Why am I not banned?

[fedr808]

My personal opinion is that insulting people does not make friends, it makes enemies.

But at the same time, I am not in the business of making idiots my friends, so that morality does not apply.

I'm fine with people making errors here and there, its natural. But when the mistakes are utterly idiotic it becomes unnacceptable.

One example is the woman I was talking to in another forum that was thoroughly convinced the HAARP was a conspiracy. I asked her to prove it. She said: Well I don't really know, but I do know it uses frequencies.

Then she proceeded to say that the military has a super top secret fighter: the "F/A-37 Talon", yeah, the fighter from the movie Stealth. She did not even know it came from a movie until I actually linked her to the trailer from the movie, and even then she did not concede the point, she claimed "Well I think it may still be possible", despite the fact that the technology she claims it uses have not come into existance yet, ie, a pulse detonation engine that has been cleared for use on military airplanes.

 

[chimpkin]

But when you have explained to someone why, and how, they are wrong... With links, quotes, science and they still persist in, for example claiming the Sun is 100% efficient, what do you do? Leave them in ignorance? And likely to promote that ignorance in future posts?

You can lead a derp to water, but you can't make them think...

I think if somebody's promulgating flaming misinformation onto naive others...it's mod time?
Bump it upstairs.

A lot of the stuff isn't as clear-cut as your example, though.
And if they want to think something erroneous in the comfort of their own head...
No matter how it annoys the living piss out of me...*sigh*

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Well I see Chi got his wish . Funny how that works . Wishes can come true .

 

[Pinwheel]

The moderators really dropped the ball here.

Well I guess they recovered..

 

[scifes]

Asking pertinent questions is trolling?
How does that work?

when the pertinent questions are meant as obstacles to one explaining himself, and not attempts at understanding another...
then yes, it's frigging trolling.

and let me guess, there's nothing to try to unerstand in what the other is saying? you already know he's wrong, right?

???

So, you're saying that, on a (supposed) science forum, there can be no such thing as correct and incorrect????

???

no, there's such thing as how soon do you decide something is wrong or correct.
that is usually related to the patience of somebody and his willingness to teach... and learn.

take you for example, you're absolutely the worst mod on sciforums when it comes to premature mod actions, which made me loath you as a mod and eventually avoid your subfora, which became a place to things you agree with only, it's simply impossible, just IMPOSSIBLE, for the philosophy subfora to contain something you disagree with, it's a glaucon's-thoughts-only place. why? because you believe you are right and everyone opposing you is wrong. simple. as. that.
unless i'm mistaken you seem to have some formal education of some sort in philosophy, which is why you self appointed yourself the single authority in regard to it here, kinda like fraggle and linguistics, except that he IS a pro in linguistics, and right and wrong in linguistics is very easily separated. while there's no controversial about right and wrong in any field as much as philosophy, actually the rise of such conflict in any other field is due to different philosophies, and yet you waste not a second in considering what you find "incorrect" before the hitting the "lock thread" or "delete" buttons.

most recent example;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2648694#post2648694
um, i feel like "recomposing sensibly"

??
so what did i do wrong?
why did you close my thread?

I'm sure you can read scifes.
As it stood, the thread topic was, at best, totally unclear.

SO COULDN'T YOU ASK FOR CLARIFICATION?????????
when everybody understands something and start debating it, and YOU fail to understand it, do you try to understand what everybody is talking about so you can get in the discussion? naah, you shut them off all of them, because if they understand something you don't, then what they're discussing is "unclear". and when you find something unclear, you fix those others who find it clear

you believe you know everything, and you're not even "modest" to share your absolute knowledge with others.
what good is you absolute knowledge then?
deciding others are wrong.
you're so right you can't even discuss it with those "idiots"(as D puts it), not because it might be wrong, hell no, but...idk, because you're lazy? because they don't deserve it? because it's more fun??


the inability to learn, and the unwillingness to teach. with those two, your existence is a hindrance to the progression of the world.
and whoever gets rid of you is doing the world a favor.

glaucon doesn't understand what DISCUSSION forums mean, and D can't(or isn't willing to)utilize it in a positive manner.

 

[scifes]

and for the record, i don't mind glaucon as a member posting in other subforas,
and i agree that sometimes a wakeup slap to a newcomer may do him more good than a spoon to his mouth.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Chi made a post about being banned and now he's banned.
Heh Heh.
That's ironic.

 

[420Joey]

Dwy has alot of supporters. He gets a kick out of it, he says it himself. Him doing it for the greater good is his fabricated rationalization as long as it "fits" mods will permit certain behavior.

Sorry did I say permit, what I meant to say was, encourage certain behavior and by fitting I mean deface any argument or idea that is not 100% accepted or id 100% provable emperically.

For example, I see dwy trolling in the psuedo, para, philosophy all the time but I never once seen him make his own contribution to the psuedo, para or philosophy section outside calling other people stupid in clever ways for not believing what he believes (which is nothing) alas he gets his hard on trolling in the guise that he is doing the community of sciforums a favor.

 

[Dywyddyr]

when the pertinent questions are meant as obstacles to one explaining himself, and not attempts at understanding another...
then yes, it's frigging trolling.

I agree. Now please point out where and when I have asked questions that are "meant to be obstacles".
Surely that's a personal perspective.

 

[Dywyddyr]

For example, I see dwy trolling in the psuedo, para, philosophy all the time but I never once seen him make his own contribution to the psuedo, para or philosophy section

Then you obviously don't read far, or well, enough to get the point.

outside calling other people stupid in clever ways for not believing what he believes (which is nothing) alas he gets his hard on trolling in the guise that he is doing the community of sciforums a favor.

:roflmao:

 

[scifes]

I agree. Now please point out where and when I have asked questions that are "meant to be obstacles".
Surely that's a personal perspective.

:wallbang:
-----------
i give up.
but i might return later with examples.

 

[Dywyddyr]

but i might return later with examples.

Please do. I'd be very interested to see what you class as "questions meant as obstacles" and possibly help to clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Dwy can be exasperating, but he is ruthlessly logical.
If there are holes in your argument, he will find them.
When he disagrees with you he is more than often right.
Not always, but most of the time.

Yes, it can be annoying, but if you want to clarify what you are saying, and make sure that you are not talking nonsense or contradicting yourself, he is only helping you.

 

[Dywyddyr]

When he disagrees with you he is more than often right.
Not always, but most of the time.

:bawl:

Note to self: must try harder.

 

[GeoffP]

There you go

God knows and if he wants me to be banned he will stop protecting my words

Looks like He just stopped.

 

[420Joey]

Thats not true.
Dyw clearly trolls when he neccessitates "proof" in a sub-forum that is attempting to look pass obvious obstructions for what seems to be cogent evidence establishing a narrative or a frame of reference to our subjective reality. Dyw trolls when he replies absurd, witty(?), passive agressive hyperbole to "invalidate" your position to accept his.

Not to say that he doesent "provide his service" when he calls out people who try to pass off opinion as fact or who are oblivious to reality and who are obvious nutcases like Empty_Force_Of_Air or whatever his name is but based on that association you cant state that he is "mostly right". Maybe I have an irrational contempt towards him based on my observations and interactions. I just learn from so much people here and have even learned from Dwy in the sense of being more objective. I just dont understand how we can pave the way for truth or progress if we consider everything that doesent conform to what we think is correct "bullshit woo woo". (Not to advocate actual "woo woo")

 

[Dywyddyr]

Thats not true.

Oops, wrong again.

Dyw clearly trolls when he neccessitates "proof" in a sub-forum that is attempting to look pass obvious obstructions for what seems to be cogent evidence establishing a narrative or a frame of reference to our subjective reality.

Could we have that in English please?
Alternatively could you give examples?

Dyw trolls when he replies absurd, witty(?), passive agressive hyperbole to "invalidate" your position to accept his.

Another error.

Not to say that he doesent "provide his service" when he calls out people who try to pass off opinion as fact or who are oblivious to reality and who are obvious nutcases like Empty_Force_Of_Air or whatever his name is but based on that association you cant state that he is "mostly right".

Got it. When I ask questions of people you think are idiots I'm okay, but if I have the temerity to ask you then I'm trolling. Brilliant!

I just dont understand how we can pave the way for truth or progress if we consider everything that doesent conform to what we think is correct "bullshit woo woo". (Not to advocate actual "woo woo")

Maybe because you don't understand that I ask for clarification, or evidence, or actual support. How can you "pave the way for truth or progress" if your foundations won't hold up?

 

[420Joey]

1. No Dwy I hate to inform you that it is you who is wrong.
2. My post is in english what are you having trouble understanding specifically so I can clarify for you?
3. It's not. You literally break down what someone has to say, sometimes even taking things out of context to create a semblance of invalidation, hardly ever contributing meaninfully to the topic at hand.

I never contibute either, fine!! I dont claim to be something I am not, I am ignorant on alot of subjects and I'm humble seeking to learn. You in the other hand deem everything conclusive when you post.

4. That is not what I'm saying... another hyperbole.

5. That's fine thats not what I'm reffering to, dwy. "evidence" or "actual support" is mostly abritary in most topics you post in. I'm talking mostly about subforums that doesent require emperical evidence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

2. My post is in english what are you having trouble understanding specifically so I can clarify for you?

It is?

Dyw clearly trolls when he [neccessitates] "proof" in a sub-forum that is attempting to look [pass] [obvious obstructions] for what seems to be [cogent evidence] establishing a narrative or a frame of reference to our subjective reality.

Coloured words, in order:
1) How do I make something necessary?
2) I presume you actually mean "past".
3) In most cases when you claim you're "looking past an obvious obstruction" you're ignoring that obstruction or making unfounded assumptions in order to discount it.
4) How can you have "cogent evidence" if you can't produce evidence at all?

And I note you haven't given examples.

3. It's not. You literally break down what someone has to say, sometimes even taking things out of context to create a semblance of invalidation, hardly ever contributing meaninfully to the topic at hand.

Then you obviously, once again, either don't read or don't comprehend what you read.

You in the other hand deem everything conclusive when you post.

Absolutely. Because, as we all know, asking questions is the same as "deeming everything conclusive".

4. That is not what I'm saying... another hyperbole.

You mean that's not how you wish it to be taken.

5. That's fine thats not what I'm reffering to, dwy. "evidence" or "actual support" is mostly abritary in most topics you post in. I'm talking mostly about subforums that doesent require emperical evidence.

Yeah right. Those sub-forums still require support for arguments. Just ask Glaucon, for example. Specious and unfounded suppositions do not lead to reliable conclusions.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

:bawl:

Note to self: must try harder.

Yeah ! I think you should try harder to understand my dribble . Mainly my ideas on human programing and how the populaces acts/ reacts based on past language rudiments. Controlled