Action Notes v.1.0

Not open for further replies.
Post deletions

• "Climate-gate" — Five posts deleted on initial survey in response to inquiry. These made no real contribution to the thread.

Note: One of the challenges of communicating our theories is that we must try to communicate them at all. Members should recognize that simply posting a link or two in lieu of any constructive argument does not do much to facilitate further discussion. If the subject is so unimportant to a member that it doesn't warrant any real effort of communication, then I might suggest those members simply not waste even the superficial motion.
Post edit

• "Going to Mars my ass" — One post edited to strike insulting content.

Note: Regardless of whether or not I might sympathize with one's sentiments, there are certain limits to what we consider acceptable at Sciforums. If a thread is so damnably stupid that you can't do any better than opening your response with profane insults, I would ask you to consider whether such a thread deserves whatever time you might otherwise waste on it in the first place. Don't embarrass yourself, and don't make me start dragging out the yellow and red cards. Really, I don't like handing the things out, so please don't compel me to do so, else I might decide to take it out on you by escalating the sanction. Easy enough?


Many thanks.

• "Are there any NEW Creationist arguments?" — Thread closed, perhaps temporarily.

Note: Yeah, that was an ... intelligent ... discussion. Okay, I'll try to farm out some useful posts and see what I can do with it, but I'm making no promises. Update to follow.

• • •​

Update: Twenty-two posts copied to a new thread. One of these has been edited to shorten an unnecessarily long quote of another post.

Note: See Mod Hat at #23.
Last edited:
Thread transfer

• "The convincing belief of the existence of the soul" — Thread redirected to Pseudoscience.

Note: There is a certain amount of presupposition in this thread that cannot be justified scientifically, or at least not without more precise definition. In and of itself, this is not a fatal problem. But the topic post also clearly excludes scientific scrutiny, which is specifically problematic under the rubric of Science & Society.
Post edit

• "why society should be more accepting of a Utopia" — Topic post edited to add citation against plagiarism; indent tags added to offset quote for readability.

Notes: A certain form of acknowledged credit was given the author of the original words. Topic poster was a new member, and unable to post links. I'm in one of my moods. Anyway, the source document is available for anyone who wants to read it through, and consider the larger context. A note to our new member: Welcome. When you have more posts, you'll obviously want to include links.

On that point, though, I would ask everyone to consider going at least a little beyond the bare minimum. We appreciate author and hyperlink, or some other sort of basic acknowledgment, and while I do not demand of people something akin to the more complicated citations I use in my own posts, I would at least note that people are more likely to offer useful, entertaining, or enlightening contributions to the discussion if they have an opportunity to understand where you're coming from, and thus suggest that a little bit of extra effort to make your sources available to other people might produce unexpected benefits.

No, no, it won't get you laid. Sorry. Can't help you with that.
Last edited:
Thread closure/transfer

• "Is bioengineering same as biotechnology?" — Thread closed and redirected to Cesspool

• "Which of these is needed for the future?" — Thread closed and redirected to Cesspool.

Note: Yes, some questions are straightforward. But if you offer some context, people can offer better answers than the obvious, which is to point to a dictionary, or Wikipedia, or whatever, and tell you to look it up.

Members are reminded that some depth about topic posts is necessary. Think of it this way, if you can go from title to thread and offer absolutely nothing but a string of dots in the topic post, you're probably missing something.

Beyond that, no, I couldn't tell you exactly where the bonehead threshold actually stands at present. I let a lot of pathetic threads carry on for just that reason. But once in a while, a thread can clearly fail that particular threshold, at which point one can circle back to the the beginning of this note.
Post deletion

• "Tide turning on Circumcision, Push to circumcise all male infants" — Five posts deleted for various reasons.

Note: In this case, the various reasons include insults and off-topic posts, starting with such belligerence that the post of departure doesn't even make sense. Look, if you want to be condescending and belligerent, at least aim for a modicum of subtlety. Additionally, try to make sense. If your disposition is such that you can't even manage to properly disrespect an idea or person, maybe you should take a deep breath and reconsider whether it's worth the effort in the first place.
Not open for further replies.