Have faith in Bigfoot my friends.
Who misses the days when conversation here was stimulating?
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
- Status
When these crackpots in question are highly emotive, insulting and intellectually dishonest, I believe that stronger moderation needs to be dished out and the threads cesspooled.
That would stop the continued tooing and froing [which on many occasions I am a part of] which I understand would be quite disconcerting to some and boring to others.
This though is first and foremost a science forum, and the scientific methodology should prevail.
Bullshit!
Kittamaru's beliefs are his own concern. He has never from my observations, argued religion against science. He has never denigrated science in preference to any religious beliefs to my knowledge'.
In fact he has simply applied the scientific method to the crazies and nuts that claim Bigfoot, UFO's of Alien origins, ghosts goblins etc.
In other words he is doing his job as he should.
Kittamaru has only been wrong on one occasion in my opinion. When he moderated me for decrying a long gone gun enthusiast [tic mode on
]In fact if all our religious friends took a leaf out of Kitt's book and ceased trying to undervalue science or trying to discredit it, it would eliminate some of the nonsensical wars.
My attacks on any religious person only occurs when they post in science to try and denigrate science.
I have never started any thread that sets out to denigrate religion and I don't believe any of the other science buffs here should either.
The alternative nuts are another matter. Obviously on nearly every occasion they set out to denigrate or deride accepted mainstream science.
Me thinks your memories of the past are foggy.
And MR believes Bigfoot is real and posts in the appropriate forum. His reactions are no different than many of the true beeleevers in jeezus. And If they are not posting Bigfoot belief in Earth Sciences then who cares? I have the option of IGNORING the threads or not. MR does not stalk me trying to convert me to bigfoot belief in any other thread I post in. But If I had chosen to return to the bigfoot thread, then its fair game. Well right up until it was shut down....
Any claims that go against accepted scientific reasoning will undergo scrutiny.
Read post 22
I never said you couldnt scrutinize. Thats your CHOICE. Same reasoning the beeleevers in jeezus use, it goes against their accepted religious doctrine. Dont like UFO, Ghosts and Monsters, dont go there. Dont like whats on TV, turn the channel. Dont like Rap music, turn the station.
If the OWNER(s) of this site did not want UFOs, Ghosts, Monsters, those sub-forums would not exist. Dont like their Decisions, dont support the site.
That's the owners decision, but once again everything is held to a scientific standard as Daecon said, and will undergo the utmost scrutiny, despite, despite their unsupported claims, and the lies, intellectual dishonesty, misinterpretations, and ignoring of pertinent questions that most of these claimants persist in.
If you/they can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Let me add more milkweed...Answer me as to why so many of our religious fundamentalists, and alternative hypothesis pushers, always start their nonsense in the science threads? Two of recent times....one a religious nut, the other a philosophical unknown.
Obviously it isn't too long before they are moved.
And depending on each's claims, each will as I said, undergo scientific scrutiny.
Another point worth mentioning....Why do these people post on what is primarily a science forum?
Could it be that they are after confrontation? Could it be that some of these religious nuts that happen to find a sentence uttered by a reputable scientist, that they somehow see as supporting their nonsense, to then take that out of context, and use it to promote discord and anger among the scientific community?
Or could it be that others with an anti science streak painted down their back bone, will provocatively post whatever non scientific nonsense they think will raise the angst of a science forum, threads like inferring that science has never benefitted mankind.
Yeah my old son, you can bet your house that they will most certainly face all the scientific scrutiny that they clamber for.
I have no quarrel with moving an inappropriately place thread. I have no quarrel with accelerated moderation for someone who cannot abide by posting in an appropriate forum. I do have a quarrel with people deciding appropriately posted threads are still an issue. No one makes you read them or participate in them.
Again, I never said you couldnt or shouldnt. But if its bugging you to the point you CANT ignore the bs in the religion/pseudo science forum areas, then who really has the issue? I seldom venture into the above forums because it usually doesnt interest me.
Why is there an arts and culture or Free Thoughts in a primarily science forum? Because SOMETIMES people have more than one interest in life.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I remember the old days... when people said the same thing.
Milkweed - the subject of his posts is not the issue - the issue is, simply put, blatant misrepresentation, denial of facts, and dishonesty. That behavior should not be tolerated,no matter if it is from a popular or unpopular viewpoint. The truth is the truth, facts are facts. Ignoring simple facts is bad, mmkay
Bells
Staff member
Are you aware that this site originally started as a "crank" site?
That this was, at its heart, a pseudoscience website? And the science part came later?
You weren't here way back when, when the pseudoscience community was much bigger than it is today.
The decision was then made to separate the pseudoscience and the science forums.
The reason the pseudoscience section exists today is to give those who wish to post it, the ability to post it outside of the science sub-forums. It is also why it is much lower down the front page, to make sure that it isn't mixed in with the science sub-section and to make sure that people might understand that it is much lower down the pecking order.
There are also many who question why religion exists as a sub-forum on this site, in the same fashion people question why this site has a pseudoscience section.
The owners, who were not he ones who originally started this website, decided to respect Porfiry's decisions about what could be posted on this site and the decision was made to allow the pseudoscience to remain, albeit further down the front page and in its own section.
And when those threads crop up in the science sub-forums, they are removed and moved to where they belong.
Let's face it, if computers existed in the days of Darwin and we existed back then, then the theory of evolution would have been deemed an alternative theory and Darwin abused for going against the status quo.
Some theories clearly have merit, others do not.
But I still fail to see why, as someone who values science, you feel the need to delve into the non-scientific sub-forums that are completely separate to what sub-forums interest you on this site, to complain about non-scientific content being posted in the non-scientific sub-forums. No one is forcing you to read those threads or discussions, let alone participate in them.
The behaviour of some on both sides of this argument is tantamount to a form of religious fundamentalism and the demand that all conform to your way of thinking or belief or face continued abuse and insults and harassment. How, exactly, is that acceptable? For all the way in which people say it isn't the content that is the issue, it is clear that for many, it is the very subject matter in those sub-forums.
You don't like the pseudoscience sub-forums? Or the religion sub-forum? Don't read them. There is a reason why they are so distinctly separate and clearly labeled. It allows members to post where they wish and to post in the areas that interest them.
We could certainly look to remove those sub-forums from this site. But then we would have to contend with members posting pseudoscience in the science sub-forums and frankly, having been there and done that over 12 years ago, that causes more issues. Hence why they were separated. To provide a forum for the wide range of members who post here. And just about all science forums provide such sections. The Science Forum, for example, have an alternative theory sub-forum, as well as a pseudoscience sub-forum, not to mention a trash can that allows discussions that don't fit into those two categories to continue in there. Science Forums also have a pseudoscience section and alternative theories section that fit into their "other sciences" banner. Even PhysForums has a whole sub-forum that caters to new theories, which on this site would be forced into the pseudoscience sub-section. In short, it isn't uncommon to cater for a wide range of people. Which is what this site has always tried to do.
That wasnt the issue in this thread.
Indeed - that is because, unlike what MR believes, this thread was not posted as a dig against him.
Well right up until your 2nd post, #7 that is.
Excuses, excuses... its all MR's fault...
Interesting way to try and make me into the bad guy, considering it was not I who brought up the subject of MR, as the post trail shows quite clearly:
to which I replied:
But yes, I must have made this thread with the intent of harping on him, it makes so much sense now! I must find a rosary and do 20 hail Mary's to repent! (and if you didn't catch on, that was sarcasm)
Then what are you on about?
You agree that whatever anyone posts, needs to undergo scientific scrutiny.
That's all that is being done, but that simple fact upsets our alternative/religious brigade.
They believe they should post what they like without being able to undergo any scrutiny at all. :shrug:
- Status