yes he does

/saddened

your poll is biased
it's been rigged
i suspect a conspiracy
i smell a rat
you don't give a guy much choice do you?

i reject your accusation

you have 4 options

your arguement lacks conviction

The mods must have gotten together and decided to take action for some reason. I wonder what caused all this.

Stryder, I thought you had left the building, so to say. I'm glad you haven't, but what is with all the recent thread-closings that the mods are doing?

P.S. And why do many of the poll percentages add up to more than 100%? I've noticed this in many recent polls.

What's with people?

i reject your accusation

you have 4 options

I'm going to say this before it gets trolled over, however this is where the "Skeptics" that so often suggest that you take a defensive position on clearly loaded questions are right.

Namely you reject an Accusation, however the 4 Options are all Rigged to state that I "Hate" you.

This doesn't really bode well to merit your genuinety in content or events within this forum.

However thats not so much the point. I don't "Hate" you people, I just feel that for people to honest have a true discussion about any topic someone occasionally has to place some rules down to stop it degrading into a flamefest.

I know you have been looking through the forum archives at times (namely the old posts in this forum) and if you look carefully you will see the same Circle of abuse carried on for months after months, years after years.

There is still no undeniable proof from the "Believers" camp other than misinterpreted misquotations (and the loaded answers to loaded question similar to the poll in question).

Then there is nothing but a burning need to educate them all by corporal punishment from the "Skeptics", who feel enranged from arguing the same point again, and again, and again, and .... well you get how that goes.

Simply if you guys and girls want to war with each other, realise that war comes at the cost of losing ground and losing people. This is now shown to be correct by the locking of threads (Lost Ground) and I'm sure it's event will cause the loss of people. (Hopefully just the trolls)

Perhaps one day when all you Teenagers have realised how horrible you've been to your parents and how much teenage annex has been channeled into abuse in this forum as trolling, you might come back to this forum and actually discuss things like an Adult.

Hate me if you like, just remember the world out there is the problem, not one humble guy doing a small job of trying to clean up one little spec in the corner of the internet. [Yes, I did step down, however while I'm still here and have privs, I still intend to try and aid the forum. It does mean that my more passivitic view about you all just getting on with it, doesn't have to be followed so exactly since "I can walk away".]

So expect Lockings, Expect Deletions and Expect No Mercy to either the Believers or the Skeptics.

The mods must have gotten together and decided to take action for some reason. I wonder what caused all this.

Stryder, I thought you had left the building, so to say. I'm glad you haven't, but what is with all the recent thread-closings that the mods are doing?

P.S. And why do many of the poll percentages add up to more than 100%? I've noticed this in many recent polls.


Well the thread closures are stamping out a wild fire thats been allowed to accumliate through some "Harmonic" interpretation of the world. I could be as impartial as possible, and allow people to fight and struggle infront of me. However doing so means the "Harmonic" world I implore, is nothing but a small bubble I shroud myself with.

I mention this because when people realise that such drastic changes are a foot, they sometimes feel shocked because their "Harmonic" bubble is also broken.

As for the poll Percentages, Some polls have been set to "Multiple choice voting" like this one that Gustav started.

stryder
you have been possessed by the DEVIL and HE is causing you to hate
let us perform an ONLINE EXORCISM

This doesn't really bode well to merit your genuinety in content or events within this forum.

hmm
the third front
ok

dear stryder
what have you noted so far?

thanks
sincerely
spook

ah the mods job.
if you aren't too lax
you are ruleing with jackboots

stryder
i never got the impression that you hate anybody

gustav
why don't you elaborate on what you are talking about?

Gustav, I apologise. I overestimated you. You are a prat. Good riddance.

hush
they are coming to get me

/frightened

He did the best thing he could, threads that he closed were about the same arguments. Don't feel sorry man, you did the right thing, even you closed a thread the Belgian flap 1989 that was opened by spookz. This was the most powerful evidence of alien life.

Gustav
I think he is possessed by God not Devil. How I know that? God give me some signs.

Everything is my fault, I am the one who's mixing you people.

/scared

my lord qorl
please give me guidance

Stryder, I have never thought that you hated anyone either. When I first noted this poll, it was with amusement because I thought it stemmed from your thread-closings this morning. My vote was merely a participation in what I considered an amusing joke. If you think that people actually hate you (other than gustav, perhaps), you shouldn't. As far as I know.

As to the thread-closings, though, I have noticed what appears to be a coordinated attack against certain types of posters (you call them trolls or flamers). While I know it is against the forum rules to troll or flame, it seems that the mods' attitude to the rules (over the past 6 months that I have been a member) has been lenient, to say the least. While this lets many of us get away with a lot of flaming and trolling and causes some trouble on the forum, I think it has been a good thing overall. It's what made this place unique. There are a lot of science forums on the internet that talk about nothing but science, in a very polite and dispassionate way, and they tend to get stale very fast.

Please don't change how you moderate this forum. It would change it irrevocably and not for the better in my opinion. People need exposure to some flaming now and then to let them know what life can really be like.

so!
you hate me too, cotton? ;)

stryder
you have been possessed by the DEVIL and HE is causing you to hate
let us perform an ONLINE EXORCISM

Considering the "Devil" is just Mythological mumbo-jumbo to scare little kids into being quiet when they visit churches or sit through long ceremonies I don't feel that "he" (again the mythology) has in anyway possessed me.

Considering that "Possession" is again Mythological Mumbo-Jumbo to scare Catholic Parishioners into becoming more tied to a religious view by phenomona. (Afterall there's miracles in religion in the form of stories and without the Anti-Miracle, their overall religion wouldn't stand up too much criticism.)

In the cases that I'm aware of people suffering from delusionary illnesses like Viral Meningitis, can act irrationally and supposedly like "a being possessed".
Also in the cases of viral illnesses people can suffer great bouts of Vommiting or Diarrhea which from the lack of control over such fluids, could also be seen as "Demonic".

To the most part it's like Preaching at the side of the road the evils of Hornets, while having a fellow person from your religious order poke a stick in the hornets nest a little way up the road so that passers by are stung.
(It could also be seen in the metaphorical use of those "The end of the World is Nigh" guys standing in their sandwich boards hoping some passer by will realise their "interpretation" as they get hit by a bus they missed seeing from the sun reflecting off the board.)

As for "Exorcisms", notibly such things are very similar to some Tribal Witchdoctor, who for the most part could be the village quack up to misdeeds of manipulating illnesses to plagurise cures for a god or spirit and acclaim some self-professed Heirarchy.

Afterall Epilepsy now isn't treated by strapping someone to a chair to beat them with birch sticks and read mountains of literal poppycock to remove their ailment (Which if made safe will eventually transpire into normality)

No simply Gustav, I've reached my limit of suffering from interminable BS, this doesn't just go for the arguements here, the incessent trolling but the shear lack of education in people about the number of Charlitan Scam mongers that would have you buy into their ploys, either to part with your money or make their claims seem more credible to get others to part with it.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time".
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

(Quote pulled from: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27074.html)

I wholeheartedly support stryder. It's about time we had a Mod that did something about the trolls.

but the shear lack of education in people about the number of Charlitan Scam mongers that would have you buy into their ploys, either to part with your money or make their claims seem more credible to get others to part with it

what is this subforum called?
what kinds of topics would be posted here as a result of the title?

what kind of topics would you like to see posted?
do you intend to break with a tradition that dates back to the days of exosci?

what gives you the right?
who gives you the right?

so!
you hate me too, cotton? ;)

Yes, I hate you with a passion. You are a scoundrel and a fop, sir. Away with thee, i say. ;)

Stryder, ...
While I know it is against the forum rules to troll or flame, it seems that the mods' attitude to the rules (over the past 6 months that I have been a member) has been lenient, to say the least. While this lets many of us get away with a lot of flaming and trolling and causes some trouble on the forum, I think it has been a good thing overall. It's what made this place unique. There are a lot of science forums on the internet that talk about nothing but science, in a very polite and dispassionate way, and they tend to get stale very fast.

Please don't change how you moderate this forum. It would change it irrevocably and not for the better in my opinion. People need exposure to some flaming now and then to let them know what life can really be like.

The problem with this methodolgy is that without any form of moderation the deterioration of threads causes those that could "tutor" us in facts about the world from properly structure conversation, dialect and even debate are more than likely to give this forum a miss.

So the forum is found left with nothing but trolls and troll haters and nothing outside of that mentality. I know you don't want the threads to become boring lectures (which you guys have all too knowingly got me writing in response) however a slight change is benefiticial to remove the endless circles of repeative flameposting, even if it's just a short-term Shakeup.

Perhaps where people have provided Evidence I could stick such evidence in a non-editable thread on each topic, where-by followup threads could contain the free "abuse" of the uneducated, since "to the educated man, the most heinous of abuses is an uneductate person" it could be suggest it won't take long for the thread to breakdown into the usual literally retorte wrestlefest.

As for the "Uniqueness" of how the moderation was operated, some might think it was purely lapseness, however as I mentioned in the past to which some will remember some of you might eventually grow up and become credible in your chose professions and the only way that you'll be a better person in those professions is by realising just how idiotic some of your interpretations were back when you were a kid. (Believe me I've experienced just this, back when I was younger I had some odd interpretations and believed in aliens etc)

I'm not against Free Speech, if the speech is worth hearing.

I wholeheartedly support stryder. It's about time we had a Mod that did something about the trolls.
i agree with you commie
but what about the "stalkers"
people like me that follow a certain person around the board and deride everything that person says?
the person i refer to is happeh
i have intentionaly followed him around and blasted everything he said
why? because he's a jerk
he has denigrated everything from 4 month olds to our veterens.
why this asshole has not been banned is a mystery.

maybe stryder can help?

I wholeheartedly support stryder. It's about time we had a Mod that did something about the trolls.

i have a suggestion. i presume you are one of the rational ones, ja?
how about not feeding them or indulging them in anyway?
do you think that might discourage a troll?

can you do your part? if not why
now, please read carefully

stryder has a problem with pseudoscience being discussed in a pseudoscience forum

stryder has a problem with pseudoscience being discussed in a pseudoscience forum
ah gustav, i beleive stryder said he has a problem with FLAMEFESTS

Alright, I know what you mean Stryder. I don't mind a little shake-up. I just got worried that the whole forum was headed down a dark path of big brother and government spying. The whole NSA wiretapping thing has really got me pissed off and this thread-closing seemed a little too similar.

PS Gustav, I was joking.

PPS Stryder, Gustav kind of has a point. Part of his post before last.

i started this ridiculous poll as a joke
some decide to take it seriously
well then so will i

i was perfectly ok with the locked threads because resuscitation has always been frowned on in here.

but then stryder started ranting
and i was stunned
and astonished
and practically speechless

but i always liked stryder
he even stood up for me
and was a total crackpot at one time
so.......

ah gustav, i beleive stryder said he has a problem with FLAMEFESTS

kindness is shown by my lack of a response. dont push it

i have a suggestion. i presume you are one of the rational ones, ja?
how about not feeding them or indulging them in anyway?
do you think that might discourage a troll?

can you do your part? if not why
now, please read carefully

stryder has a problem with pseudoscience being discussed in a pseudoscience forum

Gustav, look very carefuly at your quoted post... now closer...
You will notice that your post coudl be seen as flame, while also notibly stating that you understand why people should flame above it.

I've noticed in two or three of your most recent posts the clear manipulation of the post to be a "Literal Example" of what a troll looks like.

As for "Stryder having a problem with pseudoscience being discussed", how can that be so?

I'm open to discussion, just tired with constant flames and one weighed (purposely spelt, rather than being "way") arguements. Try the FOR and AGAINST arguementative stance (Arguement doesn't mean loud words and fistycuffs in this particular statement)

In fact I will start a thread and we'll see if you kiddies can play along or start a recroom brawl.

As for "Stryder having a problem with pseudoscience being discussed", how can that be so?

how many issues do you bring up in the following........

No simply Gustav, I've reached my limit of suffering from interminable BS, this doesn't just go for the arguements here, the incessent trolling but the shear lack of education in people about the number of Charlitan Scam mongers that would have you buy into their ploys, either to part with your money or make their claims seem more credible to get others to part with it.

..quote? list them please

In fact I will start a thread and we'll see if you kiddies can play along or start a recroom brawl.
Hey, I'm 36 man (though you probably can't tell). How dare you call me a kiddie! You *(%^%(#$ (*&^%$#@!)(*& *&^%!! Like that?! :D

kindness is shown by my lack of a response. dont push it
gee gustav, don't get your panties in a bunch

maybe i misunderstood?

Considering the "Devil" is just Mythological mumbo-jumbo to scare little kids into being quiet when they visit churches or sit through long ceremonies I don't feel that "he" (again the mythology) has in anyway possessed me.


Stryder
I Know about you man, believe me devil exist more than you think. How do you know you didn't taste it? You know what I'm talking about. I don't believe in this mumbo-jumbo on a fairytale way also, but I do on a way that is right now.

Hey, I'm 36 man
your still wet behind the ears :)

I'm open to discussion, just tired with constant flames and one weighed (purposely spelt, rather than being "way") arguements. Try the FOR and AGAINST arguementative stance (Arguement doesn't mean loud words and fistycuffs in this particular statement)

the only thing i suggest you do is follow james's lead. bar direct personal insults.
everything else goes.

i am not frikking obliged to be openminded. it is not your frikkin place to tell me how i should think. if i choose to be biased and one sided, that is my right. if i refuse to consider the opposing viewpoint, that is also my right.

the only right you then have, in light of my conduct, is not to engage in punitive measures but for you to move on. to more enlightened pastures. leaving behind the ignoramuses to wallow in whatever the fuck they want

The whole NSA wiretapping thing has really got me pissed off and this thread-closing seemed a little too similar.


what about where i said i googled "bomb the cia"
i even gave you a link from that search

the only thing i suggest you do is follow james's lead. bar direct personal insults.
everything else goes.

i am not frikking obliged to be openminded. it is not your frikkin place to tell me how i should think. if i choose to be biased and one sided, that is my right. if i refuse to consider the opposing viewpoint, that is also my right.

the only right you then have, in light of my conduct, is not to engage in punitive measures but for you to move on. to more enlightened pastures. leaving behind the ignoramuses to wallow in whatever the fuck they want
now how can anybody argue against that?

i am not frikking obliged to be openminded. it is not your frikkin place to tell me how i should think. if i choose to be biased and one sided, that is my right. if i refuse to consider the opposing viewpoint, that is also my right.


Then why enter into any form of discuss or debate on any topic, since both discussion or debate means hearing what the opposition has to say or argue. If you can't hear them out because you can only hear yourself then perhaps the one that should move to pastures new is you, yourself. (This is not meant as a flame, just a point that if you can't discuss in a forum and can only flame why stay here?)


the only right you then have, in light of my conduct, is not to engage in punitive measures but for you to move on. to more enlightened pastures. leaving behind the ignoramuses to wallow in whatever the fuck they want

If you feel that way perhaps you could get a PHPBB or something similar (Free Licenced forum software) up on a freewebspace or find an actual site that hosts premade forums and have your own affectionalitely group of "ignoramuses" join it. Of course as I've previously stated you won't have room for discussion with each other so why bother with a forum build for discussion?

I respect that you want your specific individual rights of your own interpretation, however when your interpretation interfers with the intrepretation made by others then you yourself are infringing those very rights you sought.

Cottontop3000

You are right about this one. Governments who knows that we know, are in dilemma how could people speak about something they are not able to see or for them to hide any more. Actually we know more than they know because ''Them'' don't speak with afraid ones. Government people start packing your things, the fear will coming to get you all.

Then why enter into any form of discuss or debate on any topic, since both discussion or debate means hearing what the opposition has to say or argue.

are you telling me that two crackpots cannot make a home for themselves in sci and discuss crap amongst themselves?

are you telling me that two crackpots cannot make a home for themselves in sci and discuss crap amongst themselves?

That was my point I'm not saying that two "crackpots" as you term it can't make a home for themselves somewhere and "discuss" things with themselve or others. I was mearly pointing out how can you discuss something if you don't want to hear what the other person is saying?

Afterall if you are going to monologue at least do it after you've caught the good spy, and talk about what evil things you are going to do to them.
(sorry, comedic value addressed.)

Seriously, Discussion isn't monologue.

are you telling me that two crackpots cannot make a home for themselves in sci and discuss crap amongst themselves?
i don't know about two people
but buddha does a fine job of talking to himself
he will reply to his own posts

f you can't hear them out because you can only hear yourself then perhaps the one that should move to pastures new is you, yourself.

no stryder
i can hear them out an yet refuse to accept their viewpoint simply because it does not convince me.

a "pasture" was a reference to another thread. one that would satisfy your scientific sensibilties

tell me stryder. if you want a frikkin scientific discussion, why do you come to a forum titled pseudoscience?

your peers are elsewhere on sci. find them and leave the nutters to their own devices.

I was mearly pointing out how can you discuss something if you don't want to hear what the other person is saying?

it is not your place to force your viewpoint on someone if they clearly intend not to listen

show some respect

i don't know about two people
but buddha does a fine job of talking to himself
he will reply to his own posts

That made me crack a smile. Alright, alright, I'm actually laughing out loud.

and for the nutters amonsgst us.... i do not think stryder hates, he is simply misguided or perhaps inebriated ;)

it is not your place to force your viewpoint on someone if they clearly intend not to listen

show some respect

How about you earn some respect.

For instance you've obviously proven that you aren't hear to suggest that "aliens are real" or that "UFO's are nothing more than clouds". If this was the case you would either debate a FOR or AGAINST argument without the need for trivial firefights.

For instance if you are of the "FOR" camp, why would you refer to yourself and others in your category as "Nutters", "Nutjobs" or "Crackpots".

Afterall these derived words that are usually used by people that are just fed up with some peoples ignorance or sociopathic tendencies and sometimes term them incorrectly. (Which in turn causes such people to be offended at being called "Nutter")

Obviously to me it proves that the "FOR" camp is not made up of your peers, and since your arguements are never about supporting evidence in either Defense or Offense of threads, it suggests that your peers aren't made up of the scholarly "AGAINST".

It leaves only two area's, the "ARBITRARY" middleground where neither arguement is considered strong enough to make a decision and the "FLAMETARD" the people that just dwell on these forums to upset everyone, with no concern for discussion just boodlust.

Since Gustav you seem to lack the Arbitrary nature of being "unbiased" it can rule that out as being where you dwell, leaving you to be just a "FLAMETARD".

.... Perhaps one day when all you Teenagers have realised how horrible you've been to your parents and how much teenage annex has been channeled into abuse in this forum as trolling, you might come back to this forum and actually discuss things like an Adult..... SO U want us to chop eachother in real physical world instead, U see to be an American.

SO U want us to chop eachother in real physical world instead, U see to be an American.

You blown the world up yet, alien?

a "FLAMETARD".

heh
passion
i like

... it seems that the mods' attitude to the rules (over the past 6 months that I have been a member) has been lenient, to say the least. While this lets many of us get away with a lot of flaming and trolling and causes some trouble on the forum, I think it has been a good thing overall. It's what made this place unique. .... Thats a result of Loss of Ad revenue I guess. A result of Moderation.

You blown the world up yet, alien? the choice was yours, U blew the world I just told U how to.

stryder

How about you earn some respect.

silly mod. what makes you think the request was for me? think hypothetical scenarios

For instance you've obviously proven that you aren't hear to suggest that "aliens are real" or that "UFO's are nothing more than clouds". If this was the case you would either debate a FOR or AGAINST argument without the need for trivial firefights.

sorry, i am a bit more sophisticated than that. in my ufology there are only assumptions and probabilities. case xyz might find me with an "against" argument. case fgs, a "for."

there is no either/or

For instance if you are of the "FOR" camp, why would you refer to yourself and others in your category as "Nutters", "Nutjobs" or "Crackpots".

why stryder, i thought i was speaking in a language that you would understand

Since Gustav you seem to lack the Arbitrary nature of being "unbiased"

excellent. i am sure you will demonstrate my bias, yes? in a scientific and methodiacal manner, ja?

i am stupid like that. i need evidence

SO U want us to chop eachother in real physical world instead, U see to be an American.

I do not suggest you run around slaughtering each other over pseudoscience or any other rediculous conspiracies (be they created by delusional thinking or delusional teaching)

I am not an American. Although perhaps if placed in the shoes of an American I would see the world a different place (or the shoes of many other cultures from around the globe)

If you feel you need the need to unwind, then I suggest using the search engine (pick any in particular I'm not "Brandist") and find a Flame forums (like: brawl-hall.com) Those forums are meant for attempted discussion to break down into literally strangling each other.

From what I am aware, Scientists are rarely seen entering the WWE ring to prove their hypothesises, although the Theatricts in this forum can to some be seen as entertain, to the common scientist they will probably switch over to watch something more "Intellectually stimulating".

Another way of putting it, why have violence when you can just "read the funnies" out of your local rag (newspaper).

'Gustav you seem to lack the Arbitrary nature of being "unbiased"'

excellent. i am sure you will demonstrate my bias, yes? in a scientific and methodiacal manner, ja?

i am stupid like that. i need evidence

What did I suggest about Monologue? How can someone supply evidence if the person thats asking for it to be supplied created the evidence in the first place? wouldn't that mean the evidence would obviously be seen with some form of bias?

...
I respect that you want your specific individual rights of your own interpretation, however when your interpretation interfers with the intrepretation made by others then you yourself are infringing those very rights you sought. U have no right to insult us by closing our threads and taking out freedom of expression.

stryder
sorry, i am a bit more sophisticated than that. in my ufology there are only assumptions and probabilities. case xyz might find me with an "against" argument. case fgs, a "for."

there is no either/or

So now you claim unbiasness, when previously stating you were biased.
On top of that you mention there is no either/or.

Unbiased + Bias = cancels each other out

Therefore you are just here to flame aren't you?

I took Gustav off of ignore long enough to see what the hype is about; read his posts in this thread; and looked at what he's posted in other threads. All in an attempt to give him a fair shake and see if he's lived up to his title of "new and improved." I'm left with the satisfaction that I made a wise choice in placing him on 'ignore' and wondering what his definition of "improved" is.

Personally, I think resurrecting threads is a great idea. If the resurrection is accompanied by commentary or new information. But simply to resurrect with the word "bump" has a different meaning. To arrive at that meaning, one would need to look at the threads themselves and then their topics as well as the recent posts of the member bumping the thread.

It would seem to me that Stryder was right for moderating the threads, since much of the exchanges were reduced to bickering and insults rather than discussion. Moreover, it would seem that Gustav is still more interested in underhanded debate tactics of baiting negative responses from those from whom he disagrees rather than actually discussing the topic at hand.

Its a shame, however, that entire threads must be closed in order to prevent such detractive behavior. Deleting off-topic posts that are baiting or trolling would be a better method, though it would very likely draw the immediate criticism from the deleted poster that 'censorship' is at work, which of course would be true. Another method would be to split the detracting posts with baiting/trolling remarks to a separate thread then dump it in the Cesspool, leaving the original thread with a brief moderator post of what happened, why, and where the missing posts can be found. This type of moderation, I think, can be fair and should be done without regard to whether or not the moderator agrees with one side or the other of a given topic, but with the intent to keep the topic integrity.

One has every right to be as biased and one-sided as one wishes to be, but one shouldn't expect to have the right to belittle, goad, troll, and spam a sub-forum where others want to have reasoned discussions.

With regard to Gustav's remark that Stryder doesn't want pseudoscience discussed in a pseudoscience forum I have two things to say:

1) Stryder doesn't appear to be moderating or censoring content and opinion with regard to pseudoscience. He does, however, appear to be moderating and managing the negative interactions of trolling, baiting, and bickering that have been occurring. Sure, he made his opinion known about "charlitan scam-mongers" but I've only seen him close or moderate threads in which someone was trying to sell a product.

2) There are those on sciforums (I'm one) that want to discuss pseudoscience as a topic and a problem and don't view the pseudoscience sub-forum as a place where 'anything goes' in false/fake-sciences. This is a science forum and the Pseudoscience section is a sub-forum of it. There are a myriad of places where proponents of pseudoscientific beliefs can go and pat each other on the back about their fake-science (atlantisrising, thothnet, ufoevidence, etc). But on a science forum, there are many who are concerned and bothered by the prevalence of pseudoscience and paranormal in society and want a place to discuss and perhaps even ridicule it. To me, that's what this forum is: that place.

I think Porfiry and the Moderation Team as well as the SF membership should clarify this point. Is the Pseudoscience section going to be a place to dump topics started by "nutters" in the hard-sciences forums? A place where the "nutters" and "woo-woos" will come and announce their fake-science opinions as they look for peer-affirmation and acceptance for their irrational beliefs? Or will it be a sub-forum of a science board (one of the most widely known on the internet) where the topic of pseudoscience will be discussed and debated as a real problem for science? A board where the scientific-method is meaningful and acknowledged?

What sort of Pseudoscience section do we prefer? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52080)

U have no right to insult us by closing our threads and taking out freedom of expression.

If you want freedom of expression, Go paint a portrait, write a fictional novel perhaps even a film, write poetry. Don't suggest that post flaming and degenerative antisocial atrophy is freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression should not involve the Conflictive statement of what Freedom is, by having something forced down your neck with the words "It's Freedom of Expression". If this was the way of the world then "Freedom" has a cost, and that involves people giving up their "Freedoms".

If you want freedom of expression, Go paint a portrait, write a fictional novel perhaps even a film, write poetry. Don't suggest that post flaming and degenerative antisocial atrophy is freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression should involve the Conflictive statement of what Freedom is, by having something forced down your neck with the words "It's Freedom of Expression". If this was the way of the world then "Freedom" has a cost, and that involves people giving up their "Freedoms".
That is crap U have put to save your evil face. Try answering again.

People STOP, its all my fault.

But, as I recall, and I was quite impressed when I first spotted this, Stryder has, on occasion, written, with gusto and marvel was my impression, about certain things, certain positions, should I wonder perhaps, certain beliefs? hardly in sync with the sceptic trolls' common sense for "reality". His speculative multi-dimensions, multi-realities, multi-universes, multi-timeframes, multi-existences? Hmmm? I know, because I replied to several of those posts of his. But what impressed me even more, and I recall specifically looking out for this, was that there were never any boos or foul cries fizzling out of the sceptic trolls! They just let him have the floor!

Perhaps because there are no "sceptic trolls." Although, I recall disagreeing fervently (and still do) with Stryder on the mind-control issue. I believe Phlog also disagreed with him on one or more issues. But our disagreement with Stryder doesn't negate our respect for his ability to moderate this forum.

Qorl,
This isn't your fault.

Anomolous was upset about me deleting some of his anti-personal posts in the Comp Sci forum ontop of that the thread locking wasn't down to your posts, many others had entered flaming far before your posts.

Meanwhile,

... And there I was thinking people ignored those posts.

I still don't suggest I was wrong in the contents of any of those posts, I did however rattle on about them a little too much, many trying to iron out the kinks and perhaps get some discussion to help unravel what there is available as evidence to support or argue against those possibilities. Notibly one main factor for writing was to try and be more astute about how to discuss them so it didn't overwhelm the reader. (most of the time I thought it did.)

Perhaps in the future I'll open up another thread on it, however it's not something you'll find under "Easy reading".

Perhaps because there are no "sceptic trolls." Although, I recall disagreeing fervently (and still do) with Stryder on the mind-control issue. I believe Phlog also disagreed with him on one or more issues. But our disagreement with Stryder doesn't negate our respect for his ability to moderate this forum.

I know you guys disagree with me on "Mindcontrol" and the capacity that we (the humanrace) are capable of creating remote viewage/control to an every unwary public, in fact if I didn't know of it through personal events I would probably have the same personal conclusions.

If I had the money, the time and the energy (I suppose you could call it my folley for "if I was a rich man") I would prove to both of you without shadow of a doubt that thoughts can be inserted into or received from "either" of you. Such folley wouldn't be quick, afterall I would have to maintain something that some budding scientists neglect... Safety. I wouldn't want to give either of you guys an uneven tan now would I?

Admittedly on the paranoid side just stating that will probably have government services catalogue me, statement: "Hi Mom".

Although, I recall disagreeing fervently (and still do) with Stryder on the mind-control issue.
i find it outrageous that someone can control my mind
or plant thoughts in my brain

if something like that was possible you can take it to the bank that the cia has looked at it all squinty eyed. if there is an organization on this planet that scares me it's the cia

I know you guys disagree with me on "Mindcontrol" and the capacity that we (the humanrace) are capable of creating remote viewage/control to an every unwary public, in fact if I didn't know of it through personal events I would probably have the same personal conclusions.

after some of the stuff i read on the net, and knowing the cia like i do, yes i beleive what you say.
for the simple reason that it makes sense.
it's this unaided telepathy that i don't beleive.

Well, I was never quite sure how to respond 'cuz I was never quite sure about your level of, ah, personal involvement. Theory bores me unless it involves a participation of my being, including experiences. And perhaps that's why you were seldom, if not ever, attacked by the sceptic square heads: one could never quite decipher your true dimension. Lol.

Anyway, the point is that there is preferential treatment here; it's not all about freaks.

The preference, in my opinion, is in favor of science. Irrational and pseudoscientific thought should have an automatic bias against them in a science forum. Those that dare to venture to the pseudoscience section of a science board should expect disagreement from the beginning. Many should expect out-right ridicule of their ideas.

But notice I'm saying "their ideas" and not them in particular. I think many of those that take the skeptical high-road are often guilty of ridiculing the person, but out-right insult and ad hominem comments is something that must be curtailed on both sides. I don't exclude myself from that criticism.

Anyway, the point is that there is preferential treatment here; Of course there is. Some of us prefer to deal with well structured arguments, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. It is sloppy construction, poor grammar, persistent typographical mistakes, loose thinking, faulty logic, stubborn ignorance and other examples of bad manners that are treated with short, contemptuous thrift.

Skinwalker: I recall disagreeing fervently (and still do) with Stryder on the mind-control issue.

Mind-control hardly seems like a hairy topic. Anyway, just a single pebble in the bucket. But there were instances when Stryder's views were definitely on a par with the more outlandish claims, especially by your standards, of UFOs and ETI. But did you ever call him a woo-woo for them?

I don't generally refer to specific people, especially sciforums members, as "woo-woo" (though I have and I remember the instances). So it wouldn't be out of character for me to not refer to him as a "woo-woo."

But I see your point. I think it boils down to earned respect. Stryder has earned the respect of most people in sciforums and was the reason why he was 'elected' to the moderator position. The runner up was a skeptic as I recall, but Stryder earned votes from both the skeptical and the non-skeptical members.

My hypothesis, therefore, is that the bias that exists for Stryder is because of his rationalism where it matters for his position and his personality. Though I may disagree with him about UFOs and ETI (I honestly don't recall his position or the threads), I am in total agreement with his competence as a moderator. And I'm glad to see him back.

Likewise, I think the skeptical runner up would have made a fair moderator. Though I would imagine that runner up would have drove the fanatically non-skeptical mad just for being listed as the "moderator" of the pseudoscience forum. As if it would be part of the scientific establishments grand plan to silence the alternative (aka 'fake') science out there.

Skinwalker: Those that dare to venture to the pseudoscience section of a science board should expect disagreement from the beginning.

Your reckoning! You can't expect people from all walks of life to come here under your presupposition of being! Good gracious me!

Woo-woo. It's been spun. Now others use it as a call to arms and a war cry. The moment "woo-woo" is inserted in a post, the flamewars begin, and a thread is already dead.

But, ever notice that being called a sceptic, or whatever form of it, is not nearly as ad hominem as discounting, entirely, another's being!

I fail to see why that expectation shouldn't stand. This is a science board where the scientific method should have validity. One should therefore infer that pseudo-science (fake-science), would be far less accepted as a valid position. Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.

Of course, the real purpose was probably a dumping-ground for the moderators when the forum was created so they could move threads of nonsense and irrational thought from the hard-sciences sections.

Like I said in an earlier post, surely the so-called "woo-woos" -the non-skeptical- who come here realize that there are many, many places to go on the net where nonsense and irrational belief are heralded as automatic truth. Therefore, coming here is probably: a way to gain peer acceptance or positive affirmation; or simply the need to find an argument or debate.

I don't mind either of these reasons as long as they come here with the understanding that THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD and fake-science gets ridiculed or at least heavily criticized. Debating irrational claims is a useful mechanism for educating oneself and others. The so-called "woo-woo" doesn't usually change his or her mind, but those that wander the internet, searching for terms in google, will stumble across information and, if presented well, the rational position may influence their critical thinking.

I'm not saying that the non-skeptical or the proponents of pseudoscience shouldn't come here. I'm just saying that they have no right to act affronted or shocked when criticized.

And do take note that I've put "woo-woo" in quotes. I've also attempted to use the term non-skeptical, but how does one refer to the pseudoscience proponent?

But, ever notice that being called a sceptic, or whatever form of it, is not nearly as ad hominem as discounting, entirely, another's being!That's because in science, skepticism is necessary. Skepticism is a rational point of view. It implies that assertions are questioned, particularly with regard to evidence. The non-skeptical or the "woo-woo" position is taken without question and without objective, rational thought. Attention is drawn to a phenomenon like a train whistle to a rail-road crossing (woo-woo!). The term is perjorative, I agree. But accurate nonetheless. Still, it's a label I'm not trying to apply to an individual but to a position.

Skinwalker: I fail to see why that expectation shouldn't stand. This is a science board where the scientific method should have validity.

Take a quick look at the board. Is it not also, more or less, all-inclusive? There are more non-scientific forums here than science forums. And, how do you suppose I found this board? I entered 'UFO-discussion-aliens' in Google, 2002! I mean, life is like that -- it diverges and diversifies; many of these subforums were added later on; by popular demand, no doubt. Life is like that -- it can't be controlled through the scientific method alone! Just as anomalous occurrences and borderline experiences can't be predicted, they just happen! But why censor that which will never occur or never be experienced by you?

-

Skinwalker: Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.

Wrong precept. Are you proposing that "pseudo" topics should only be initiated and discussed by non-empirical positions? In other words, this subforum is your territory. And this whole forum is your territory. So much for empirical methods!

-

Skinwalker: Like I said in an earlier post, surely the so-called "woo-woos" -the non-skeptical- who come here realize that there are many, many places to go on the net where nonsense and irrational belief are heralded as automatic truth. Therefore, coming here is probably: a way to gain peer acceptance or positive affirmation; or simply the need to find an argument or debate.

Incredible. Conform to your etiquette, or else!

-

Skinwalker: THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD

Only when it suits you to call it that. Show me your resolve then to enforce that discipline throughout the board! Not just in here, lecturing us, like at the <strike>principle's</strike> principal's office!

-

Skinwalker: [...] but how does one refer to the pseudoscience proponent?

I have no idea for it is you who calls me that!

Skinwalker: That's because in science, skepticism is necessary. Skepticism is a rational point of view. It implies that assertions are questioned, particularly with regard to evidence.

And what makes you think that I am not full of scepticism and caution and attention when experiencing the un-ordinary??? Should I just keep my Goddamn mouth screwed SHUT and BEAR IT!

Oh, could you, really?! It'd be thoroughly super if y'could....

Very clearly you are not actually reading or comprehending what it is I have written. Indeed, I have stated on several occasions within this very thread that I was giving my opinion and have implied very clearly that it it is my point of view. In fact, I even started a thread in SF Open Government on the subject in which I echoed those sentiments.

I have also very clearly indicated that I understood what the purpose of those with a pseudoscientific agenda is: they are looking for peer acceptance and satisfaction or perhaps a good debate. Those are all well and good. I've no problem with it. If there are other reasons, I'm open-minded enough to revise with good reason.

Moreover, I've never referred to you as a "woo-woo," and this is very clearly something that is in your head if you believe I did. Indeed, I've never implied that you aren't a skeptic. Quite frankly, I've never noticed you until this thread, so I don't know what your "beliefs" are.

Lastly, I've argued for anything but censorship. I'm asserting that those with unreasoned and non-scientific claims who come to a science board (it really is, regardless of what you want it to be) should not come here with the expectation that the skeptics will passively allow their nonsense to go unchecked. Your principals office argument is not only misspelled but miss-applied.

Should I just keep my Goddamn mouth screwed SHUT and BEAR IT!It would be a marked improvement. But if you can't, for the second time of asking, will you learn the difference between principle and principal. SkinWalker is a gentleman, and rarely if ever indulges in personal attacks. I am not.
Place this single simple thought into your single simple brain. This is a science board. In those portions of the board dealing with science a proper respect for and employment of the methodologies of science is wholly appropriate. Your personal feelings and the personal feelings of every poster on the forums are irrelevant in this regard. It is not SWs views and terms that are being imposed or promoted, it the way things are properly conducted on a science board.
Now if that is too difficult for you why not just piss off?

Oh, could you, really?! It'd be thoroughly super if y'could.... Ah, such a delicate touch. So much to learn, so little time. ;)

Yes, Stryder hates you all... and who can blame him?! You're all babbling little retards (except for the skeptics).

Oh, that's a real balanced and unbiased poll, by the way! :D

SK: [...] should not come here with the expectation that the skeptics will passively allow their nonsense to go unchecked.

And you are just as impetuous to dispel unconventional phenomena as you are to promptly bewail the fact that we are too impetuous to acknowledge it!

SW: [...] allow their nonsense to go unchecked.

See what I mean...

I'm out of here.

You'll be back.

Ah, such a delicate touch. So much to learn, so little time. ;)

Ah, if only.... Face it, you were thinking the exact same thing, all I did was beat y'to the call... ;)

Toodles Meanwhile, don't get your flounce caught in the door on your way out, old stick.

X.

A

The morons called moderator have no right to impose theirs view on what we are supposed to do and dont, instead of closing the threads they can make them invisible to everyones else other than thoes who are already in it, already subscribed can leave whenever they feel bored.

Actually Anomalous, they do have the right to impose their views on how we conduct ourselves in discussion - that's precisely why they're called Moderators and not regular users....

It's hardly a Mensa Test. :rolleyes:

Actually Anomalous, they do have the right to impose their views on how we conduct ourselves in discussion - that's precisely why they're called Moderators and not regular users....

It's hardly a Mensa Test. :rolleyes: And I am sure we didnt approve it, so that is dictatorship, and it should be uprooted.

But you did approve. As did we all when we clicked in the affirmative during registration. http://www.sciforums.com/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_vb_moderator_expl ain

But you did approve. As did we all when we clicked in the affirmative during registration. http://www.sciforums.com/faq.php?faq=vb_read_and_post#faq_vb_moderator_expl ain

First off I had never seen that page before, second thing I wanted to get in the forum anyway, third if the rules are dictatorial then U must join me fight against them.

I don't think the rules are 'dictatorial.' Indeed, I think the rules need to be tightened a bit. The riff-raff is getting a bit out of hand.

First off I had never seen that page before, second thing I wanted to get in the forum anyway, third if the rules are dictatorial then U must join me fight against them.
the problem, anomalous, is
this is not your board, you do not make the rules
the only thing you can do is make an informed suggestion

and i agree with skinwalker
but instead of riff raff i will use the word trash
which is basicly the same thing

I don't think the rules are 'dictatorial.' Indeed, I think the rules need to be tightened a bit. The riff-raff is getting a bit out of hand.
I have already suggested the solution for that http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=970141#post970141
but for U being a dictator seems more lucrative. Humans are born slaves, good I am spared of the slave gene.

Anomalous,

You keep complaining about moderators as being Dictator's yet you imposes a Dictatorship view of removing them. I mean what do you suggest to replace moderation with? From the sound of some of your posts, "The destruction of the world", Thats hardly a sane suggestion.

I know eventually you will find yourself probably given a week to think about what you want to post, however thats not my decision to make, only you really control that and you're going a fine way about making the wrong decision.

Lofl.

Just to keep the thread on topic: I love Stryder and want to have his babies. (Peers nervously over shoulder to see if the humourless Bhudda1 is in the vicinity, then exits stage right, mopping brow in a theatrical manner.)

I love Stryder and want to have his babies.
two timer

I took Gustav off of ignore long enough to see what the hype is about; read his posts in this thread; and looked at what he's posted in other threads. All in an attempt to give him a fair shake and see if he's lived up to his title of "new and improved." I'm left with the satisfaction that I made a wise choice in placing him on 'ignore' and wondering what his definition of "improved" is.

a need for vindication
a need to reinforce ego

how entirely predictable and needy

So now you claim unbiasness, when previously stating you were biased.
On top of that you mention there is no either/or.

Unbiased + Bias = cancels each other out

Therefore you are just here to flame aren't you?

mmm
if that is all the effort you can muster, i suggest you let it go. the above looks like a cheap parlor trick. you do not understand subtleties, the use of rhetorical devices and i am not here to explain every word

you look at shit in a superficial manner. think what you want. i am no longer interested in your opinion

for a fucking forum vet, you lack skills. this poll was a joke. the rigging should have been an indicator. yet you took it at face value and here we are

look how cottontop[ deals with it..

Yes, I hate you with a passion. You are a scoundrel and a fop, sir. Away with thee, i say. ;)

rather simple ja?

james had a really decent exposition on this shit...read and learn

I understand and share many of your concerns. A number of racist threads have been closed recently.

There seems to be a small number of vocal racists on the forum at present, and a small number of vocal anti-semites, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-American posters. Then we have a small number of anti-heterosexual posters, a couple of misogynists...

And so the list goes on. The internet is littered with people with one-track minds, who are willing to devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to pushing their particular wheel barrow across as large a number of forums and other media as possible.

There is a line to be drawn here. On one side is free speech. On the other is a quality forum, free of nutballs. The line is not always an easy one to draw.

You are correct that this has never been a free forum. But in my experience it has always had its share of morons, and I don't expect that to change. The alternative would be to change sciforums into a kind of ivory tower for self-styled intellectuals, which would exclude a lot of non-professionals interested in the kinds of topics we discuss here (science, philosophy, religion etc.) Personally, I enjoy the diversity of posters we get here, even if a few of them are a little (or more than a little) crazy. They add life to the place.

Mine is just one opinion, of course. (James R)

Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.

Of course, the real purpose was probably a dumping-ground for the moderators when the forum was created so they could move threads of nonsense and irrational thought from the hard-sciences sections.

any more purposes, idiot boy?

Of course there is. Some of us prefer to deal with well structured arguments, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. It is sloppy construction, poor grammar, persistent typographical mistakes, loose thinking, faulty logic, stubborn ignorance and other examples of bad manners that are treated with short, contemptuous thrift.

stop yapping, bothersome poodle

/kick

meanwhile is my hero
i love you man!

/sob

All in an attempt to give him a fair shake and see if he's lived up to his title of "new and improved."

please do not ever take me off ignore again.
you lack the intellect to comprehend
you are better off as you were

now fuck off

i must also note--that i have read bout last three pages---pages is shorter in my preferences due to memory limtations. so it could be last page fo yo. who knows? life's amystery init?

but i see, a certain cow-towing to authority--the moderator, Stryder. where 'we' get caled 'trash' by one poster, and have been constantly sometimes visciously insulted on different levels.

this is something i notice very very much with mscientists. their allegiance to authority

you argue this respec is due to his eloquent and intelligent debate. and no doubt it IS, ina, not dissin his shit. but what you'll all-is-matter people dont dig is YOUR projected stuff you impose on others in debate. that THA id what causes flameing . you always duck out of reponsibility....sheeesh

Personally, I think resurrecting threads is a great idea. If the resurrection is accompanied by commentary or new information. But simply to resurrect with the word "bump" has a different meaning. To arrive at that meaning, one would need to look at the threads themselves and then their topics as well as the recent posts of the member bumping the thread.

now allow me to show how stupid this self styled sage of science really is.
his myopia and narrow mindedeness restricts and confines his ability to actually consider all scenarios

a pm

I think you made a reference to a skeptical treatment of the Belgian ufo wave recently. Is/was there such a discussion on this forum? If so, where?

Thank you, and good night!

that is why you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

Now if that is too difficult for you why not just piss off?

i rather you do.

i bemoan the fact that sci allows riff raff and other scummy type to sign up and befoul these hallowed halls of learning
i say we keep the commoners out
begone, grump

Looks like little pseudo-scientist shits are dishing are trash, but run off crying when it's thrown back at them. Sort of like pre-school.
'Waaa, skeptics should stay out of pseudoscience, because their arguments cause our silly little beliefs to collapse like a house of cards built in a swamp."

Anomalous,

You keep complaining about moderators as being Dictator's yet you imposes a Dictatorship view of removing them. I mean what do you suggest to replace moderation with? ..... U asked it and this is the reply, Dont delete it like a coward face it like a warrior, this technique should be used for everypost.

This may look like spam but thats how world of forums has evolved today,
That forum is not mine but its a slap on every Orthodox moderator
http://www.theworldforum.org/special/faq_moderating#whatis

SciForums, Resistance is futile, U will be asimilated.

Singularity is coming !

that is why you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

What? Are you referring to myself as a maggot? For simply asking about such a thread? Or were you demonstrating the failings of someone else?

I believe that was what it was, but I can't quite tell.

I wish people here would STOP the outright ridiculing and name-calling.

People who can throw punches, and beat others to a bloody pulp, have not demonstrated the rightness of their argument or their cause.

Am I wrong? Hardly. A truly sensible person will know the difference between the two.

now allow me to show how stupid this self styled sage of science really is.
his myopia and narrow mindedeness restricts and confines his ability to actually consider all scenarios

a pm


I think you made a reference to a skeptical treatment of the Belgian ufo wave recently. Is/was there such a discussion on this forum? If so, where?

Thank you, and good night!



that is why you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

OKAY!!! I think I understand it! BOY! I must be DENSE! :rolleyes:

Saw the pseudo-response ( :D ) and started to read it. Also your former-self's thread about skeptics.

Thanks. I will finish reading them soon.

I wish people here would STOP the outright ridiculing and name-calling.

People who can throw punches, and beat others to a bloody pulp, have not demonstrated the rightness of their argument or their cause.


I was helping you make your case. But it appears you may have been mistaken. Thus:

You said - Calling someone else a fool does not make then one.
I said - You are a fool

Apart from some mild irony this was primarily meant to demonstrate that saying it did, indeed, not make it so.
Your response may indicate, however, that saying it can occasionally ferret one (a fool) out of the woodwork.

Well done.

A perfect example of this name-calling, although more subtle.

The last line says "Well done." I highly doubt he was actually congratulating me. ;)

If you call someone a fool, or speak it in their direction, do not be suprised if they ask you what you meant by that. Does their response actually mean that the insult applies to them?

Ophiolite's response may indicate, however, that some people may think just as much, and if they call someone else a fool, that they become so if they answer such an insult.

I don't doubt that it was intended for me. Maybe I'm wrong?

I wish people here would STOP the outright ridiculing and name-calling.

People who can throw punches, and beat others to a bloody pulp, have not demonstrated the rightness of their argument or their cause.

Am I wrong? Hardly. A truly sensible person will know the difference between the two. These are humans what do expect from them, they need to be controlled the problem is the absence of Mojo, I have been shouting about this for very long time but the Orthodox owners of Sciforums dont want to see the problems , let alone the solutions.
http://www.theworldforum.org/special/faq_comments#mojo

As far as mojo, I'm sure that most people that post here have enough of that.

I will agree with you to a certain extent about the selectivity of moderators, but I will never agree with your violent rhetoric. You are completely wrong about wanting to blow up ANYONE (Americans or otherwise) just because their government does something they have no control over.

And what about that?

They should protest by the millions? Believe me. Nearly that number did so when Iraq was recently invaded by the US. A prominent opponent of that (US Senator) died in an accidental plane crash. Accidents happen, after all.

As far as mojo, I'm sure that most people that post here have enough of that. U r wrong, U r insulting me, the flaming that goes on here , its because there is no system where people can give or remove points about members so there is no record and as there is no Behaviour ratings the members dont care and say anything that pleases them. The member rating will make everyone aware that they should behave good or face the lonely future.

http://www.theworldforum.org/special/faq_rating_comments

I dont like that forum but I wish the features were here.

Here a very good example of what I just said, look at this http://forums.hypography.com/images/element/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://forums.hypography.com/images/element/reputation/reputation_pos.gif image in the link http://forums.hypography.com/members/5.html

If U checkout others profiles over there then U will see that different members show different bars, just move your mouse over that bar.

I will agree with you to a certain extent about the selectivity of moderators, but I will never agree with your violent rhetoric. You are completely wrong about wanting to blow up ANYONE (Americans or otherwise) just because their government does something they have no control over.

And what about that?

They should protest by the millions? Believe me. Nearly that number did so when Iraq was recently invaded by the US. A prominent opponent of that (US Senator) died in an accidental plane crash. Accidents happen, after all. U dont know me yet. Why do U think I started this thread, http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52012, just look at the poll it says it all, your politicians greed is destroying our world. Use Web TV.

Now look, we all have to defend ourself, if a Missile is gona land from your side we must act on it and be ready to fight back. Its my moral obligatory duty to warn Americans of what their leaders are doing to them and image of theirs greate nation. If a nuke is detonated in your city and 10s of millions die, the outsiders are gona blame U people more than anyone else. If U love your near and dear ones then dont put their lives at risk by sittting and watching your controlled media. U cant get away by saying U r innocent, Ignoring others pain caused by your taxmoney is gona get U.

Dont pay taxes, hold your country at ransom, form groups, use YahooGroups, anything, help the world by protecting yourself and us.

:m: Peace !

I was helping you make your case. But it appears you may have been mistaken. Thus:
You said - Calling someone else a fool does not make then one.
I said - You are a fool

Apart from some mild irony this was primarily meant to demonstrate that saying it did, indeed, not make it so.
Your response may indicate, however, that saying it can occasionally ferret one (a fool) out of the woodwork.

Well done.
A perfect example of this name-calling, although more subtle.

The last line says "Well done." I highly doubt he was actually congratulating me. ;)
Giambatista - You made a perceptive comment, in declaring that calling someone a fool did not make them one. [No more than calling them a genius makes them intellectually gifted.] Some might argue that it is not a perceptive comment, but a self evident one. Were it so self-evident we might expect fewer people to indulge in the practice.

In science, technology, perhaps life in general, a practical demonstration is often the most effective way to teach, certainly an effective way of reinforcing a point.

I chose to demonstrate your point, to my mind, very clearly. I called you a fool. Did this make you one? Of course not. Was it evident it did not make you one? I would hope so. Thus, my simple one sentence contribution had admirably supported your position.

Then, to my amazement, you completely failed to see the significance of this very practical demonstration of your own contention. Surely, this was foolish of you? It certainly seemed so to me. Thus I was given a new insight: calling a person a fool may not make them a fool, but it may reveal their foolishness. I can regret it if you are offended by this, but realise the foolishness is yours and the exposure of the foolishness is yours. I am merely a catalyst, unchanged by the events. In short, the name calling was done by yourself, of yourself; my role was unimportant.

You did pick up that the 'well done' was a blend of irony and sarcasm, to which I can only respond, this time sincerely, well done.

now allow me to show how stupid this self styled sage of science really is.
Please provide the thread wherein SW styles himself a sage of science. If you cannot do so, please admit, that as per normal, you are simply stringing together some phrases that strike you as apt, with no consideration for their meaning or accuracy.
.... you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.Please define your terms. [I don't really think you will be able to, but your attempts could be worth a laugh or two.]

Then, to my amazement, you completely failed to see the significance of this very practical demonstration of your own contention. Surely, this was foolish of you? It certainly seemed so to me. Thus I was given a new insight: calling a person a fool may not make them a fool, but it may reveal their foolishness.


This was my response.

What are you talking about?

How does that reveal my foolishness?
You called someone a fool. I asked you what you were talking about. And then you tell me:
I called you a fool.
You just admitted that your statement was in response to my own. You said you called me a fool. I wasn't supposed to respond? Are you going to tell me that you really meant for me to ignore that? The statement was directed at me. I knew it. And you just confirmed that.

I can regret it if you are offended by this...

I doubt that you regret any of your insults.

And by the way, I don't know Stryder. I didn't vote in the poll. I don't hate him, and I'm sure he doesn't hate me, if he's a sensible character.

please do not ever take me off ignore again.
you lack the intellect to comprehend
you are better off as you were

now fuck off

No thanks, I don't swing your way. But, interestingly enough, I still have spookz in my ignore list. I thought the list was working, but I see I had help when Porfiry "forever" banned you from sciforums. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32256&page=3&pp=20)

Couldn't stay away, eh? Welcome back (albeit belated). Why didn't you tell us who you really were? You had, what? 6,000+ posts before you were banned, wasn't it? Mostly spam and insults of course, but still... that's a lot of time invested in an internet forum. It must have really hurt you deeply to have the authorities take it all away. Glad to see you back, Spookz.

What? Are you referring to myself as a maggot? For simply asking about such a thread? Or were you demonstrating the failings of someone else?

I believe that was what it was, but I can't quite tell.

of course not
you too are my hero

/pained ;)

skin

i am sure you are :D
now, please, the ignore thingy
thanks

Spookz

i think i'll leave it off for a while
to observe
perhaps participate
your welcome

Please define your terms. [I don't really think you will be able to, but your attempts could be worth a laugh or two.]

/spits at the yob

Giambattista do you genuinely fail to understand that in calling you a fool immediately after you stated that 'calling someone a fool does not make them one' I was demonstrating the truth of your statement; I was agreeing with you 100%; I was acknowledging the accuracy of your remark. Calling you a fool, as I did, clearly did not make you one. That proved, in that instance at least, that you were not a fool.
I don't know what you are finding so difficult to understand about that, and I am at a complete loss as to why you did not perceive this intent at once.
Your persistent failure to do so appears to me to be evidence that, contrary to my expectation, you are foolish. This is surprising to me. But I am not calling you a fool for real. You are demonstrating, by your amazingly obtuse inability to comprehend the intent of my original post, that you are perhaps foolish. Don't blame me for that. Don't accuse me of insulting you, when the insults stem from your own actions.
I try to nice and helpful and all I get is accusations from you. So it starts to appear that not only may you be foolish, but you may be ungrateful and rude as well. I am not calling you ungrateful and rude. I am saying that is how you are coming across by your bizarre reaction to my very simple post, desinged to help support you and your point.
Weird.

/spits at the yobSo you are here simply to troll, la, la, la. Not offer any points of view, and intersting facts, any novel perspectives on science, or the human condition.
Just here to be small minded, rude, disruptive and generally unpleasant.
You lack imagination, my Terran companion. You lack an appreciation of society. You do not understand science or the scientific method. What you do understand is destruction and negative energy and blinkered, narrow minded thinking.
Originally, I thought you were just a pain in the ass, but I now suspect you are a quite unpleasant human. The sort who nobody weeps over when they are found lying face down in a gutter. Were you abused as a child? That would merit some sympathy.

*negative energy
*Were you abused as a child?

crackpot

/spits again

Giambattista

your analysis of the grump is correct
do not be fooled for an instance

he will attack without provocation
the bait is best ignored

the modus operandi

backhanded compliments
veiled insults
snide remarks
bitching
sarcastic putdowns
offensive/smarmy attitude
semantical wordplay
subterfuge
willful ignorance

you can also smell the tard

as far as i can tell, you have been well behaved
yet you face this crap
report him

it is a shame that new signups should face this sort of reprehensible conduct

Giambattista do you genuinely fail to understand that in calling you a fool immediately after you stated that 'calling someone a fool does not make them one' I was demonstrating the truth of your statement; I was agreeing with you 100%; I was acknowledging the accuracy of your remark. Calling you a fool, as I did, clearly did not make you one. That proved, in that instance at least, that you were not a fool.

I don't know what you are finding so difficult to understand about that, and I am at a complete loss as to why you did not perceive this intent at once.

I vaguely remember you describing yourself as arrogant in a reply to someone else.
Just recently, you declared that you were "not a gentleman" like James R.

Why would I automatically assume, then, that you were conducting an experiment or demonstration, and not actually insulting me or provoking some type of response?

You are demonstrating, by your amazingly obtuse inability to comprehend the intent of my original post, that you are perhaps foolish. Don't blame me for that. Don't accuse me of insulting you, when the insults stem from your own actions.

Who's obtuse?
You called me a fool, very simply. I asked you what you meant by that, very simply.
Instead of merely saying that you were demonstrating how correct I was, you conclude with a peculiar piece of logic:
Your response may indicate, however, that saying it can occasionally ferret one (a fool) out of the woodwork.

How does my rather neutral response to what I perceived to be an insult make me a fool?

I try to nice and helpful and all I get is accusations from you.

I merely asked what you meant by the statement "You are a fool." And shortly thereafter you conclude that I may well be one for even asking about it. I fail to see how that is "nice and helpful" but it is not hard at all to see where you might just be feeding some need you have.

Giambattista

your analysis of the grump is correct
do not be fooled for an instance


Sound advice.




the modus operandi

backhanded compliments
veiled insults...


Your response may indicate, however, that saying it can occasionally ferret one (a fool) out of the woodwork.

Seems to fit the description.

willful ignorance

Well, didn't he call you an unpleasant person?

you can also smell the tard


That last one, though. I don't know.

Giambattista, I give up. I apologise if you feel I insulted you. That was never my intent. I still am bewildered by your inability to pick up on a simple demonstration. You seem like a reasonable person who has chosen, on this occasion to behave unreasonably. I wish you well, but suggest you place me on ignore, since there seems little chance you will be able to correctly interpret anything else I say.

I wish you well, but suggest you place me on ignore, since there seems little chance you will be able to correctly interpret anything else I say.

ja
it is the usual consequence of speaking with a forked tongue or perhaps say... from both sides of your foul mouth.

do grow up

Giambattista, I give up. I apologise if you feel I insulted you. That was never my intent. I still am bewildered by your inability to pick up on a simple demonstration. You seem like a reasonable person who has chosen, on this occasion to behave unreasonably. I wish you well, but suggest you place me on ignore, since there seems little chance you will be able to correctly interpret anything else I say.

Sounds edible.

ja
it is the usual consequence of speaking with a forked tongue or perhaps say... from both sides of your foul mouth.

do grow up

Sounds delicious!