Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by cluelusshusbund, Jun 26, 2014.
limiting the boards and topics that they can post in might help.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
...Perhaps he had his chips?
Sure in most respects true, but you need to remember that we still use Newtonian mechanics in most situations on Earth, and even with our many space probes it is used.
GR would give the same results but at Earthly levels and most space endeavours is just too complicated to use, while Newtonian mechanics gives answers within acceptable ranges of tolerance.
GR shows its superiority when things become really massive.
It's also rather accepted that the BB/Inflationary model will not actually be replaced, rather a future QGT will just extend the parameters....Others such as SR, GR, Evolution and Abiogenesis will also near certainly stand as is, with maybe some tinkering with regards to detail.
I'm sure you have the Bull by the wrong end here.
When you see threads started with provocative headlines like, " frozen stars are the true BH interpretation" or similar headlines, when you see members claiming to have ToE's, when you see others claiming SR is false and the associated effects do not happen, what do you suggest that others do?
Many many other just plain crazy claims, refuting mainstream cosmology and giants of the past are also obvious.
So instead of making insinuations about "grand Inquisitors"etc, perhaps you need to focus your rants on the mob displaying delusions of grandeur, tall poppy syndrome and such.
Personally I find defending the science catechism, as you put it, as far more deserving then defending the stance of those that due to there own personal shortcomings as I have mentioned, see the need to rubbish science...a discipline that is responsible for where we as a species is today.
Maybe you need to refocus your energies.
1. Add a user fiction subforum.
2. Fix the new posts list. It cuts out too early and complicates how I binge read. A solution would be to emulate most other forums and expand it.
The length of the new posts list is based on your last login/refresh.
Might I suggest opening the threads that interest you on it in new tabs?
As for Camus preferring to believe in god (and did you even understand what he's said there?) - he can do whatever he wants. Well, could, past tense... he's a bit too dead to bother with the question now.
So you're saying that because I happen to agree with the man on many things means I have to hang off his every word and model myself completely on him?
There's another load of tripe.
What is that? A warning, or is it just you buggering off now you've had your last say, pretending you've won a medal?
Very well. Skedaddle.
Where is the original source for that quote, does anyone know?
I would rather live my life learning what I can, doing what I can to further that knowledge and experience, respecting others as they respect me, giving due credit when and where it is due, treating all as my equal, and all without fear nor favour of any deity, conjured up simply to explain away Ignorance by dreaming up even more mythical Ignorance, and subsequently gain comfort and solace in that belief. :shrug:
If only the most prolific Posters on SciForums could see fit to actually Practice what they profusely Preach then they would be contributing to "Makin Sciforums more Successful.!!!"
You are learning rather quickly.
We have some here, that will argue about the most inane aspects of posts, trying at the same time, to reflect some of their delusional non existent Intelligence. :shrug:
If you check out my posts, and a regular incessant following, you will see what I mean. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nicely picked by the way.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Where was that originally posted by James R?
It's not even a quote of Blaise Pascal, who it is also occasionally attributed to. Though the unknown forger was probably inspired by the "wager". Hard to say which came first. That it originally had Camus libelously dangling from it, and some opponents tried to right it with another wrong; or Pascal did receive the initial semi-faux acknowledgement before a Righteous Revisionist did some minor remastering with the closing credits.
Yes, those are my thoughts, as well.
Thank you, C C.
Good day to you!
Content of JamesR's post:
"There's a solution for that.
We need many more members to come in and post a whole lot of content, so that the mods' contributions will be minor in comparison to the overall content on the site.
Interesting content drives discussion, no matter who posts it. It will be a sad day if we ever get to the stage where members only feel like they want to reply to posts made by the moderators."
What do you mean by that?
If it is that there seems to be a different set of rules for one set of posters. The Mods.
To another set of posters. The Bods. (The rest of us)
What if the Bods could moderate the Mods, as well as vice versa?
Reverse their decisions. Ban them from moderating for a period.
Like some kind of democracy.
Would that make sense?
All forums seem to be fascistic in structure.
Even ones like this, whose ethos is liberal.
Why is that?
No, it wouldn't make sense... as has been shown repeatedly, there will always be a small group of rabble-rousers who are never happy with the moderators decisions and, if they had that sort of power, would actively overturn every moderator decision just to spite them.
CK, I mean precisely what I Posted : Certain Posters who average 10 or 15 Posts Per Day in some cases, make more "Peyton Place' type Posts than Posts about Science.
Those Posters 'Talk' of established Scientific Methods, Proper Peer Review, Respect for for others viewpoints and Tolerance...hence they profusely Preach a good line.
However, those same Posters 'Walk' a path strewn with 'assumpions', 'presumptions', 'biases', 'prejudices' and an all consuming compulsion to malign and denigrate other Members with "ad hominem" attacks - not unlike "Soap Operas" or the current crop of "Reality Television Shows"...hence they in no way actually Practice in reality what they profusely Preach and 'Demand' of the other Members of SciForums.
Post #250, for example.
CK, I cannot concur with your ^^above quoted^^ remarks, nor can I supply an answer to your 'why'.
Actually, I see you as one of the perpetual complainers as mentioned in a previous post, that will never rest until you achieve your own selfish desires.
I stand by my post 250, and Marquis's post to which I was referencing, and the many others who have been just as observant. :shrug:
Kittamaru, I agree that CK's 'proposed' idea 'wouldn't make sense'.
As for the rest...it is an interesting point of view that you have there, and although I must admit that I have not seen that to be true, I must also admit that I am not, and never would be a "Moderator", so I am not 'privy' to all that you are as a "Moderator".
As far as 'moderators decisions' go I do have to agree with your Post #29, in the Thread : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...tes-seemingly-impossible-space-thruster/page2 , :
In relation to 'the forum policy', there seem to be some "Members" that do not have to adhere to 'the forum policy', as well as some "Moderators" that that choose to 'enforce the forum policy' selectively and differently on the "Members" that they are tasked with 'Moderating'.
Kittamaru, you seem to be aware of such conduct/behavior in that you Posted : "At least, that used to be the forum policy... whether that still is or not seems to be debatable..." in your ^^above quoted^^ Post #29, of the Thread : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...tes-seemingly-impossible-space-thruster/page2
Incidentally, "Members" in that section of SciForums have been "Banned", for asking another "Member" to "provide evidence to back up their claims", so...
Separate names with a comma.