I merely evolved and found some 'pleasure' in the anatogonizing game. Maybe more recently this evolved into 'post as much crap as possible' strategy since this strategy thrives most in the current climate.

I can go any way like a cheap whore.

My evolution is of course a symptom. A reaction. Not the actual problem.

we have dumbed spurious down. i bet his IQ has droped a good 20 points.

its only 300 now. but we are a spartan down.


peace.

spuriousmonkey,
My evolution is of course a symptom. A reaction. Not the actual problem.
I agree, of course. I am also guilty of posting crude attacks, such as one I recently did against samcdkey (I apologize, sam). It was my reaction to a problem as I saw it from my prespective. sam has been guilty, from my viewpoint, of posting one-liners to taunt Americans, even when the topic of discussion has nothing to do with Americans. I criticized her introduction of the American 'chilli sauce shooting' in a thread concerning Israeli/Palestinian conflict. She is bright enough to know that will get a reaction from the 'American defenders' camp, mudding the thread. What is the purpose other than to create division and infighting? I hoped she would think about what she was doing, itself a reaction to some comments she didn't like. I only mentioned sam as an example, it happens from all political and social groups. I think that is one of the problems, the polarization of some vocal members. It seems James R's position is more or less 'let's all get along' and penalize the members that get too rowdy with infractions and threats of bans. That seems to infuriate them even more. The problem, of course, is the polarization. The infractions address the reaction to the problem, but not the problem itself. Do you have an alternative that can be tried, spurious? I, myself, am not intelligent enough to offer a better solution.

Another problem I see is the introduction of religious philosophy into scientific threads. IAC is an example of this, posting endless rhetoric in science threads to the exasperation of the scientists such as yourself. I think IAC is probably not a bad guy, but he can be annoying as shit! :D James R eventually banned him for spamming the threads. I was somewhat surprised to see you, spuriousmonkey, criticize James R for his actions. Ask yourself if your criticsm was directed at the action, or against the moderator that carried out the action? What alternative solution do you have to deal with such problems?

I am not picking on you, spurious, it just seems it is much easier to criticize other positions than to offer valid solutions. That applies to world politics as well as moderation.

americans are fat pie eaters, uncle sam blows pipe.


thats a 2 part 1 liner.

peace.

2inquisitive:

Thanks for the support. Just one thing:

I think IAC is probably not a bad guy, but he can be annoying as shit! James R eventually banned him for spamming the threads.

I didn't ban IAC.

spuriousmonkey's complaint is about Dr Lou Natic. Although, perhaps he'd like to add IAC as another shining beacon to represent the spirit of sciforums as he would like to see it. Who knows?

Ah, yes, I remember now that you weren't the one that actually pulled the plug on IAC. My memory was also a little off when I thought spurious criticized the decision to ban IAC. I think his criticism, after re-reading to refresh my memory, was of assumed discrepancies in moderation practices. A cut & paste:
“ Originally Posted by sandy
That survey has been in the news for a week. The most recent was this:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archi...our_moder.html ”
spuriousmonkey,
How come this trolling is allowed if IAC can't troll? I am not so sure about Dr Lou though. Dr Lou was most definitely not politically correct, but I didn't form a personel judgement as to how deep his racism actually went. I didn't read all of his posts because lots were in threads I don't frequent too often. James R, did you receive several 'report posts' because of Dr Lou's views and style? Maybe if you did, you might ask spurious what his actions would be under similar circumstances.
Or did you rely on your own judgement to determine if his posts were 'racist' or just very politically incorrect? I am only asking because I honestly don't know.

I don't remember it being said to you recently James R, but I do appreciate the work you put into sciforums also. I'm sure a lot of members feel the same way, but the squeaky wheels make the most noise. I imagine at times you throw your hands up at all the problems that come your way, with a 'good grief' or something like that. No one can come up with solutions to pacify the political differences in the world today. Those problems, and many other types also, are transferred to sciforums through its diverse membership. I don't envy your job in the least. I personally wouldn't have it! :D

2inquisitive:

Thanks for the support. Just one thing:



I didn't ban IAC.

spuriousmonkey's complaint is about Dr Lou Natic. Although, perhaps he'd like to add IAC as another shining beacon to represent the spirit of sciforums as he would like to see it. Who knows?

troll

I am not so sure about Dr Lou though. Dr Lou was most definitely not politically correct, but I didn't form a personel judgement as to how deep his racism actually went.

I'm not politically correct. I have been accused many times of being a racist.


I didn't read all of his posts because lots were in threads I don't frequent too often. James R, did you receive several 'report posts' because of Dr Lou's views and style? Maybe if you did, you might ask spurious what his actions would be under similar circumstances.

When I was a mod I received mostly reports on a guy named spuriousmonkey. I undertook no action towards this vile creature of the night.


Or did you rely on your own judgement to determine if his posts were 'racist' or just very politically incorrect? I am only asking because I honestly don't know.

Does it matter if there appears to be a racist content to some small minded people? How come obvious racism is allowed at the same time? Doesn't really make sense does it?


I don't remember it being said to you recently James R, but I do appreciate the work you put into sciforums also. I'm sure a lot of members feel the same way, but the squeaky wheels make the most noise. I imagine at times you throw your hands up at all the problems that come your way, with a 'good grief' or something like that. No one can come up with solutions to pacify the political differences in the world today. Those problems, and many other types also, are transferred to sciforums through its diverse membership. I don't envy your job in the least. I personally wouldn't have it! :D

Let me make a general statement now directed towards everybody. I have so assumed this was an intelligent community and people are capable of some level of intellectual/scientific thought. Hence I didn't spell it out although I did extensively point out the obvious.

Where do we start in this process of critique?

With the observation that there is a problem. And here lies the trouble. Nobody has defined the problem. Nobody has identified the trouble. Nobody knows if there is a problem. For most members there isn't. I am quite sure of this because they came to sciforums under the current conditions. This brings us back to basic questioning and observation. And one could start by asking a very simple question first:Is there a problem? Then we can proceed to, what is the problem, and what causes the problem.

You do expect an intelligent community to be able to recognize such basic steps.

In light of the diversity of the forum population I am sure that there is no single problem. Different interest groups have different problems which may conflict with each other. Currently I have a problem with the management and others do to. It's an old problem. I have been checking the past a bit. For some reason most who enter the mod team lose a certain mindset that is associated with being a member. One could translate that into the cliche: "power corrupts". James R's shit really stinks. He pretends it doesn't. I see no self critique or rational self relflection. One might call that unintellectual or hippocritical.

As a side thought I would like to state that the influence of any member of a non-governing population is limited. Most of my influence comes from popular support which allows me from saying and doing things that would get other people instantly banned. I "squeek" because I like to cross the line as far as I can. However, someone without any real power is unable to change anything in a system. And that is a simple fact. People like Ghandi were able to change the system because they attacked the weakness of a government with popular support leading to dramatic internal changes within the system of power.
How much I like to pretend to pull strings (and I do pull small strings) the influence of pulling strings is limited to the weight that they carry. They are quite thin.

When I was editor-in-chief of a journal it was rather easy to develop a publication. My word was final. However, it was also I who did all the work of developing, the motivating, the hunting for contributions. If I had left it all to the community nothing would have happened. Which actually did happen after I handed over control to someone else. They noticed how much work it is to motivate people to contribute and they gave up.

Hence, you can't blame the community. It is retarded to do so and shows inexperience with developing a community. Communities are not self-organizing systems, unless you are aiming for a random direction.

troll

James R's shit really stinks. He pretends it doesn't. I see no self critique or rational self relflection. One might call that unintellectual or hippocritical.

I see you've decided to continue your personal attacks on me.

As I said previously, I'm quite happy to let other members make their own judgments on the validity or otherwise of your attacks, so I have decided to stay out of this following the present post, unless there are errors of fact which need correction or clarification.

It is unclear to me what you hope to achieve in this crusade. If you really wish to see sciforums improve from the woeful state you imagine it is in, you might start by pointing out the problems you perceive and making some constructive suggestions for reform.

Right now, it just looks like that tantrum I mentioned before.

since when is the observation of fact an insult? are you starting one of your Political correctness crusades to get another member banned?

Hey spurious, eat another bowl of stupid for breakfast?

Hey spurious, eat another bowl of stupid for breakfast?

Fuck you cunt.

Clearly the moderator team consist of agitators.

Fuck you cunt.

Clearly the moderator team consist of agitators.

Went back for a second helping?

Went back for a second helping?

Do you consider it a merit of a moderator to enter a thread insulting a member? I would think that moderators have an example to set. Especially in light of a new policy that apparently has been discussed ad nauseum in the secret moderator forum.

YOu are repulsive.

spuriousmonkey,
Do you consider it a merit of a moderator to enter a thread insulting a member? I would think that moderators have an example to set.
I'm just a dumb ole country boy. Perhaps you could help me out, spurious.
I'm not politically correct. I have been accused many times of being a racist.
When I was a mod I received mostly reports on a guy named spuriousmonkey. I undertook no action towards this vile creature of the night.
???? Are you suggesting moderators should wait until they have a certain number of posts in a thread before insulting members, kind of an annoyance thing? Is the example that the rest of us peons should follow also based on the number of posts they have in the thread before insulting the annoyer? Or are the restrictions just on gratuitous insults like samcdkey posts?

Do you consider it a merit of a moderator to enter a thread insulting a member? I would think that moderators have an example to set. Especially in light of a new policy that apparently has been discussed ad nauseum in the secret moderator forum.

You consider it a merit to be stupid. This was not a direct result of examples set by mods. You completed that entirely on your own despite what examples are set.

YOu are repulsive.

And you are stupid.

Having fun yet?

Grow up, both of you.

Fuck you cunt.

Clearly the moderator team consist of agitators.

what no banning?

I recall Baron being banned for referring to Bells this way.

Hey spurious, eat another bowl of stupid for breakfast?


Nick got an infaction for calling me fossil breath, not sure 'stupid' is allowed.

Hyprocrisy is alive and well on sciforums.

This thread is fun.

Super-nerd versus super-moderator.

Who will decide the fate of the average and the masses of adolescent minds?

???? Are you suggesting moderators should wait until they have a certain number of posts in a thread before insulting members, kind of an annoyance thing? Is the example that the rest of us peons should follow also based on the number of posts they have in the thread before insulting the annoyer? Or are the restrictions just on gratuitous insults like samcdkey posts?

Strangely enough I am suggesting that moderators set and should set the standard. Can you as an adminstrator honestly be disappointed in the members if your moderators behave like (Q) for instance?

I radically changed my behaviour when I was mod. And when I stopped being a mod I went back into full attack mode; make it personal again.

Hence my position on this is that sciforums should be led by example. And if this example happens to be below par then don't expect exemplar behaviour.

I certainly lost all motivation to work on sciforums when (Q) was allowed to be a complete dick in the moderator forum, and I certainly don't feel any desire to work on sciforums when several moderators are allowed to fuck around.

Clean up your own house first. Then bitch about the members.


This thread is fun.

Super-nerd versus super-moderator.

Who will decide the fate of the average and the masses of adolescent minds?

I'm not a nerd, I am a dork.

I'm not a nerd, I am a dork.I stand corrected.

We all make mistakes.

We all make mistakes.Take that back, sir Dork!!!

Vengeance is unbecoming!

The white lab-coat threw me off and the absence of glasses confused me.

Take that back, sir Dork!!!

Vengeance is unbecoming!

The white lab-coat threw me off and the absence of glasses confused me.

Ah, your brain is deceiving you. If you observe the picture again you will notice that I am indeed wearing glasses. Deep down you think I am sort of cool, but your rational side represses this thought. Your emotional center has eliminated the glasses to make sense of the picture in your memory.

I never trust my brain. If the warranty was still valid I would return it to be honest. It's breaking down.

Ah, your brain is deceiving you. If you observe the picture again you will notice that I am indeed wearing glasses. Deep down you think I am sort of cool, but your rational side represses this thought. Your emotional center has eliminated the glasses to make sense of the picture in your memory.

I never trust my brain. If the warranty was still valid I would return it to be honest. It's breaking down.I stand corrected…again.

Battling a dork on wits is like competing with a bodybuilder on pill-popping.

I guess I do, secretly, believe that you are “cool”, but I can’t bring myself to admit it.
Being less cool than a four-eyed dork with a 20, 000 post-count, is disturbing.

Forgive me, the departure of IceAge, that wonderful specimen of stupidity, has left me a little lost.
I keep turning around thinking he’ll be there.
I then attack the first thing I see.

This place just ain’t what it used to be, and lightgigantic just isn’t as much fun with his selective epistemologies of ontologisms and Nutter is just too forced-stupid to be genuine.

I feel your loss, and at the same time I am confident that your salvation will register as a member of this forum soon.

And I really hate to correct you again, however, the mere possibility that I am cool does not imply that I am cooler than someone else, let's say in this case, satyr.

Damn!!!! Corrected again!!!

You are unbeatable.

I can only wait and hope and dream.
With so many idiots, in this forum, I’m sure one of them will step up to the plate and take His place.
But He’ll always have a special place in my heart…for a weak or two.

I stand corrected…again.

Battling a dork on wits is like competing with a bodybuilder on pill-popping.

Sounds like the talk of a pseudo-weightlifter to me.

I guess I do, secretly, believe that you are “cool”, but I can’t bring myself to admit it.
Being less cool than a four-eyed dork with a 20, 000 post-count, is disturbing.

HEY! Not all of us are four eyed! We are nearsighted though.

Hey spurious, eat another bowl of stupid for breakfast?

Q eat another bowl of stalking self important troll for breakfast....oh wait.. you already finished the box.

>> URI“what changes in management policy will improve this forum ? ”

James R: Good question. What do you suggest?

To start off James R, science is ALL THEORY, technology is practice.

Now scientific theory is a product of the mind forming opinions re repeatable observations. Of yes testing comes into it (predictions) but that is also just interpretation by a human mind.

The theory is thus FANTASY, and even the observations many not even be true. Even working technology proves nothing about theory.

If you disbelieve this then read the history of science.

I will not waste my time responding to you James R, you are totally recalcitrant, and in many ways quite childish and any dialogue (even this) is like playing with a taipan snake.

Now if all science is fantasy, WHAT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE ?????

Please define YOUR take on this... I really am interested !!!!!!!!!!!

A moderator insults a member. The member insults back. The moderator team responds with giving the member an infraction.

well, isn't that a fucking cunt thing to do.

Dear spuriousmonkey,

You have received an infraction at SciForums.com.

1421544

Reason: Inappropriate Language
-------
Ok.

You obviously have something biting you up your butt at the moment. But enough is enough. While Q is a pain in the arse and obviously does not like you as much as you do not like him, there are limits.

I don't get you SM. You are becoming the very thing you hated on this forum. You are acting like Metakron acted with you and the AIDS thing as well as what you hung shit on Q for about the wiki changes. What's the deal?

You know full well that many things are discussed in the moderator forum, out of site of members. The idea had been to formulate some sort of plan and then get the members to discuss it. If you wanted to know what was going on, you only had to ask and you'd have been told. But no. Instead you go on some rant about moderators plotting the doom of the forums. Seriously, your actions and the way you are clumping all of us into one pot is not appreciated by me and I am willing to bet, by others. The other moderators may be trying to be polite and nice to you because you are a favourite, but that is not me. I don't play favouritism... even with my favourite fellow members.

Don't become Meta and don't let people like Q goad you into making silly mistakes like you have done.
-------

This infraction is worth 2 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

All the best,
SciForums.com

A moderator insults a member. The member insults back. The moderator team responds with giving the member an infraction.

well, isn't that a fucking cunt thing to do.

Yes SM. We are all out to get you.

But unlike some SM, I don't quit and run.

Now let me know when your tantrum is over. I want to see if you can pout longer than my 20 month old when he has a tantrum.

Strangely enough I am suggesting that moderators set and should set the standard. Can you as an adminstrator honestly be disappointed in the members if your moderators behave like (Q) for instance?

I radically changed my behaviour when I was mod. And when I stopped being a mod I went back into full attack mode; make it personal again.

Hence my position on this is that sciforums should be led by example. And if this example happens to be below par then don't expect exemplar behaviour.

I certainly lost all motivation to work on sciforums when (Q) was allowed to be a complete dick in the moderator forum, and I certainly don't feel any desire to work on sciforums when several moderators are allowed to fuck around.

Clean up your own house first. Then bitch about the members.

Wow, that is some of the finest bit of hypocrisy I've seen. Do you do stand-up comedy, as well?

Sounds like the talk of a pseudo-weightlifter to me.



HEY! Not all of us are four eyed! We are nearsighted though.“Pseudo-Weightlifter”?

How does one lift weights without lifting them?
Is there a point to your posts?
:crazy: :crazy:

When I was editor-in-chief of a journal it was rather easy to develop a publication.

Really? Which journal? Can you get them to invite me to submit? :D

Take it easy,

Geoff

Q eat another bowl of stalking self important troll for breakfast....oh wait.. you already finished the box.

That is a fine bit of wit. Sorry, I forgot the other "T"

i ahvent been here long was sci forums alot beter then it is now ?

Everything was a lot better "back then" than it is now.
Except for rickets of course.
And child labour.
And early death.
And...
What did the Romans ever do for us? Eh?

erm oli i want a restraining order on you now ok?

“Pseudo-Weightlifter”?

How does one lift weights without lifting them?

By giving thanks to them everyday and awaiting in anticipation of the big abyss of death.

Is there a point to your posts?
:crazy: :crazy:

I am afraid not.

erm oli i want a restraining order on you now ok?

Why the heck don't you properly capitalize and put it all in grammatic order man?

Why the heck don't you properly capitalize and put it all in grammatic order man?

well he is only 14 yrs old you can't expect too much.

Everything was a lot better "back then" than it is now.
Except for rickets of course.
And child labour.
And early death.
And...
What did the Romans ever do for us? Eh?

Thats why i am here now, to make things all :cheers: better

Everything was a lot better "back then" than it is now.
Except for rickets of course.
And child labour.
And early death.
And...
What did the Romans ever do for us? Eh?

Erm...aquaducts?

How does one lift weights without lifting them?
By tellng them that you like them better than all the other weights and asking them if they fancy going out sometime as you think they're "a really great laugh".
Erm...aquaducts?
Aquaducts!??

Oh, well yeah. They did build us some nice aquaducts, I suppose.

But, apart from that... what have the Romans ever done for us?

Crucifixions...

crucifixions? look where they got us. 1 billion brainwashed idiots.

That is a fine bit of witt. Sorry, I forgot the other "T"

Actually more descriptive than witty.

Oh and I put the other "t" in there for ya.

You know what the difference between the "good old days" and now is? The average age of the forum members was lot older. Now it's just a bunch of idiot teenagers. That's why we have all of these threads obsessing about sex and all of these immature topics. Then, of course, the adolescent stupidity trickles down and influences the older members and soon everybody is make stupid posts. The older folks join in with the stupid conversations because that's all there is.

I guarantee you guys... that's the problem. The average age of the forum members is decreasing. Soon we'll be a bunch of dysgenic fetuses talking about "2 in the pink and 1 in the stink" but in a scientific pretext. What's the solution? Well, there is none. Move to a real science forum that would be way too boring and intellectual for adolescents.

Aquaducts!??

Oh, well yeah. They did build us some nice aquaducts, I suppose.

But, apart from that... what have the Romans ever done for us?

Roads.

Stinging nettles

Oh... and sanitation.

Oh... and sanitation.

I don't think so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation

The earliest evidence of urban sanitation was seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and the recently discovered Rakhigarhi of Indus Valley civilisation. This urban plan included the world's first urban sanitation systems. Within the city, individual homes or groups of homes obtained water from wells. From a room that appears to have been set aside for bathing, waste water was directed to covered drains, which lined the major streets. Houses opened only to inner courtyards and smaller lanes.

Although the Romans had some elements of sanitation systems, especially related to wastewater collection and transport away from populated areas, there is little record of sanitation in Europe until the High Middle Ages. Unsanitary conditions were widespread throughout Europe and Asia throughout the Middle Ages, but there were no cataclysmic results until the 1300s when overpopulation of some regions created overcrowding and magnified the impacts of lack of sanitation.[7] Between 1348 and 1351 the plague killed 25 million Europeans or almost one third of the entire population.

Very high infant and child mortality prevailed in Europe throughout medieval times, due not only to deficiencies in sanitation but to insufficient food for the population that had expanded faster than agriculture[8]. Thus sanitation and food supply are looked upon as the balances of rapidly population in the period 1300 to 1600 in most of Europe, especially for the towns.

I'm sorry sam, but Wikipedia doesn't hold up to Monty Python. The Life of Brian cites sanitation as being introduced by the Romans, so that's good enough for me.

I'm sorry sam, but Wikipedia doesn't hold up to Monty Python. The Life of Brian cites sanitation as being introduced by the Romans, so that's good enough for me.

I have to concede to your superior sources.:p

Erm...aquaducts?

"acqueducts" P. I had to call you on that. ;

By tellng them that you like them better than all the other weights and asking them if they fancy going out sometime as you think they're "a really great laugh".

Hmmm, it seems you are quite the romantic. The weights are very sensitive despite their rough exterior.

But, apart from that... what have the Romans ever done for us?

Hello-o-o !!!

50,000 seat Stadium with a retractable roof !

Hello-o-o !!!

50,000 seat Stadium with a retractable roof !

just to get off topic here....i quite enjoyed the pic of the darth vader vet last night, till we got locked down for silliness....:D

just to get off topic here....i quite enjoyed the pic of the darth vader vet last night, till we got locked down for silliness....:D
Thanks !

Considering that the original topic of this thread seemed to be some nebulous grudge we may never fully understand, (well... me, anyway, but then - I haven't given it much thought) any meandering is probably an improvement.

Did you notice that Super-apparatchik left a couple of the "bestest member" threads alone ?

I wonder why...

Oh, yeah !

Whim Badda-Bim !
:D

:confused: Thanks !

Considering that the original topic of this thread seemed to be some nebulous grudge we may never fully understand, (well... me, anyway, but then - I haven't given it much thought) any meandering is probably an improvement.

Did you notice that Super-apparatchik left a couple of the "bestest member" threads alone ?

I wonder why...

Oh, yeah !

Whim Badda-Bim !
:D
Super_apparatchik? James? lol I have no clue what you mean.

`
I just call the Mods apparatchiks.
You know - the "pencil pushers" of the Communist bureaucracy. Generally considered to be thoroughly corrupt and pretty much useless.
LoL

Probably not exactly true, but it's fun to pick on 'em !

did the monkey leave the forum?
:(

did the monkey leave the forum?
:(

Yes, good fucking riddance!

Yes, good fucking riddance!

:(

what has been going on around here in my absence?!

what has been going on around here in my absence?!

I thought you left? What the fuck are you doing back here?? Fuck off!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

I thought you left? What the fuck are you doing back here?? Fuck off!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

my pc went to the giant scrapheap in the sky.
i just got my new one today.

my pc went to the giant scrapheap in the sky.
i just got my new one today.

MTW?

MTW?

i have to download everything all over again.
i just got hamachi, but it will be a few days before i can play anything, i suspect.
:( :( :(
i plugged it in as a slave, and nothing would boot. makes me want to cry.

Did you change the jumper on the drive to slave?

Did you change the jumper on the drive to slave?

yeah. i also tried it as the only HD....nada.

*shrug* ill get it all back.
i now have 1gb of RAM. :D no more lag for me.