Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[Magical Realist]

I have never claimed it to be; as I already stated numerous times, that is a key difference between us. My belief is my own personal beliefs, and I do not peddle them as anything more. You are trying to pass your beliefs off as facts. That requires a certain level of evidence you have thus far been unable to provide.

So you don't support your belief in the Bible with the scientific method. That's all I needed to know. Thanks. Oh..have they found Noah's Ark yet? I'm not up on the latest Bible archeology...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

less woo-woo?

oK... an are ther other thangs you thank woud help.???

 

[Kittamaru]

So you don't support your belief in the Bible with the scientific method. That's all I needed to know. Thanks. Oh..have they found Noah's Ark yet? I'm not up on the latest Bible archeology...

Again - irrelevant red herring. A shame you won't put a fraction of the energy you show dodging questions and avoiding facts into providing facts and unbiased critical thinking.

 

[Magical Realist]

Again - irrelevant red herring. A shame you won't put a fraction of the energy you show dodging questions and avoiding facts into providing facts and unbiased critical thinking.

You believe in Noah's Ark don't you? You believe it to be a fact that it existed right? Do you use critical thinking to evaluate the truth of bible verses?

 

[Daecon]

I wasn't aware that Kittamaru was constantly creating threads about how Noah's Ark was totally real and these blurry pictures and second-hand anecdotes totally prove it and this splinter of wood was totally tested by the objective, impartial, and totally unbiased scientists at God-Is-Real who proved it to be from Noah's Ark.

 

[Bells]

How about... Sciforums adninistration copy the style of more successful science forums... an see if that helps to improve the success of Sciforums.!!!

Who says that we are not successful? Who would you compare us to? How would you measure their success? How should this site's succes be measured?

If you look at this site, just about all the subforums have ongoing threads, by which I mean that multiple threads have been active for the last week and this is without Plazmaposting those subjects. Now go to another science forum with a bigger population than ours and for some of them, a large portion of their subforums have had very little activity and very few new posts in general from members. So which would you consider more successful? The one with the bigger population and less activity, or the one with less members and more activity?

So, what should they be copying? How should we measure what is successful? More people and more posts? Great.. Should quality come into play there? I prefer quality to quantity. But not everyone will agree with what I consider to be quality..

But what would make this place better? More scientific discussions? Yes? It is ironic that many people complaining about this site or demand it improves barely even post in the science subforums.. They tend to stick to the more social subforums without much scientific participation. Those who want just science want those social and fringe subsections gone.. So who do we please? Try and maintain a balance? Yes? No? As I said, we cannot please everyone and measuring success with other sites that operate differently to us does not always work.

Does not mean there is no room for improvement, just that whatever we implement will upset some members.

 

[Magical Realist]

I wasn't aware that Kittamaru was constantly creating threads about how Noah's Ark was totally real and these blurry pictures and second-hand anecdotes totally prove it and this splinter of wood was totally tested by the objective, impartial, and totally unbiased scientists at God-Is-Real who proved it to be from Noah's Ark.

So he DOESN'T provide evidence for his beliefs, and I do, and so that makes him better than me and an authority on what evidence is. lol! Got it.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Should quality come into play there? I prefer quality to quantity. But not everyone will agree with what I consider to be quality..

But what would make this place better? More scientific discussions? Yes?

Those who want just science want those social and fringe subsections gone.. So who do we please? Try and maintain a balance? Yes? No? As I said, we cannot please everyone and measuring success with other sites that operate differently to us does not always work.

Does not mean there is no room for improvement, just that whatever we implement will upset some members.

Its a given that a certan level of site traffic must be maintained... are we at that level... an if not what do you thank woud inprove that situation.???

If site traffic is good enuff... what do you suggest to make the quality to quanity more to you'r standards.???

 

[Magical Realist]

Its a given that a certan level of site traffic must be maintained... are we at that level... an if not what do you thank woud inprove that situation.???

If site traffic is good enuff... what do you suggest to make the quality to quanity more to you'r standards.???

It might help site traffic if the people who were always bitching about the new threads would actually show us how to post threads themselves. As it is, posting a thread here is an invitation to flaming and character assassination. That's why it's a ghost town here. The trolls have run the good posters out of town. And the moderators sit back on their thrones and nod their heads smiling.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

It might help site traffic if the people who were always bitching about the new threads would actually show us how to post threads themselves. As it is, posting a thread here is an invitation to flaming and character assassination. That's why it's a ghost town here. The trolls have run the good posters out of town. And the moderators sit back on their thrones and nod their heads smiling.

I thank lots of us are qurious about what the mods solution is... an i expect that Bells reply to my post will make it all more clear.!!!

 

[Bowser]

I think the science threads--those that I've read--are pretty good. Those that become heated are social and political threads.

 

[Daecon]

The trolls have run the good posters out of town.

No, the cranks and crackpots have done that.

 

[Bells]

Its a given that a certan level of site traffic must be maintained... are we at that level... an if not what do you thank woud inprove that situation.???

If site traffic is good enuff... what do you suggest to make the quality to quanity more to you'r standards.???

If we were not at an exceptable level, we would not be here at all. So what does that tell you?

As I said, there is always room for improvement, always. Even if we had 1 million members who posted great content. As for what I would suggest, it isn't my place to say here, in a public forum. Whatever the solution may be, it will leave many unhappy, regardless.. Can't please everyone!

 

[Kittamaru]

So he DOESN'T provide evidence for his beliefs, and I do, and so that makes him better than me and an authority on what evidence is. lol! Got it.

Now you are being intentionally dishonest (again) - I don't make claims about my beliefs, whereas you constantly post your beliefs and claim them to be facts. It isn't a difficult concept - I keep my personally held beliefs personal, where as you are trying to "shout them from a mountaintop" and pass them off as facts.

Let me put it another way - in a nutshell, I do believe there is intelligent life in the universe besides us. I believe that the universe is simply too large with too many systems and planets for there NOT to be life somewhere else. I acknowledge, however, that beyond a bit of circumstantial evidence (the size of the universe and the statistical chance of a planet being in the goldilocks zone against the statistical chance of the planet having the proper composition for the germination of life), that I have no evidence to support my belief that there is life out there. I also have no idea to what level said life may or may not have evolved to - it is entirely possible there are, or even were, hyper-advanced civilizations out there that make modern day humans look like cro-magnon does to us. I cannot prove that though.

Meanwhile, you attempt to pass those beliefs off as established and proven facts, then don't have the evidence to back it up.

That's the difference.

In terms of my beliefs... bigfoot, nessie, et al - sure, they are a possibility, though they have their own issues that have, as of yet, no satisfactory answers, the least of which include the biological diversity problems and inherent issues in DNA degradation due to a tiny population size. Is it possible that, at one time, those species existed? Certainly - after all, evolutionary path diversion is not exactly uncommon. Do they exist now? I highly doubt it, given the issues aforementioned.

Ghosts, spiritual things... I could go either way on. I've had experiences I cannot adequately explain. I also acknowledge that my physical human senses are limited, and can be easily fooled or otherwise befuddled, both by outside influences (environment, other people, etc) and internal ones (stress, sleeplessness, existing preconceptions).

Those are the kinds of things you HAVE to accept, understand, and account for when investigating the unknown. That is why the scientific method is so important - chief among them being repetition and the ability to reproduce the results consistently. That helps mitigate the chance of a "one off" event mucking with them, as well as allowing others to confirm the results, greatly reducing the chance for (intentional or subconscious) confirmation bias. Years of research on things have had to be tossed out the window because of said biases... experiments that were flawed because they inherently were designed to lean towards confirmation of an idea.

It is, simply put, a hard thing to do - to be impartial. Especially about something you are passionate about. It is, however, necessary to discover the TRUTH, rather than simply arrive at the conclusion you want.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...there is always room for improvement...
As for what I would suggest, it isn't my place to say here, in a public forum. Whatever the solution may be, it will leave many unhappy...

Well it wont make me unhappy... i will be glad to see administration ether sht or get off the pot... ie... Sciforums needs an administration leader who will gather the troops... form a plan... an state publically what the goal of Sciforums is an how it will be acheived.!!!

Do you agree wit that.???

 

[Bells]

It might help site traffic if the people who were always bitching about the new threads would actually show us how to post threads themselves. As it is, posting a thread here is an invitation to flaming and character assassination. That's why it's a ghost town here. The trolls have run the good posters out of town. And the moderators sit back on their thrones and nod their heads smiling.

I need to ask, how many times do you need to be shown?

How many times have we told you that what you were presenting as "evidence" for whatever you were trying to claim, did not constitute as evidence for a variety of reasons - such as it was fake, fraudulent, made up or simply misrepresented? I have lost count of the amount of times we have had this discussion.

No one cares what you believe in, MR. At all. You want to believe in ghosts, UFO's, aliens and whatever else, more power to you, Dude. Seriously, no one cares.

But your evidence is akin to someone finding the likeness of Jesus on a tortilla and then claiming it is Jesus sending them a sign.

It is not credible.

Everything you post and claim is evidence of ghosts, UFO's, aliens, poltergeists, and god knows what else, has an explanation that is based on the mundane realities of real life. The issues arise when you abjectly refuse to accept that they could be mundane things. Like the devout who is convinced that Jesus is talking to them through a tortilla, so much so that they refuse to consider it is something else, such heat and dough often result in bizarre patterns and it is not Jesus in their tortilla, you refuse to believe that it could be anything but what you personally believe in. So you then pile on more "evidence" which is just more Jesus tortillas and then you get angry when people laugh at what you are presenting as evidence. To wit, it isn't evidence. It's just the same as the proverbial Jesus on a tortilla.

No one will take it seriously.

Except for you. You take it seriously because for you, it is akin to a religious belief. You believe in it wholeheartedly, so you fall victim to all sorts of things posted on the internet and then you get angry and offended when people don't take what you are presenting seriously and present a more realistic explanation or request that you provide better evidence and/or be able to discount the mundane in a scientific manner (ie employing critical thinking and analysis with supporting evidence). Instead, you then post more proverbial tortilla Jesus and demand that this is proof absolute of your claims.. It's not.

Well it wont make me unhappy... i will be glad to see administration ether sht or get off the pot... ie... Sciforums needs an administration leader who will gather the troops... form a plan... an state publically what the goal of Sciforums is an how it will be acheived.!!!

Do you agree wit that.???

I take it you have never read this site's rules? Aside from your cherry picking and cutting and pasting what I said in a bizarre fashion as you tend to do and then twist it to ask me a question, have you read this site's rules? Ever?

Because it's all there. In the opening paragraphs.

So I don't understand this repeated need for affirmation for what is pretty commonly known. I mean look at you, for example. This is a science forum and you spend more time in threads like this one or the more social threads and generally just go around stirring the pot. I mean, you only ever really re-appear and post when threads like this one pop up.

So what do you think the goal of a science discussion forum would be? I kind of figured it was self explanatory, personally. But here we are.. The number of visitors to the site goes down after the owners implement stronger anti-spammer software and people think the end is near..

But really, what do you think the goal or raison d'être happens to be?

(I'll give you a hint, it's already pretty well detailed in those opening paragraphs of this site's rules and it hasn't really changed and it is something we all want to aspire to in regards to what is posted on this site).. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Magical Realist]

I need to ask, how many times do you need to be shown?

How many times have we told you that what you were presenting as "evidence" for whatever you were trying to claim, did not constitute as evidence for a variety of reasons - such as it was fake, fraudulent, made up or simply misrepresented? I have lost count of the amount of times we have had this discussion.

No one cares what you believe in, MR. At all. You want to believe in ghosts, UFO's, aliens and whatever else, more power to you, Dude. Seriously, no one cares.

But your evidence is akin to someone finding the likeness of Jesus on a tortilla and then claiming it is Jesus sending them a sign.

It is not credible.

Everything you post and claim is evidence of ghosts, UFO's, aliens, poltergeists, and god knows what else, has an explanation that is based on the mundane realities of real life. The issues arise when you abjectly refuse to accept that they could be mundane things. Like the devout who is convinced that Jesus is talking to them through a tortilla, so much so that they refuse to consider it is something else, such heat and dough often result in bizarre patterns and it is not Jesus in their tortilla, you refuse to believe that it could be anything but what you personally believe in. So you then pile on more "evidence" which is just more Jesus tortillas and then you get angry when people laugh at what you are presenting as evidence. To wit, it isn't evidence. It's just the same as the proverbial Jesus on a tortilla.

No one will take it seriously.

Except for you. You take it seriously because for you, it is akin to a religious belief. You believe in it wholeheartedly, so you fall victim to all sorts of things posted on the internet and then you get angry and offended when people don't take what you are presenting seriously and present a more realistic explanation or request that you provide better evidence and/or be able to discount the mundane in a scientific manner (ie employing critical thinking and analysis with supporting evidence). Instead, you then post more proverbial tortilla Jesus and demand that this is proof absolute of your claims.. It's not.

Here's a perfect example of the sort of off topic flaming I'm talking about. I'm talking about why traffic is so low here, and Bells jumps down my throat about evidence for ufos, which she earlier bitched about being offtopic. What does this have to do with increasing site traffic? How does your ignorant opinions on what counts as evidence have anything to do with the fact that posters here are regularly flamed even by mods for posting new threads. It doesn't. It is a perfect demonstation of why this site has gone to shit. Mods just don't have the self-discipline to discuss topics rationally and civilly without taking criticism of how they run things personally. Why don't you show people how to act properly Bells and stay on topic? There are threads on evidence and ufos already in play. Go to those if you wanna bitch about evidence for ufos.

No one cares what you believe in, MR. At all. You want to believe in ghosts, UFO's, aliens and whatever else, more power to you, Dude. Seriously, no one cares.

LOL! I hardly think your overreactive little tirade about Jesus tortillas indicated anything like indifference about what I believe and post evidence for. Not that I for one second ever claimed to believe in Jesus. I DO believe in tortillas though. I actually enjoy them quite often with beans and meat and hot sauce. Does that make me a bad person too?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I hope that clears it up for you.

Yes... thanks.!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

Now you are being intentionally dishonest (again) - I don't make claims about my beliefs, whereas you constantly post your beliefs and claim them to be facts. It isn't a difficult concept - I keep my personally held beliefs personal, where as you are trying to "shout them from a mountaintop" and pass them off as facts.

So because you don't have the balls to talk about your beliefs, which you even admit aren't supported by the scientific method, and I do, then that excuses you to flame me for repeatedly presenting compelling evidence for my beliefs which you do all in your power to deny because they don't meet your requirements for believing, which as you admit doesn't include using the scientific method. That's complete bullshit. Noone who takes the Bible on faith has any business flaming someone else for not evidencing their beliefs adequately enough. That's the difference. I don't bitch at you for not having evidence for your beliefs. But you bitch at me for allegedly not having enough or the right kind of evidence. You just bitch for the sake of bitching basically. You have zero credibility with me Kitt. You should know this by now. How it escapes you is beyond me.

 

[Kittamaru]

So because you don't have the balls to talk about your beliefs, which you even admit aren't supported by the scientific method, and I do, then that excuses you to flame me for repeatedly presenting compelling evidence for my beliefs which you do all in your power to deny because they don't meet your requirements for believing, which as you admit doesn't include using the scientific method. That's complete bullshit. Noone who takes the Bible on faith has any business flaming someone else for not evidencing their beliefs adequately enough. That's the difference. I don't bitch at you for not having evidence for your beliefs. But you bitch at me for allegedly not having enough or the right kind of evidence. You just bitch for the sake of bitching basically. You have zero credibility with me Kitt. You should know this by now. How it escapes you is beyond me.

Again, you are being dishonest and attempting to avoid the issue at hand Magical Realist - and the pathetic thing is, you know it.

YOU are the one passing your BELIEFS off as FACTS. I am not.
As several members AND moderators have told you, your so called evidence is NOT compelling.

You are the one here with zero credibility... and the forums reaction to your comments shows it quite adequately.

I also see you entirely neglected to peruse the archaeological evidence I presented to you regarding the Bible. Regardless, have another: Archaeological evidence regarding David from the David vs Goliath story. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/3-000-year-old-artifacts-reveal-history-behind-biblical-david-761720

And one for Goliath himself: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/4...-goliaths-rule-jerusalem/#2Hi6G2JWyrVsCxZb.97

There is plenty of evidence to support various passages from the Bible... the question that cannot be answered without being there, however, are the particular "hows" and the meanings behind them.

Now, given that your so-called argument (and I use the term loosely) has more holes than a block of swiss cheese, I think it is time for you to simply admit the difference between a fact and a belief.