Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[Ophiolite]

By extension of the sub forum titles, though - it would seem that the site welcomes ideas that are ''fringe'' and off topic. You can't have a pseudo-science/on the fringe section, and then scold people who are posting in it for advocating some of the ideas presented in there.

But I think it valid to scold them for their manner of posting if they consistently refuse to apply logic and critical thinking.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I think that Sciforums is more of a social-club than anything else.
Sciforums definitely has a political-left party-line that has little or nothing to do with science. It's part of what defines the club, what structures the 'us-them' gradient.

You agree with the politics, or else you have outed yourself as one of 'them'.

Please give an example of this "unfairness"(?) after one is outed as "one of them".!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

It'sa little ironic that MR is the one arguing for intellectual orthodoxy with regards to left politics, when he's so determined to be unorthodox himself when the subjects are his beloved ghosts and ufos.

Showing the flimsiness of basing one's idea of orthodoxy on what the majority of active members in an online forum believe in. Why is the majority view of any concern at all? Hopefully people believe what they want without considering whether they will fit into some group.

 

[Magical Realist]

But I think it valid to scold them for their manner of posting if they consistently refuse to apply logic and critical thinking.

You think scolding and flaming people for not applying your own personal train of logic and what you claim is "critical thinking" is appropriate here? Why would you think that would result in anything more than you getting ignored?

 

[Kittamaru]

Thing is, it isn't a "personal train of logic", but rather a standard that the greater scientific community has adopted because it has proven to be effective at weeding out bullshit and finding the truth; the actual truth, even if that truth is nothing more than saying "we don't know" yet. Making sensationalist claims about things that cannot yet be decidedly proven one way or another is, simply put, foolish... there is a simple phrase for such things - say it with me now - "I don't know". There is no shame in admitting not knowing something.

 

[Magical Realist]

Thing is, it isn't a "personal train of logic", but rather a standard that the greater scientific community has adopted because it has proven to be effective at weeding out bullshit and finding the truth; the actual truth, even if that truth is nothing more than saying "we don't know" yet. Making sensationalist claims about things that cannot yet be decidedly proven one way or another is, simply put, foolish... there is a simple phrase for such things - say it with me now - "I don't know". There is no shame in admitting not knowing something.

Repeatedly dismissing compelling evidence because it doesn't support your disbelief in something is neither logic nor critical thinking. It's called confirmation bias, something you have demonstrated over and over here to the point of monotony. And when you are called out on it, you have a hissy fit and start flaming and insulting. You are the last person here to speak for anything like cool objective reasoning. Which is what gets you largely ignored.

 

[Kittamaru]

Repeatedly dismissing compelling evidence because it doesn't support your disbelief in something is neither logic nor critical thinking. It's called confirmation bias, something you have demonstrated over and over here to the point of monotony. And when you are called out on it, you have a hissy fit and start flaming and insulting. You are the last person here to speak for anything like cool objective reasoning. Which is what gets you largely ignored.

That is the part that is ironic - you claim it is "compelling evidence", yet the vast majority of people are, strangely enough, NOT compelled by it. You have no compelling evidence - you have a claim. Case in point - your claim that the UFO's are "metallic craft piloted by intelligent beings" - until you can either A) get access to the object to prove that it is 1) a craft 2) metallic and 3) occupied at all, your statement is just conjecture.

Again, say it with me MR: "I don't know what it is" - it's okay, I know you can do it.

 

[Magical Realist]

the vast majority of people are, strangely enough, NOT compelled by it.

By "vast majority" I'm guessing you mean the 5 or 6 regulars who troll my Fringe threads? Actually the majority of people in the U.S. believe there's something to ufos based on either seeing them themselves or reviewing evidence such as I post here. So no, you don't speak for a vast majority of anything. You speak only for yourself and your disengenous denial of the facts to support your own beliefs (which incidentally include such supernatural entities as angels, devils, the souls of dead people, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.) So when's the last time you applied "critical thinking" to those beliefs?

"According to a National Geographic survey, 77 percent of all Americans “believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth”, and according to a recent Harris poll only 68 percent of all Americans believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God. That means that the number of Americans that believe that UFOs have visited us is now greater than the number of Americans that believe what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ."===http://thetruthwins.com/archives/mo...rth-than-believe-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god

 

[Kittamaru]

By "vast majority" I'm guessing you mean the 5 or 6 regulars who troll my Fringe threads? Actually the majority of people in the U.S. believe there's something to ufos

Yes, the vast majority of people do believe in UFO's - myself included. That is not in dispute.

based on either seeing them themselves or reviewing evidence such as I post here. So no, you don't speak for a vast majority of anything. You speak only for yourself and your disengenous denial of the facts to support your own beliefs

And once again, the crux of the issue - you have no proof, no evidence, nothing to support your claims of "metallic craft" or "intelligent beings"... or, have you met these intelligent beings? Have you had the chance to investigate these supposed craft from up close and perform any sort of material analysis? No? Then you have no evidence that they are even a craft, much less metallic or containing passengers.

(which incidentally include such supernatural entities as angels, devils, the souls of dead people, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.) So when's the last time you applied "critical thinking" to those beliefs?

I do, and I have - and the ultimate conclusion I came to is that I have no concrete proof of my personal beliefs which is why, if you notice, I don't go around proclaiming them as facts.

"According to a National Geographic survey, 77 percent of all Americans “believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth”, and according to a recent Harris poll only 68 percent of all Americans believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God. That means that the number of Americans that believe that UFOs have visited us is now greater than the number of Americans that believe what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ."===http://thetruthwins.com/archives/mo...rth-than-believe-that-jesus-is-the-son-of-god

Which means precisely fuck all in context of the question of your evidence... but it was a passable attempt at a red herring.

Now, say it with me: I don't know what those things are.

After all, that's kind of what UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) stands for... you know, Unidentified? The issue at hand, as it has been from the onset, is the claim that you (or others) have IDENTIFIED these objects. That claim is extraordinary, and demands extraordinary evidence to support it, no matter how much you squirm and wail about it.

Why are you seemingly incapable of admitting you don't actually know what they are? Is it a matter of personal pride? A complex perhaps? Saying you don't know is not a fault, nor is it something to be ashamed of... it is the first step in good science and in making progress.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes, the vast majority of people do believe in UFO's - myself included. That is not in dispute.


And once again, the crux of the issue - you have no proof, no evidence, nothing to support your claims of "metallic craft" or "intelligent beings"... or, have you met these intelligent beings? Have you had the chance to investigate these supposed craft from up close and perform any sort of material analysis? No? Then you have no evidence that they are even a craft, much less metallic or containing passengers.

There are dozens of cases of these craft landing in fields and beings in metallic suits being seen next to them. Eyewitness reports confirm the craft to often be of metallic coloring, of emitting glowing energy and radiant orbs, of exceeding anything we have as far as aerial craft, and of leaving physical effects on vegetation, jet panel controls, automobiles, and the bodies of eyewitnesses. I suggest going to my Fringe threads on this and seeing for yourself, especially since Bells has infracted me for going into detail on ufo cases outside of the fringe thread.

I do, and I have - and the ultimate conclusion I came to is that I have no concrete proof of my personal beliefs which is why, if you notice, I don't go around proclaiming them as facts.

You have beliefs for which you have no evidence and demand that I have "extraordinary" evidence, whatever that is, for my beliefs? When you apply standards to others you don't apply to yourself we call that hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if you talk about them or not. You believe it, you accept them as facts, and yet you excuse yourself from needing evidence. I provide compelling evidence for my own beliefs, and you bitch and moan about it. What's wrong with this picture folks?

Which means precisely fuck all in context of the question of your evidence... but it was a passable attempt at a red herring.

It means you lied when you said the vast majority don't accept the compelling and well-documented evidence for ufos, that's what that means.

Now, say it with me: I don't know what those things are.

Uh no. You don't speak for me. Maybe you don't know what they are, but based on the evidence I do.

After all, that's kind of what UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) stands for... you know, Unidentified? The issue at hand, as it has been from the onset, is the claim that you (or others) have IDENTIFIED these objects. That claim is extraordinary, and demands extraordinary evidence to support it, no matter how much you squirm and wail about it.

No it doesn't need extraordinary evidence. It needs the same sort of evidence any aerial craft would leave of itself. Eyewitnesses. Radar video. Photos. Regular video. And physical effects on the enviroment and eyewitnesses.

Why are you seemingly incapable of admitting you don't actually know what they are? Is it a matter of personal pride? A complex perhaps? Saying you don't know is not a fault, nor is it something to be ashamed of... it is the first step in good science and in making progress.

Because UFOs show all the characteristics of being advanced craft far beyond anything we have that emit high energies and are piloted by intelligent entities that are often seen exiting them. That much we know. Who these beings are remains a matter speculation.

 

[Kittamaru]

There are dozens of cases of these craft landing in fields and beings in metallic suits being seen next to them. Eyewitness reports confirm the craft to often be of metallic coloring, of emitting glowing energy and radiant orbs, of exceeding anything we have as far as aerial craft, and of leaving physical effects on vegetation, jet panel controls, automobiles, and the bodies of eyewitnesses. I suggest going to my Fringe threads on this and seeing for yourself, especially since Bells has infracted me for going into detail on ufo cases outside of the fringe thread.

And yet, not one of these supposed cases has resulted in any sort of physical evidence? Beyond, of course, crop circles, which have been shown several times as simple things that a couple of people with rope and 2x4's can make...?

You have beliefs for which you have no evidence and demand that I have "extraordinary" evidence, whatever that is, for my beliefs?

You are claiming your beliefs as facts. I am not. Therein lies the difference.

When you apply standards to others you don't apply to yourself we call that hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if you talk about them or not. You believe it, you accept them as facts, and yet you excuse yourself from needing evidence. I provide compelling evidence for my own beliefs, and you bitch and moan about it. What's wrong with this picture folks?

For starters, your claim of hypocrisy is faulty. To another point, you have not provided compelling evidence - compelling evidence would be a verifiable sample, a reproducible result, etc. At best, we have large numbers of public statements that they saw "something" - that something being an unknown thing.

It means you lied when you said the vast majority don't accept the compelling and well-documented evidence for ufos, that's what that means.

You need some remedial English lessons it seems. You are claiming something as a fact. I am not. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

Uh no. You don't speak for me. Maybe you don't know what they are, but based on the evidence I do.

No, you don't... and that is why you constantly run afoul of the forum rules and the other members. It is a shame - the energy you have could actually be productive, if you would bother to take the blinders off...

No it doesn't need extraordinary evidence. It needs the same sort of evidence any aerial craft would leave of itself. Eyewitnesses. Radar video. Photos. Regular video. And physical effects on the enviroment and eyewitnesses.

I have posted the forum rules repeatedly for you - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You agreed to that rule by signing up to these forums - if you have a problem with that, you are welcome to leave.

Because UFOs show all the characteristics of being advanced craft far beyond anything we have that emit high energies and are piloted by intelligent entities that are often seen exiting them. That much we know. Who these beings are remains a matter speculation.

You are now claiming "high energies" as well - I presume you have run a radio spectrograph analysis to determine this? Or perhaps you used a neutron monitor? No...? This is just another unsupported and baseless claim you are making in a futile attempt to appear as though you have evidence?

Again, a shame... you are too stubborn and prideful to admit you don't know and, as a result, you will never discover the truth because you are blinded by your own confirmation bias.

 

[Magical Realist]

And yet, not one of these supposed cases has resulted in any sort of physical evidence? Beyond, of course, crop circles, which have been shown several times as simple things that a couple of people with rope and 2x4's can make...?

Are you illiterate? I just said they leave physical effects on vegetation, the soil, and eyewitnesses.

"This report presents a statistical analysis of data given in
3,059 reports involving observations of anomalous phenomena or
objects on or near the ground resulting in physical residues
generated by the observed phenomena or objects. These
observations took place in 91 countries between 1490 and 2004.

The analysis permits certain regularities of these phenomena to
be brought out. The data indicates there is a certain type of
phenomenon which shows stable statistical properties.

This research began in 1968 and after 36 years it is yet
premature to consider the nature of these phenomena on the basis
of the data presented to date. The developments of methods of
obtaining more reliable data and expansion of the initial
information used will result in a database of the most important
piece of the UFO puzzle - physical evidence..."=====http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1172.htm

Physical Trace Catalogue
http://www.project1947.com/47cats/phillips.htm

You are claiming your beliefs as facts. I am not. Therein lies the difference.

Now you're just lying. If you believe in supernatural beings, then you also believe it is fact that they exist. There's no getting around that. And the fact that you excuse yourself from needing evidence for that fact makes you a bigass hypocrite. Why should I provide one shred of evidence to someone like that? Why should I listen to your pompous lectures about what counts as evidence when you don't even support your own beliefs with evidence?

For starters, your claim of hypocrisy is faulty.

No it isn't. It's exactly what you are.

To another point, you have not provided compelling evidence - compelling evidence would be a verifiable sample, a reproducible result, etc. At best, we have large numbers of public statements that they saw "something" - that something being an unknown thing.

No they don't claim to see "something." They claim to see craft landing and taking off, leaving scorched grass marks, sometimes a strange residue, and emitting high amounts of energy, humming or whistling sounds, and occupants seen exiting and entering the craft. That's not a vague something. And no, we don't need reproducible results any more than we need reproducible results for any other phenomena of nature like earthquakes or ball lightning or the aurora borealis.

You need some remedial English lessons it seems. You are claiming something as a fact. I am not. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

Your lie was refuted. That's the facts.

No, you don't... and that is why you constantly run afoul of the forum rules and the other members. It is a shame - the energy you have could actually be productive, if you would bother to take the blinders off...

Go study the field for 14 years like I have and then come back tell me all about it. Till then you are just spouting your ignorance.

I have posted the forum rules repeatedly for you - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You agreed to that rule by signing up to these forums - if you have a problem with that, you are welcome to leave.

You've broken so many forum rules here it's hard to keep count, disingenously make up shit to try and ban me and insulting and flaming posters when you lose an argument. You've been warned about this by James R and Bells. So don't tell me about rules.

You are now claiming "high energies" as well - I presume you have run a radio spectrograph analysis to determine this? Or perhaps you used a neutron monitor? No...? This is just another unsupported and baseless claim you are making in a futile attempt to appear as though you have evidence?

LOL! I can raise my hand in the air and feel the energy from the sun. And eyewitnesses report numerous similar effects ranging from radiation burns, heat, paralysis, electromagnetic shock, odors, loss of consciousness, headaches, hair loss, eye irritation and temporary blindness. Why don't you educate yourself on this instead of telling me all about a field you have never even looked into?

http://www.nicap.org/ufology/ufochap6.htm

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Enough! This thread is wildly off topic and the insults have flown far enough. So let's all wind it back a bit. There are various threads about what constitutes evidence, applying logic and making an argument that is both logical and can withstand scrutiny.. Not to mention we have a sub-forum dedicated to UFO and the paranormal. Perhaps you should take that discussion there. Swear to whatever, this place is like the fight scene in Anchorman and I feel like I am the one packing the god damn grenade. Enough already.

 

[Randwolf]

Mod Note

Enough! This thread is wildly off topic and the insults have flown far enough. So let's all wind it back a bit. There are various threads about what constitutes evidence, applying logic and making an argument that is both logical and can withstand scrutiny.. Not to mention we have a sub-forum dedicated to UFO and the paranormal. Perhaps you should take that discussion there. Swear to whatever, this place is like the fight scene in Anchorman and I feel like I am the one packing the god damn grenade. Enough already.

Get 'em Bells... Spanking is in order here.

Luv' it...

 

[Ophiolite]

You think scolding and flaming people for not applying your own personal train of logic and what you claim is "critical thinking" is appropriate here? Why would you think that would result in anything more than you getting ignored?

MR you present a classic example of what I am speaking about.

I choose my words very carefully. I seek, as far as is practical, for those words to convey what I mean - neither more or less. Thus I said, very deliberately, that I think it is valid to scold people for their manner of posting if they consistently refuse to apply logic and critical thinking.

I did not say anything about flaming. If you think scolding and flaming are equivalent then you should take more time to study the relevant lexicography and etymology of the words.

Nor did I refer, implicitly or explicitly, to my own personal train of logic. I refer to the established rules of logic many of which have been part of informed thought and discussion since the times of the Greeks.

Equally, critical thinking is a process and concept that has been analysed and discussed in great depth. I have made no claims, implicit or explicit, as to what I think constitutes critical thinking, yet you appear to believe you know what my 'definition' of it is. I accept the globally consensus view of what critical thinking is. Do you?

 

[Magical Realist]

MR you present a classic example of what I am speaking about.

I choose my words very carefully. I seek, as far as is practical, for those words to convey what I mean - neither more or less. Thus I said, very deliberately, that I think it is valid to scold people for their manner of posting if they consistently refuse to apply logic and critical thinking.

I did not say anything about flaming. If you think scolding and flaming are equivalent then you should take more time to study the relevant lexicography and etymology of the words.

Nor did I refer, implicitly or explicitly, to my own personal train of logic. I refer to the established rules of logic many of which have been part of informed thought and discussion since the times of the Greeks.

Equally, critical thinking is a process and concept that has been analysed and discussed in great depth. I have made no claims, implicit or explicit, as to what I think constitutes critical thinking, yet you appear to believe you know what my 'definition' of it is. I accept the globally consensus view of what critical thinking is. Do you?

So who appointed you the critical thinking police? And where do you get off scolding, as in rebuking, castigating, excoriating, lambasting, or otherwise just bitching at, someone who commits the unpardonable sin of not thinking like you want them to think? Does that mean I have to be critically thinking all the time here? What if I'm just musing, or speculating, or philosophizing, or waxing poetic? What if I'm just casually discussing an issue? Will that bring down your self-righteous wrath upon me? As for what critical thinking actually is, here's a good definition for you. I couldn't find the "globally consensual definition":

"Critical thinking, also called critical analysis, is clear, rational thinking involving critique. Its details vary amongst those who define it. According to Barry K. Beyer (1995), critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgments. During the process of critical thinking, ideas should be reasoned, well thought out, and judged.[1] The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking[2] defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.'"=====https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

 

[Ophiolite]

So who appointed you the critical thinking police?

I have a number of beliefs arrived at after careful consideration over many years.
1. I believe science has proven itself as an effective way of learning more about the world we live in.
2. I believe the methodology of science has useful applications beyond the confines of scientific investigation.
3. I believe critical thinking is one aspect of the scientific approach that is especially valuable.
4. I believe it is important to encourage application of critical thinking in everyday life and essential to demand its application within science.
5. I believe it is our responsibility to engage in that encouragement and to challenge thinking that does not meet the requisite standards, with the dual intention of aiding the practitioner of sloppy thinking, but more pertinently, guiding the lurker and observer towards it.
6. Not to call you out for your lack of critical thinking would be irresponsible.

And where do you get off scolding, as in rebuking, castigating, excoriating, lambasting, or otherwise just bitching at, someone who commits the unpardonable sin of not thinking like you want them to think?

My justification is identical to me calling out "Stop!" to a pedestrian who is just about to step into the road in front of a speeding car. The practice is dangerous to the pedestrian and unpleasant for bystanders.

Does that mean I have to be critically thinking all the time here? What if I'm just musing, or speculating, or philosophizing, or waxing poetic? What if I'm just casually discussing an issue? Will that bring down your self-righteous wrath upon me?

If you are just musing, say so.
If you are just speculating, say so.
If you are just philosophizing, say so.
If you are just waxing poetic, try to make it scan.

But if you are allegedly presenting a scientific argument in a science thread on a science forum then you damn well ought to be applying critical thinking. If not then you may expect to be scolded, rebuked, castigated, lambasted, excoriated and bitched at till the bovine quadrupeds reach their domicile.

 

[Magical Realist]

But if you are allegedly presenting a scientific argument in a science thread on a science forum then you damn well ought to be applying critical thinking. If not then you may expect to be scolded, rebuked, castigated, lambasted, excoriated and bitched at till the bovine quadrupeds reach their domicile.

Sounds like you have major control issues. I'd suggest a good therapist, but then they might not think critically enough for you to listen to them. In the meantime, I'll apply whatever logic or rationality to make my points here that I damn well please, with or without your approval or rebuke. I'm certainly not about to start worrying if what I post here meets the dubious standards of critical thinking you or anybody else here have arbitrarily set for it. I've been reasoning and thinking for 56 years now and I'm not about to let someone start bitching at me because I'm not doing it the way they think I should. So keep your pseudomorality of proper critical thinking to yourself. That or simply get your ass ignored. And btw, I'm not going to tell you or anyone else here when I'm musing, or speculating, or philosophizing, waxing poetical, or just engaging in casual discussion. I'm gonna let you figure that out for yourself. Are we clear?

 

[Ophiolite]

Sounds like you have major control issues. I'd suggest a good therapist, but then they might not think critically enough for you to listen to them. In the meantime, I'll apply whatever logic or rationality to make my points here that I damn well please, with or without your approval or rebuke. I'm certainly not about to start worrying if what I post here meets the dubious standards of critical thinking you or anybody else here have arbitrarily set for it. I've been reasoning and thinking for 56 years now and I'm not about to let someone start bitching at me because I'm not doing it the way they think I should. So keep your pseudomorality of proper critical thinking to yourself. That or simply get your ass ignored. And btw, I'm not going to tell you or anyone else here when I'm musing, or speculating, or philosophizing, waxing poetical, or just engaging in casual discussion. I'm gonna let you figure that out for yourself. Are we clear?

1. ad hominem in the first sentence.
2. You are free to apply "whatever logic or rationality to make [your] points here that [you] damn well please". We are free to point out how illogical and irrational many of those thoughts are.
3. The standards of critical thinking set out, implicitly and explicitly, in the forum rules are not arbitrary .
4. You say , "I'm not about to let someone start bitching at me because I'm not doing it the way they think I should." Sorry, but that ship has sailed. Many people have been bitching about your approach over many posts, threads and years.
5. You continue, "And btw, I'm not going to tell you or anyone else here when I'm musing, or speculating, or philosophizing, waxing poetical, or just engaging in casual discussion." You are perfectly free to behave in a rude, thoughtless and entertaining manner. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
6. You ask, "Are we clear?" I smiled. If you are more comfortable retreating further into your fantasy world, by all means place me on ignore.

 

[Retribution]

When I first read "Ender's Game" a long time ago, I was absolutely enthralled by the theme of the great internet debates, and how they influenced the politics of that fantasy world.
I was just a teenager back then. Easily impressed, I suppose. Those who have read it will know what I'm referring to - Demosthenes and Locke.
And so, of course, once I actually got "out there" and began to hone my own thoughts, particularly those reached in solitude now suddenly finding themselves in opposition with others with more experience and perhaps a viewpoint more educated than my own, I quickly realized that the reality was less that rather idealized account of how things might be, and more a case of pandering to the ideal of everyone being entitled to an opinion.

The issue, in my view, is not one of everyone being entitled to an opinion, but rather that everyone now feels entitled to express it, regardless of actual merit.
"To thine own self be true" has become a mantra of the time, a mere quote, a caricature devoid of context and meaning, given official and sanctioned support and encouragement; and the resulting cacophony is little more than the noise in which valid opinion struggles to breathe and is often lost.
Sometimes I'll imagine Shakespeare himself, watching all of this, watching his own words slowly and surely become a catch cry for the masses who have never read Hamlet, nor understood how Polonius was being represented, slamming his fist down upon the table and crying "NO!"... perhaps with the obligatory (sotto voce) "fuckin' idiots".

I don't really believe I'm alone in this opinion.
I'm also going to add here, for those who are at this point rolling their eyes and saying "oh god, here he goes again about the old days", that I suggest you simply stop reading now.
I also say that in full awareness that it certainly won't stop you from replying. See what I did there? Know why I'm absolutely disgusted with myself for even having to say "see what I did there"?

You know, these threads have come up before. Often. I've been involved in a few of them, of course, in one guise or another. I'm saying "You know" with a due sense of irony and in full awareness of exactly how it sounds.
But it needed to be added, because as far as actual action on some of the points raised over the years... it appears more likely that most really don't. Or perhaps they do, but haven't actually taken the time to read them.
If you take for example http://www.sciforums.com/threads/making-sciforums-more-successful.141957, it would appear to me that there are many things in there one might take note of.
This was one of the later ones, at a point in time even then at which the rot had already begun to sink in, but hadn't reached the wide-ranging ramifications of which the present situation are indicative.

There are several things one might take from that thread alone which might give some direction and impetus toward discerning a possible solution, and that's without going into too much detail into the ramifications of there being 15 pages of it and three times as many people actually interested in the result. Granted, five of those pages were a small subset involved in a flame war which mostly consisted of people arguing over one viewpoint or another, but sifting it carefully will reveal some real thought behind it. That's the key, really. Real thought. Not responding just because you have an opinion. Not a link to some some website you've found which gives the appearance of supporting your opinion and presented as the word of god in the absence of any objective analysis.

At the end of the day, I starting to return more and more to the thoughts I mentioned in my first couple of paragraphs.
It's more than a little disappointing that, rather than Demosthenes and Locke going at it (in every sense of the word, for all you "please don't insult me" fragile little flowers out there), we're well on track to ending up with something more along the lines of this:
http://www.xkcd.com/635

Which is in itself missing one vital step. Amid all the mayhem and accusation, even Randall Munroe hasn't shown what's happening here in full. But I think I've probably said enough for now, so I won't go into that as far as I'd intended to.
Besides which... If one was to read carefully, others already have.

There is only one real question, here, which need be addressed before any further discussion is warranted:
What is it, exactly, that the site owners wish to achieve? And the answer needs to come from them. Directly.