Is this a real science forum?

[Futilitist]

All your threads in human science were about aspergers to my recollection.

And Aspies are human.

Right?:bugeye:

---Futilitist

 

[Syne]

That which does not bear scrutiny is of dubious value to begin with.

Just because you can't understand something, doesn't make it wrong.

Straw man, as nothing about things having little or no value necessarily make them "wrong". Irrelevant or trivial maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

Here's something that bears scrutiny. Why are you always posting at me? Is there some purpose to you stalking me all over the forum?

Consider me:

Total Posts 1,201

Posts Per Day 3.50​

And you:

Total Posts 266

Posts Per Day 12.89​

You are kind of hard to miss with that post rate. And I have already told you that the "On the Fringe" section is perfect for those who wish to incessantly post nonsense which they cannot support with science. That is what it is there for. Here, I am providing counterpoint to your rather paranoid feedback. Or are you the only one allowed to comment on the forum in general?

Jeez, I gave you my Asperger's thread you spent so much energy disrupting, whist accussing me of projective identification and wrecking wynn's thread, right after you got done destroying my serious evolution of religion thread. You are so ungrateful.

I was actually the only one to offer any useful answers in wynn's thread. You destroyed your own "evolution of religion" thread with your huge detour into Asperger's (which I warned you would happen, and you could have avoided by making your AS thread earlier). And maybe you should try to present some science in a science forum, i.e. Human Science.

You are clearly obsessed with me. You follow me even into site feedback, you're already taking over, and you can't seem to restrain yourself, even a little bit. I have never disrupted one of your threads.

What threads? I do not remember starting any.

The only question is, are you psychotic?

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, which is indicative of the paranoia, delusion, and bias you display. I can demonstrate what I say is true, so I cannot be out of touch with reality.


It is also fun to watch you dig your own hole, over and over again. That is what keeps me reading, and hence finding things that warrant reply.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

and aspies are human.

Right?:bugeye:

---futilitist

OK.oke:

 

[wellwisher]

R&D is not easy is to do, nor is it easy to constructively critique. The creator has had time to think about their idea, while others may not have the time to ponder as long as needed to be constructive. Sometimes the only comments you may get is cynicism or personal attack. This keeps the thread going but has a tendency to divert it down a muddy path. The high road goes away.

Personal attack often appears gray, instead of black and white, with R&D criticism. To the memorizers, the attacker is defending the traditions. By vanquishing the foe, one makes the science indoctrinates feel secure. This dynamic can also act as a smoke screen. It can also allow the caretakers of the traditions to hide personal motivations in the name of defending the traditions. Sometimes valid criticism is lost in the name of personal vendetta. The memorizers may assume this criticism has no basis.

What is in the middle, between these two extremes (free style and blind obedience), are practical applications of acceptable science. This is where you use memory science but organized it in new ways to solve problems or challenge science.

 

[Syne]

R&D is not easy is to do, nor is it easy to constructively critique. The creator has had time to think about their idea, while others may not have the time to ponder as long as needed to be constructive. Sometimes the only comments you may get is cynicism or personal attack. This keeps the thread going but has a tendency to divert it down a muddy path. The high road goes away.

Personal attack often appears gray, instead of black and white, with R&D criticism. To the memorizers, the attacker is defending the traditions. By vanquishing the foe, one makes the science indoctrinates feel secure. This dynamic can also act as a smoke screen. It can also allow the caretakers of the traditions to hide personal motivations in the name of defending the traditions. Sometimes valid criticism is lost in the name of personal vendetta. The memorizers may assume this criticism has no basis.

What is in the middle, between these two extremes (free style and blind obedience), are practical applications of acceptable science. This is where you use memory science but organized it in new ways to solve problems or challenge science.

You are uselessly redefining "R&D". R&D always has a solid footing in what has already been proven to work, as R&D is a business practice with the specific aim of profit. What you are talking about is speculation without an demonstrable evidence, which shows no indication of being a good investment. Science already uses past knowledge to make new progress.

Hacks often whine about criticism to obscure their complete lack of evidence. And when the intellectual dishonestly they employ to evade any question of evidence is mentioned, they inevitably cry foul about "personal attack". Yes, failure to see that an idea is without any demonstrate merit is a personal problem, but it is naively optimistic to expect a science forum to completely ignore such gross personal lapses.

Scientists are not necessarily objective. It is the methodology of science, relying on consensus building by demonstration, that ensures the objectivity of the subject. Failure to provide demonstrable evidence is just a failure to do science. And wild speculation very much warrants scrutiny.

 

[leopold]

Scientists are not necessarily objective.

this is one of the reasons for doubleblind experiments.
the whole idea for testing in the first place.

 

[Futilitist]

You are uselessly redefining "R&D". R&D always has a solid footing in what has already been proven to work, as R&D is a business practice with the specific aim of profit. What you are talking about is speculation without an demonstrable evidence, which shows no indication of being a good investment. Science already uses past knowledge to make new progress.

Hacks often whine about criticism to obscure their complete lack of evidence. And when the intellectual dishonestly they employ to evade any question of evidence is mentioned, they inevitably cry foul about "personal attack". Yes, failure to see that an idea is without any demonstrate merit is a personal problem, but it is naively optimistic to expect a science forum to completely ignore such gross personal lapses.

Scientists are not necessarily objective. It is the methodology of science, relying on consensus building by demonstration, that ensures the objectivity of the subject. Failure to provide demonstrable evidence is just a failure to do science. And wild speculation very much warrants scrutiny.

"I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic... I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity... I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical... The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college..."
---Robert Anton Wilson

---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I believe I've reproached you before about posting articles other than writing thoughts and opinions yourself.

I'm guessing more people will tend to ignore your posts if you continue as such.

 

[Syne]

That was not even a reply to you, Futilitist, but if you really want my attention again, so be it.

That quote is typical hack apologetics that completely ignores the need for evidence in science. It is not about "rationalism", it is about the scientific method.

 

[youreyes]

I believe I've reproached you before about posting articles other than writing thoughts and opinions yourself.

I'm guessing more people will tend to ignore your posts if you continue as such.

that's what happens when people use their gender as a tool to advance their status in forums...honey.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

that's what happens when people use their gender as a tool to advance their status in forums...honey.

Kittens are notoriously evil. When young, their favorite food is the mana of unsuspecting individuals. Lured in by the apparent cuteness of the beast, the victim is first violently gored with razor-sharp talons and vicious fangs. At this point, the kitten places its deadly, gaping maw inside the victim and begins to feast on its victim's soul. The entire process lasts no longer than thirty seconds, and by the time the feast is over, most do not realize their soul has been consumed. Kittens pose a severe threat to humanity, to feast upon any souls. You have gotta be Kitten me! Oh, and they all toast toast.
"Soul, yum. It's better with strawberries!" -- A. Kitten.

http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Kitten#Kitten_Feeding_Behavior

 

[Futilitist]

Pot calls kettle black

I believe I've reproached you before about posting articles other than writing thoughts and opinions yourself.

I'm guessing more people will tend to ignore your posts if you continue as such.

http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Kitten#Kitten_Feeding_Behavior

Kittens are notoriously evil. When young, their favorite food is the mana of unsuspecting individuals. Lured in by the apparent cuteness of the beast, the victim is first violently gored with razor-sharp talons and vicious fangs. At this point, the kitten places its deadly, gaping maw inside the victim and begins to feast on its victim's soul. The entire process lasts no longer than thirty seconds, and by the time the feast is over, most do not realize their soul has been consumed. Kittens pose a severe threat to humanity, to feast upon any souls. You have gotta be Kitten me! Oh, and they all toast toast.
"Soul, yum. It's better with strawberries!" -- A. Kitten.

Are you A. Kitten, the author of of the above Uncyclopedia article? If not please see:

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

---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

"Pot calls kettle black" you say?

Not too bright are you now.

I was replying the weird poster I wanted to ignore me.

 

[Futilitist]

"Pot calls kettle black" you say?

Not too bright are you now.

I was replying the weird poster I wanted to ignore me.

So was I.

---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

So was I.

Flattering!

 

[Futilitist]

Flattering!

It will probably get me nowhere.

---Futilitist

 

[wynn]

Is this a discussion forum ...

 

[Trooper]

I am Loren Soman. I was joking about not being Loren Soman. The joke was aimed at rpenner who seemed to be doing a lot of overly nosey research about me. I suspect that we may know each other from somewhere else, but that he is using a different name here. He seemed to be trying to convince Trooper that I was not to be trusted. I couldn't tell if Trooper was playing good cop to rpenner's bad cop to influence others.

The joke was not obvious, especially when you followed it up with another lie. :bugeye:

I would submit that it has not, in fact, been established that the quote author was, in fact, Futilitist. Loren Soman, the actual author of the quote in question, has, in fact, been dead since 2010!

So, are you lying? Did you quote yourself or not? Is there a real Loren Soman, and if so, is he dead, or not?

1. So, are you lying?

No. Not to you. I was lying (more like misdirecting) to the folks at LATOC.

2. Did you quote yourself or not?

Not.

3. Is there a real Loren Soman, and if so, is he dead, or not?

There was one once, but he is dead.

Hope that clears things up.

---Futilitist

Also, I do not think that rpenner was being overly nosy. He tends to be a stickler and likes to verify the authenticity of quotes. He has said before that famous people often get misattributed as the source of quotes, especially when someone seeks to make an argument from authority and the perceived authority didn't say what that someone had in mind.

In other words, citing yourself as an authority with your own opinion is just not acceptable.

As far as the good cop/bad cop routine, I need to have a lot of information before I can reach a conclusion. He, on the other hand, is more gifted, and has more experience with science forums, than I do.

I am highly autistic and I am probably way out of line socially. Sorry. I don't mean to put people off (except certain people). But I do think I could make a useful contribution to this site, if given the chance. I will try to tone it down a bit. And I promise to stop complaining. Perhaps we can talk about my issues with the site later, when I am more familiar with it's idiosyncrasies (idiosyncrazies?).

Great, maybe I could start to trust my intuitive sense a little more then. I don't know. We'll see. :shrug:

 

[SkinWalker]

As for SkinWalker, yes, he is/was a moderator here but he has not posted here in a long time.

I already knew that. I was able to see his last posting date, but not his last post. He is the owner and administrator of thescienceforum.o r g, or so he tells me.

My last post was probably: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...unku-Bolivia&p=2429833&viewfull=1#post2429833

There was a recent forum softare upgrade that seems to have adversely affected search functions, which, with vBulletin, extends to the way a member's posts are displayed when clicking from that member's profile.

And I am the owner and one of the administrators of thescienceforum.org.

Apparently I'm still welcome here as a moderator as well since my privilages still seem intact

 

[Futilitist]

My last post was probably: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...unku-Bolivia&p=2429833&viewfull=1#post2429833

There was a recent forum softare upgrade that seems to have adversely affected search functions, which, with vBulletin, extends to the way a member's posts are displayed when clicking from that member's profile.

And I am the owner and one of the administrators of thescienceforum.org.

Apparently I'm still welcome here as a moderator as well since my privilages still seem intact

Welcome back, SkinWalker.

I'd like to get your views on the Neanderthal theory of autism. Here is a link to my former Asperger's thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?132605-Asperger-s-Syndrome/page2

Check out post#23. At the very bottom of the quoted section is a link to the full theory. What do you think of the theory from an anthropological perspective? We can discuss it on the thread. I look forward to your comments.

---Futilitist

PS---

If I use the search engine of this site to look for posts by SkinWalker, I get this:

Search:
Type: Posts; User: SkinWalker; Keyword(s):
Search: Search took 0.00 seconds.
Today, 06:46 PM
Thread: Is this a real science forum?
by SkinWalker Replies
101
Views
4,964
My last post was probably:...
I already knew that. I was able to see his last posting date, but not his last post. He is the owner and administrator of thescienceforum.o r g, or so he tells me.

My last post was...
Results 1 to 1 of 1

The search shows that SkinWalker has only one single post on this site and it is the one he just made above! I think this is ironic.

How did you find your old post, SkinWalker?