There's nothing in the sci forum rules that forbids anyone from posting threads in the fringe forum and you know it.
I never said you are not allowed to post in the Fringe forums.
I am saying that when you do post there, you need to comply with:
Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument. Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Pay particular attention to the part that is bolded. Because this is something you have consistently failed to adhere to when posting on the Fringe forum.
I don't know why you believe I said that you weren't allowed to post in the Fringe forum. I never said any such thing. All I said was that you will need to comply with the above when posting.
When you post in the Fringe subsection, you will need to do your research first. As such, you will need to stringently research to make sure that what you are posting is not fake and is not a misrepresentation of fact. This pretty much applies to everyone who posts on this whole site. Not just you. But you seem to believe that the Fringe sub-forum is open to you posting anything you believe like it is your own blog, even when what you are posting is fake and simply not real. I'll put it this way, I can pretty much find reasonable explanations for what you post in about 30 seconds and/or I can pretty much find evidence that what you are posting is fake in less time than that. To wit, you are finding stories and posting them as though they are fact and you are not doing any research, or more to the point, you are not critically analysing what you are posting to make sure it isn't fake or a misrepresentation. And as a result, your threads and post in there are not "evidence based". Worse still, you then claim that these are fact.
As I have said to you repeatedly, I don't particularly care what you believe in. But if you are going to claim that your beliefs are fact, then you need to be able to back that up and to do that, you need to apply even the most rudimentary form of the scientific method. Let's face it, what you are passing off as fact in those sub-forums would not even get a passing grade in the first grade of primary school. And that is the problem. And it is why so many people revolt against what you post in there. You're a nice guy, MR and you are intelligent and insightful. I would like you to apply that intelligence to what you post instead of copying whole articles as your posts without any research or background into what you are posting and claiming them as fact and real. You need to be able to discount all of the mundane things it could be and you need to have evidence to support your argument of why it is not something mundane. Simply saying it is technology not known to mankind, for example, is not going to cut it.
Frankly, I cannot understand why you find this so objectionable. This is a requirement we all live with when we post on this site and pretty much every other science forum out there. If you cannot back it up with irrefutable proof, don't post it. If you can back it up with irrefutable proof, post it. What I am asking you to do is to comply with this site's rules and don't treat it like your personal blog. It actually isn't a hard request or an unfair one.
Typically I post well-documented accounts by first hand credible witnesses of a phenomenon in video or text form. That is not fake.
If you actually did do that, MR, we would not be having this conversation.
Your videos are either fake or something else that has been misrepresented as being something that it is not. Your eyewitness testimony are only ever posted on UFO websites that sensationalise and dramatise it and often misrepresent what it is. To wit, people see a strange light and you take this and declare it is a UFO or alien origin or aliens with absolutely no proof to support the claim that it is aliens. You declare this as fact without any proof whatsoever. When challenged, you become abusive and combative. You want to post these things unchallenged and you refuse to even acknowledge that what you are posting may be made up or fake or photo-shopped or a misrepresentation. Which is why it is clear that you treat that sub-forum like it is your personal blog. It isn't. And when you post there, you need to be able to back it up with actual evidence. It needs to be irrefutable. If you are posting fake things or misrepresentations and claiming it as fact, that is dishonest and yes, it will be shut down.
13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions.
15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.
21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).
22. Propaganda wars are similar to flame wars, except in that they ostensibly involve argument about a topic. They are typically characterised by zealots on both sides of the argument who have no intention of listening to the opposing point of view, let alone possibly changing their minds. The result is invariably that members become frustrated and spin-off complaints to the moderators become rife.
23. Propaganda also includes material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, which demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include article which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an argument.
24. Preaching is giving a sermon, often but not always of a religious nature, stating how people should or should not act, as if the sermon itself were self-evidently true.
25. Proselytising is attempting to convert others to one’s own beliefs, often with threats of adverse consequences if one refuses to convert.
26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.
27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.
All of
this pretty much applies to you (except the threats part in 25.. although your repeated threats of reporting others and then reporting them when they challenge your beliefs could apply here) and how you post in the Fringe sub-forum.
Hence the problem.
That is compelling evidence whether you like it or not. So you know what you can do with your pathetic threats. Stand by for more compelling evidence and engaging thought-provoking threads. You should be thanking me for all the increases in site traffic my threads generate.
And stand by for moderation if you fail to apply even basic standards of posting on this site. If you persist in treating like your personal blog, if you persist in not applying any form of critical analysis or doing even basic research to make sure what you are posting is not fake, you will face moderation in one form or another. So you can tell me to do whatever with what you deem are threats. I am telling you that if you fail to abide by even the most basic standards we all have to comply with when we post here, you will face moderation for it. This isn't a hard ask of you, MR. I am asking you to make sure that what you post here is not fake or a misrepresentation and this will mean that you will have to do some of your own research before posting and you will need to prove - with supporting evidence - that what you are posting is real and to do that, you will need to be able to eliminate the more mundane things it could be - again with supporting evidence.
Your threads don't generate traffic nor are they compelling. What they do do, however, is generate reports and they become a drain on moderator time because you fail to apply even rudimentary skills in researching that what you post is not fake or made up or a misrepresentation.
