What's REALLY right and wrong with Sciforums

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Read-Only

Valued Senior Member
The fact that anyone anywhere with a computer and Internet access can post anything they wish (within the guidelines) - that's the part that's right.

But that the can post opinions as FACT without any accountability - that's what's wrong.

I've got no problem (though it's silly to me is a different matter) with people discussing which sci-fi universe would win a war, or hearing voices, or seeing ghosts or any other paranormal behavior. They should be free to talk about any subject they wish as long as they keep it civil. Sports is OK (though it doesn't interest me), religion will ALWAYS be a topic of debate as will politics.

But it all breaks down when some ninny makes a claim and isn't held responsible for it. And I don't mean just subjects labeled with the alpha rules but anything that's of a fairly serious nature. A great deal of it is just young punks who pop up with the "It's because" or "The answer is..." without backing up a single statement they make. Many of them break into discussions simply because they want to say something - anything. They've got a mouth and want to run off at it. And the sad part is they think it makes them look intelligent when what it actually does is expose their ignorance.

So make of this what you will, I simply wanted to state my opinion on it. ;)
 
Sam- whats the purpose of putting that link up?

read-only- we do call them on it. But it gets a bit boring demanding some evidence from morons.
 
Thank you! I've just added it to my round of forums to visit. After spending just a few minutes there, it seems a much better place than this one is. :)
 
Read-Only said:
Thank you! I've just added it to my round of forums to visit. After spending just a few minutes there, it seems a much better place than this one is. :)
Click to expand...

Please let me know of your interests, I am a member in several of those dull forums.:p
 
guthrie said:
Sam- whats the purpose of putting that link up?

read-only- we do call them on it. But it gets a bit boring demanding some evidence from morons.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree perfectly. 100%. I do it and I've seen MANY others do it but the idiots never seem to catch on to how stupid they appear because the keep coming back with the same kind of claims.

And I'm really glad that link was posted - I believe I'll spend much more time there than here.
 
ahh, yes. Well, the other forum (I recall it being discussed a few years ago) shows the problem with demanding a high level of science- discussion dies.

I doubt there are more than 4 posters on here who could keep up with me in a discussion on the technicalities of carbon fibre furnace insulation or Alchemy. Getting real useful knowledge about specific areas of science, or indeed history etc, takes a great deal of time and effort, and precludes the learning of other subjects.

Whereas what makes sciforums better is that the discussions are somewhat less technical and more freewheeling. I note that the other forum has 5 members online just now, whereas we have 46. This allows wider discussion on a variety of topics. Which is I think why people keep coming back.
 
Thank you! I've just added it to my round of forums to visit. After spending just a few minutes there, it seems a much better place than this one is.
Click to expand...

Then you might be interested to learn that it was a haven for sciforums members when the server crashed a couple of years back. When we arrived, there was a post maybe once a week. We brought the place to life but found it to be quite stifling. Very few of us remain to post there any longer because of the stifling nature of the moderation. (Although, it is about 1000 times better than most other science forums which are even worse when it comes to moderation.)

I tell you this only so that you can perhaps begin to establish the nature of Sciforums. You seem to not grasp it as of yet.
 
REad-only
just before you go- do you think there is room on the internet for two forums like "thescienceforum". I think there isn't and each forum has it's little niche.

I wonder what our lords and masters think?
 
guthrie said:
ahh, yes. Well, the other forum (I recall it being discussed a few years ago) shows the problem with demanding a high level of science- discussion dies.

I doubt there are more than 4 posters on here who could keep up with me in a discussion on the technicalities of carbon fibre furnace insulation or Alchemy. Getting real useful knowledge about specific areas of science, or indeed history etc, takes a great deal of time and effort, and precludes the learning of other subjects.

Whereas what makes sciforums better is that the discussions are somewhat less technical and more freewheeling. I note that the other forum has 5 members online just now, whereas we have 46. This allows wider discussion on a variety of topics. Which is I think why people keep coming back.
Click to expand...

I think we have discussions here on many topics which would be quashed in other forums, it is an amazing place to hear viewpoints on things which may never occur to most of us; at least that has been my experience. Also it is an amazing place to see the diversity of thought and opinion untrammeled by restrictions; it is possible to be serious and still treat an issue lightheartedly, it is possible to be light hearted and discuss ad nauseum with great seriousness on topics of no consequence.
 
Invert is 100% correct on the nature of the other forum. It was a temporary "fix" for SFers and we all returned as soon as the problem was sorted. Some of us still post sporadically on thescienceforum, but it has none of the style, panache and camaraderie (or in-fighting) of the real SciForums.

Read-Only:

I seriously doubt Samcdkey aimed the comment at you.
And I'm equally certain I'll be told if I'm wrong. :D
 
Read-Only said:
I beg your pardon, I've contributed no nonsense at all.
Click to expand...

You began it with your very first post and have kept on in that vein ever since. I for one will not miss your contributions. You lack the espirit de sciforums.
 
Oli said:
Invert is 100% correct on the nature of the other forum. It was a temporary "fix" for SFers and we all returned as soon as the problem was sorted. Some of us still post sporadically on thescienceforum, but it has none of the style, panache and camaraderie (or in-fighting) of the real SciForums.
Click to expand...

It was nothing more than a giant yawn; I do this at work all day, I like my other interests to be a bit more stimulating than yadayadayada.


Read-Only:

I seriously doubt Samcdkey aimed the comment at you.
And I'm equally certain I'll be told if I'm wrong. :D
Click to expand...

You're wrong.
 
If sciforums was only all about science and with stricter moderation, it would lose 90% of its members. It's the members that have come and gone that have made these forums evolve into what they are today, and even though many members are not scientists, some are irreverent pisstakers and a small section are positively loony, they do all share an interest in it and believe me, there is a lot of science in the archives, as well as a lot of highly entertaining banter that provides light relief.
 
tablariddim said:
If sciforums was only all about science and with stricter moderation, it would lose 90% of its members. It's the members that have come and gone that have made these forums evolve into what they are today, and even though many members are not scientists, some are irreverent pisstakers and a small section are positively loony, they do all share an interest in it and believe me, there is a lot of science in the archives, as well as a lot of highly entertaining banter that provides light relief.
Click to expand...

I think we go through phases where the science and banter are concerned, ya?
 
You began it with your very first post and have kept on in that vein ever since. I for one will not miss your contributions. You lack the espirit de sciforums.
Click to expand...

Hmm. What a bitch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top