stryder hates us

[Gustav]

james had a really decent exposition on this shit...read and learn

I understand and share many of your concerns. A number of racist threads have been closed recently.

There seems to be a small number of vocal racists on the forum at present, and a small number of vocal anti-semites, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-American posters. Then we have a small number of anti-heterosexual posters, a couple of misogynists...

And so the list goes on. The internet is littered with people with one-track minds, who are willing to devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to pushing their particular wheel barrow across as large a number of forums and other media as possible.

There is a line to be drawn here. On one side is free speech. On the other is a quality forum, free of nutballs. The line is not always an easy one to draw.

You are correct that this has never been a free forum. But in my experience it has always had its share of morons, and I don't expect that to change. The alternative would be to change sciforums into a kind of ivory tower for self-styled intellectuals, which would exclude a lot of non-professionals interested in the kinds of topics we discuss here (science, philosophy, religion etc.) Personally, I enjoy the diversity of posters we get here, even if a few of them are a little (or more than a little) crazy. They add life to the place.

Mine is just one opinion, of course. (James R)

 

[Gustav]

Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.

Of course, the real purpose was probably a dumping-ground for the moderators when the forum was created so they could move threads of nonsense and irrational thought from the hard-sciences sections.

any more purposes, idiot boy?

 

[Gustav]

Of course there is. Some of us prefer to deal with well structured arguments, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. It is sloppy construction, poor grammar, persistent typographical mistakes, loose thinking, faulty logic, stubborn ignorance and other examples of bad manners that are treated with short, contemptuous thrift.

stop yapping, bothersome poodle

/kick

 

[Gustav]

meanwhile is my hero
i love you man!

/sob

 

[Gustav]

All in an attempt to give him a fair shake and see if he's lived up to his title of "new and improved."

please do not ever take me off ignore again.
you lack the intellect to comprehend
you are better off as you were

now fuck off

 

[duendy]

i must also note--that i have read bout last three pages---pages is shorter in my preferences due to memory limtations. so it could be last page fo yo. who knows? life's amystery init?

but i see, a certain cow-towing to authority--the moderator, Stryder. where 'we' get caled 'trash' by one poster, and have been constantly sometimes visciously insulted on different levels.

this is something i notice very very much with mscientists. their allegiance to authority

you argue this respec is due to his eloquent and intelligent debate. and no doubt it IS, ina, not dissin his shit. but what you'll all-is-matter people dont dig is YOUR projected stuff you impose on others in debate. that THA id what causes flameing . you always duck out of reponsibility....sheeesh

 

[Gustav]

Personally, I think resurrecting threads is a great idea. If the resurrection is accompanied by commentary or new information. But simply to resurrect with the word "bump" has a different meaning. To arrive at that meaning, one would need to look at the threads themselves and then their topics as well as the recent posts of the member bumping the thread.

now allow me to show how stupid this self styled sage of science really is.
his myopia and narrow mindedeness restricts and confines his ability to actually consider all scenarios

a pm

I think you made a reference to a skeptical treatment of the Belgian ufo wave recently. Is/was there such a discussion on this forum? If so, where?

Thank you, and good night!

that is why you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

 

[Gustav]

Now if that is too difficult for you why not just piss off?

i rather you do.

i bemoan the fact that sci allows riff raff and other scummy type to sign up and befoul these hallowed halls of learning
i say we keep the commoners out
begone, grump

 

[mountainhare]

Looks like little pseudo-scientist shits are dishing are trash, but run off crying when it's thrown back at them. Sort of like pre-school.
'Waaa, skeptics should stay out of pseudoscience, because their arguments cause our silly little beliefs to collapse like a house of cards built in a swamp."

 

[Anomalous]

Anomalous,

You keep complaining about moderators as being Dictator's yet you imposes a Dictatorship view of removing them. I mean what do you suggest to replace moderation with? .....

U asked it and this is the reply, Dont delete it like a coward face it like a warrior, this technique should be used for everypost.

This may look like spam but thats how world of forums has evolved today,
That forum is not mine but its a slap on every Orthodox moderator
http://www.theworldforum.org/special/faq_moderating#whatis

SciForums, Resistance is futile, U will be asimilated.

Singularity is coming !

 

[Giambattista]

that is why you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

What? Are you referring to myself as a maggot? For simply asking about such a thread? Or were you demonstrating the failings of someone else?

I believe that was what it was, but I can't quite tell.

 

[Giambattista]

I wish people here would STOP the outright ridiculing and name-calling.

People who can throw punches, and beat others to a bloody pulp, have not demonstrated the rightness of their argument or their cause.

Am I wrong? Hardly. A truly sensible person will know the difference between the two.

 

[Giambattista]

now allow me to show how stupid this self styled sage of science really is.
his myopia and narrow mindedeness restricts and confines his ability to actually consider all scenarios

a pm

I think you made a reference to a skeptical treatment of the Belgian ufo wave recently. Is/was there such a discussion on this forum? If so, where?

Thank you, and good night!

that is why you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

OKAY!!! I think I understand it! BOY! I must be DENSE!

Saw the pseudo-response ( ) and started to read it. Also your former-self's thread about skeptics.

Thanks. I will finish reading them soon.

 

[Giambattista]

I wish people here would STOP the outright ridiculing and name-calling.

People who can throw punches, and beat others to a bloody pulp, have not demonstrated the rightness of their argument or their cause.

I was helping you make your case. But it appears you may have been mistaken. Thus:

You said - Calling someone else a fool does not make then one.
I said - You are a fool

Apart from some mild irony this was primarily meant to demonstrate that saying it did, indeed, not make it so.
Your response may indicate, however, that saying it can occasionally ferret one (a fool) out of the woodwork.

Well done.

A perfect example of this name-calling, although more subtle.

The last line says "Well done." I highly doubt he was actually congratulating me.

If you call someone a fool, or speak it in their direction, do not be suprised if they ask you what you meant by that. Does their response actually mean that the insult applies to them?

Ophiolite's response may indicate, however, that some people may think just as much, and if they call someone else a fool, that they become so if they answer such an insult.

I don't doubt that it was intended for me. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Anomalous]

I wish people here would STOP the outright ridiculing and name-calling.

People who can throw punches, and beat others to a bloody pulp, have not demonstrated the rightness of their argument or their cause.

Am I wrong? Hardly. A truly sensible person will know the difference between the two.

These are humans what do expect from them, they need to be controlled the problem is the absence of Mojo, I have been shouting about this for very long time but the Orthodox owners of Sciforums dont want to see the problems , let alone the solutions.
http://www.theworldforum.org/special/faq_comments#mojo

 

[Giambattista]

As far as mojo, I'm sure that most people that post here have enough of that.

I will agree with you to a certain extent about the selectivity of moderators, but I will never agree with your violent rhetoric. You are completely wrong about wanting to blow up ANYONE (Americans or otherwise) just because their government does something they have no control over.

And what about that?

They should protest by the millions? Believe me. Nearly that number did so when Iraq was recently invaded by the US. A prominent opponent of that (US Senator) died in an accidental plane crash. Accidents happen, after all.

 

[Anomalous]

As far as mojo, I'm sure that most people that post here have enough of that.

U r wrong, U r insulting me, the flaming that goes on here , its because there is no system where people can give or remove points about members so there is no record and as there is no Behaviour ratings the members dont care and say anything that pleases them. The member rating will make everyone aware that they should behave good or face the lonely future.

http://www.theworldforum.org/special/faq_rating_comments

I dont like that forum but I wish the features were here.

Here a very good example of what I just said, look at this

image in the link http://forums.hypography.com/members/5.html

If U checkout others profiles over there then U will see that different members show different bars, just move your mouse over that bar.

I will agree with you to a certain extent about the selectivity of moderators, but I will never agree with your violent rhetoric. You are completely wrong about wanting to blow up ANYONE (Americans or otherwise) just because their government does something they have no control over.

And what about that?

They should protest by the millions? Believe me. Nearly that number did so when Iraq was recently invaded by the US. A prominent opponent of that (US Senator) died in an accidental plane crash. Accidents happen, after all.

U dont know me yet. Why do U think I started this thread, http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52012, just look at the poll it says it all, your politicians greed is destroying our world. Use Web TV.

Now look, we all have to defend ourself, if a Missile is gona land from your side we must act on it and be ready to fight back. Its my moral obligatory duty to warn Americans of what their leaders are doing to them and image of theirs greate nation. If a nuke is detonated in your city and 10s of millions die, the outsiders are gona blame U people more than anyone else. If U love your near and dear ones then dont put their lives at risk by sittting and watching your controlled media. U cant get away by saying U r innocent, Ignoring others pain caused by your taxmoney is gona get U.

Dont pay taxes, hold your country at ransom, form groups, use YahooGroups, anything, help the world by protecting yourself and us.

:m: Peace !

 

[Ophiolite]

I was helping you make your case. But it appears you may have been mistaken. Thus:
You said - Calling someone else a fool does not make then one.
I said - You are a fool

Apart from some mild irony this was primarily meant to demonstrate that saying it did, indeed, not make it so.
Your response may indicate, however, that saying it can occasionally ferret one (a fool) out of the woodwork.

Well done.

A perfect example of this name-calling, although more subtle.

The last line says "Well done." I highly doubt he was actually congratulating me.

Giambatista - You made a perceptive comment, in declaring that calling someone a fool did not make them one. [No more than calling them a genius makes them intellectually gifted.] Some might argue that it is not a perceptive comment, but a self evident one. Were it so self-evident we might expect fewer people to indulge in the practice.

In science, technology, perhaps life in general, a practical demonstration is often the most effective way to teach, certainly an effective way of reinforcing a point.

I chose to demonstrate your point, to my mind, very clearly. I called you a fool. Did this make you one? Of course not. Was it evident it did not make you one? I would hope so. Thus, my simple one sentence contribution had admirably supported your position.

Then, to my amazement, you completely failed to see the significance of this very practical demonstration of your own contention. Surely, this was foolish of you? It certainly seemed so to me. Thus I was given a new insight: calling a person a fool may not make them a fool, but it may reveal their foolishness. I can regret it if you are offended by this, but realise the foolishness is yours and the exposure of the foolishness is yours. I am merely a catalyst, unchanged by the events. In short, the name calling was done by yourself, of yourself; my role was unimportant.

You did pick up that the 'well done' was a blend of irony and sarcasm, to which I can only respond, this time sincerely, well done.

 

[Ophiolite]

now allow me to show how stupid this self styled sage of science really is.

Please provide the thread wherein SW styles himself a sage of science. If you cannot do so, please admit, that as per normal, you are simply stringing together some phrases that strike you as apt, with no consideration for their meaning or accuracy.

.... you maggots are and always will be, pseudo skeptics, pseudo scientists, pseudo everything.

Please define your terms. [I don't really think you will be able to, but your attempts could be worth a laugh or two.]

 

[Giambattista]

Then, to my amazement, you completely failed to see the significance of this very practical demonstration of your own contention. Surely, this was foolish of you? It certainly seemed so to me. Thus I was given a new insight: calling a person a fool may not make them a fool, but it may reveal their foolishness.

This was my response.

What are you talking about?

How does that reveal my foolishness?
You called someone a fool. I asked you what you were talking about. And then you tell me:

I called you a fool.

You just admitted that your statement was in response to my own. You said you called me a fool. I wasn't supposed to respond? Are you going to tell me that you really meant for me to ignore that? The statement was directed at me. I knew it. And you just confirmed that.

I can regret it if you are offended by this...

I doubt that you regret any of your insults.