It came upon me why certain area's round here do not function accordingly. It usually depends on the views of who controls a forum-debated science or philosophy.

What do we have with a limited no. of moderators???

The answer is very obvious... a limited outlook to a certain subject. Might it be that so many round here are pissed off with removal or closure of threads because there is a limited outlook on any one subject?

This is more of a site feedback thread, isn't it?

I suppose.

My bad.

Might it be that so many round here are pissed off with removal or closure of threads because there is a limited outlook on any one subject?

Relatively speaking, there aren't that many who complain about this sort of thing. Just a few who happen to be very loud.

If they are loud, they speak for the forum, so-to-speak.

for the forum or for their themselves?
Isn't that kinda like saying Al Sharpton speaks for black people? (I don't think he speaks for all of them)

Or perhaps the loud voice in any scientific or political environment. If i say people are pissed off with the limitations round here, i know it to be fact. I have certainly been round here long enough to recognize this behaviour.

how many people? 2 = people

That is different than saying "relatively speaking many people are pissed off," which they're not.

Emmm... not at all. I am sure that there has been plenty of site-users annoyed to the power of ten with their posts being removed to certain area's or even being excluded altogether. I am certainly not alone.

Well, it's becoming painfully obvious that there is actually no such thing as an open government on this board. The moderators actively suppress any activity that could possibly be construed as people attempting to act as an open government.

Is there a correlation between the person who's posts have been deleted/moved and if they have ever been banned?

They oughta just delete this sub-forum altogether and leave the complaints as PMs to the mods. It's been nothing but a bitch-board.

Is there a correlation between the person who's posts have been deleted/moved and if they have ever been banned?

The moderators ban people who think that they have a right to protest the loss of a productive thread. They do this after starting fights that they know that they can win because they are moderators.

They oughta just delete this sub-forum altogether and leave the complaints as PMs to the mods. It's been nothing but a bitch-board.


Sweet, coming from someone who hardly measures up to some of the other posters around here. Real sweet.

When you come to post something you feel within the mainstream and removed, don't come disputing the act after this perfomance.

The moderators ban people who think that they have a right to protest the loss of a productive thread. They do this after starting fights that they know that they can win because they are moderators.

I totally agree. It is a flouting of power.

Sweet, coming from someone who hardly measures up to some of the other posters around here. Real sweet.

Oh, I wasn't aware that I'm supposed to be on some pedestal of yours to post my opinion. Pardon.

When you come to post something you feel within the mainstream and removed, don't come disputing the act after this perfomance.

If something like that were to happen, I promise I won't be publically moaning about it on and on for weeks on end unlike some people.

for the forum or for their themselves?
Isn't that kinda like saying Al Sharpton speaks for black people? (I don't think he speaks for all of them)

What he doesnt!??!!!? This is news to me! :D

its probably news to Al as well.
(the arrogant fool)

This is an unbalanced arguement, and yet it's not inexorably beyond or comprehensative to any real discussion. What amuses me, is how many are systemic towards the negative solutions to such a thread, which has by no more the best interests out for everyone.

Boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott) or quit bitching.

I am a Boycott?

Yeah. You're a boycott.
Real answer: No, you're a retard.

Then you are a dogmatic parrot.

Sweet, coming from someone who hardly measures up to some of the other posters around here. Real sweet.

When you come to post something you feel within the mainstream and removed, don't come disputing the act after this perfomance.

You must be smoking crack. Ashura has made some excellent contributions to ethics, politics, and psychology.

Then you are a dogmatic parrot.

They latch on to every kind of politically correct pseudoscience that has come up in the last 40 years.

You must be smoking crack

I hear Astro-Glide helps.

If they are loud, they speak for the forum, so-to-speak.

I'll say this softly: that is a non-sequitur

That's very soft :)

Weren't you banned for this type of behavior once?

Look... bottom line is, is that there is a catalogue of science out there... and only a limited amount of views at this site. A bit of biasm on one subject certainly goes a mile to furlongs when one presents a theory. This may not be against the general concept of reality, but it does refute without good example a means of communative production.

Weren't you banned for this type of behavior once?
Who me Ben... If i am banned, then let it be. It certainly won't chip anything off my shoulder, other than i wish i could stay around here... because i have many friends here...

... apart from those who do not actually wish to speak of science from a wide spectra.

Look... bottom line is, is that there is a catalogue of science out there... and only a limited amount of views at this site.

People who are interested in this diverse ``catalogue of science'' that Reiku is talking about are free to visit the Worst Physics Forum Ever (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php).

Who me Ben... If i am banned, then let it be. It certainly won't chip anything off my shoulder, other than i wish i could stay around here... because i have many friends here...

... apart from those who do not actually wish to speak of science from a wide spectra.

I have read many of your posts and have yet to find anything which remotely resembles science. You use scientific jargon to dress up empty arguments.