Who is the philosophy forums moderator,

One of my threads has been moved or deleted, it had a small segment of my Philosophy book within the post.

Fix this error please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not an error.

Read your Warning mail.

You're back for one day and already you're re-asserting your position as the ranting child?

Seriously EFOC, if you want to post here, clean it up, and grow up.

I'll refrain from giving you a Warning for this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What on earth are you talking about, Quite indeed..............I return from traveling and writing my books to post on this forum, My book is being published by a know PHILOSOPHY publishing group, as a philosophical work, I in-turn post a segment of Said philosophy novel into the PHILOSOPHY section of this website, only to find 5 seconds laater no-less it has been deleted because it Incorperates a philosophy of a creator.


In short you see the word god and deem it not fit for a philosophy subject, thanks for showing me gain how un-proffessional this forum has become, to the point where I cannot even post a legitimate philosophy threat in your philosophy section of the forums, also the work is original and my own.

How dismal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Given your inability to avoid runon sentences, and general rules of grammar and syntax in general, I find it particualrly hard to believe that anyone would publish something 'written' (sic) by you.

In any case, you should know better than to post its content herein.
Moreover, your babbling post was nothing but mere opinion; there was nothing beyond the description of a personal position.
Philosophy, first and foremost requires a reasoned argumentation in support of a position.

'nuff said.

How dismal that you can so easily toss out such a prejudicial accusation without even the slightest indication of evidence to support the claim.
But then again, opining in the absence of evidence has always been your forte....

 

I was goin to await your rebuttle, then I ponder for the slightest of moments and realise I get paid to write now, here I am being refused the right to submit my own work by a unpaid forum moderator.


Conclusion, I have better things to do than waste time trying to get my work viewed for free over the internet.


PS, You know deep down you could not have argue Vs my philosophy, it is solid and has no flaws, on-top of that it proved god without paradox which you don't like.


I might drop by in a few years to see if your wisdom has expanded.


Peace.

 

Doubtful.

The truly wise don't prattle like children, nor whine when they're chided, but most significantly, they don't claim to be wise.

"No flaws" indeed. lol

Off you go now....

 

LOL! Shit moderation to complement shit discussion. No wonder so few people post on sciforums any more.

 

What's wrong with posting an excerpt from a book one has written? Didn't swivel do it with his novel? And EFOC is clearly not a troll or spammer... so this seems more like a personal vendetta than objective moderation.

 

Because:
A) it wasn't presented as an excerpt from his book until later.
B) it was posted in Philosophy and was nothing but unsupported assertions. Like Glaucon stated:

C) I read it and replied (just before it was deleted): it was an inconsistent, self contradictory piece of rubbish that had nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy but was, instead, blatant preaching (which is also against the forum rules).

Actually if you bother to read any of EFoC's posts (especially since he got religion) they verge constantly on trolling - uninformed assertions with no attempt whatsoever to support them. Even those that directly contradict what science has already shown to be true.

 

Either way I wish I could have seen the original post and formed my own judgement instead of being subjected to yours and glaucons... no offense. I always enjoyed his posts even if they weren't always supported. Shouldn't there be room in sciforums for just interesting content that may or may not be scientific? Also couldn't his thread, assuming it wasn't rigorous enough for the philosophy forum (which is sOooO rigorous lol), have been moved to free thoughts or something instead of being deleted?

Again it just seems like this action was something personal...

 

Personally I expected it to have been Cesspooled, (but wasn't entirely surprised it was deleted) - mainly so that the inconsistencies could have been pointed out to EFoC (not that, unless he's changed drastically, he would have taken any notice) - and I'm massively dubious about this "book" he claims to have written. Or, more accurately, about the integrity/ scholasticism of the publisher...

Certainly: Free Thoughts would have suited the content, but Glaucon runs a tight ship and if EFoC couldn't present his case in a philosophical manner (as opposed to stating insupportable assertions as fact) then he deserved everything he got.

If you check, Glaucon does his best to make the Philosophy sub-forum rigorous. Something I for one appreciate greatly (as a noob to philosophy).

Personal?
Nah. Any similar post (or practice) gets leapt on in the same manner.

 

Nothing, if it even remotely resembled something relevant to philosophical context. As it stood, it was nothing but incoherent proselytization.

Sure, in the right context.

"Clearly"???
Clearly, you're not familiar with EFOC.

As for the rest of your critiques, Dywyddyr has addressed them all.
EFOC presented nothing that could be considered to be a philosophical argument. As such, it has no place in the Philosophy subforum. If I wasn't already familiar with his posting style, I very well might have just sent it to Free Thoughts...

 

yes, i dont understand it either. what is the criteria for moderators to enforce their own personal fears and biases?

 

Gloucon:

Seriously, any argument can be viewed as unreasonable to someone who does not agree with it. What was so bad about the thread that gloucon decided no one should see it?

That is bizarre.

 

Fears?
Biases?

I see you can't be bothered to actually read any of the replies in this thread:

Glaucon post #4.

Me, post #9.
There were no arguments, simply flat (and sometimes self-contradictory) statements given as if they were incontrovertible fact.

Not at all. EFoC obviously hadn't bothered reading the rules, or had read them and decided to ignore them.

 

yes.

 

I see, someone else who thinks bland assertions are worth something.
What fears?
What bias?
Evidence?
Or are you simply supposing?
Let me guess...

 

What else was the reason? This is the philosophy forum for christs sake.

 

Someones philosophy is not as good as someone else's?

What a joke.

 

You don't read at all do you?
The reason:

Post #4 (again).

Maybe you've mistaken philosophy for mindless, unsupported babbling. I suggest you actually check on what philosophy is:
as Glaucon said - reasoned argument. Not "this is true because I say so".