Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[Ophiolite]

I would say your opinion comes from a simple lack of experience with MR and his methods.

No, my opinion comes from proper application of scientific objectivity. It is not so much an opinion as a clear observation. And I have reservations as to whether Bells - and perhaps yourself - have accurately determined my opinion. What do you think it is?

 

[Russ_Watters]

On this point I am going to defend MR. My thought process is thus:

Although words have defined meanings, many words have a range of meanings. More pointedly some words become invested with a personal slant that differs in some way, subtle or extreme, from the conventional meanings.

An example of the first sort, pertinent to this discussion, is the acronym UFO. To many people this equates to "alien spacecraft", to others it does indeed simply mean unidentified flying object. Some of you will recall the misunderstandings and arguments such a difference can generate.

I postulate that MR sees the word alien as relating specifically to entities from elsewhere in this universe and this time. In short, the conventional use of the word alien. I agree that time travelers, or beings from a parallel universe would fully fit the bill of one sense of the word alien. However, it does not follow that MR uses this meaning, or even perceives it to be reasonable.

Consequently, while his usage of alien may be confusing and frustrating, I do not believe it is conclusive evidence that he is - in this instance - displaying intellectual dishonesty.

That would be a plausible entry point if it were true, but it doesn't accurately match the history: MR changed his argument and only now has acknowledged it because he got caught in the lie. When he started down this line of trolling, instead of stating he changed his mind, he denied his previous position. He lied:

I haven't claimed they are necessarily extraterrestrials either.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-does-the-government-hide-ufos.156087/page-7
The quote Bells posted:

They aren't unknown. They exhibit all the characteristics of non-human craft piloted by alien beings.

Also note that in the post where he said that, he was dodging the point he was responding to.

Let me repeat that all concisely:
1. MR was lying about his own previous position.
2. MR's new position didn't require an argument, if he'd been clear about the change (because it actually doesn't change anything about the logic of the issue). He spent days arguing and dancing around it for no good reason: that's trolling.
3. MR did it, apparently, as a way to get out of a corner he was backed-into.
4. Now that he has it, this is a new trick added to his trolling toolbag, that he can use over and over again.

Now that we're aware of what he's doing, it is important moving forward to challenge it when he does it, immediately, rather than let him run the scam and drag us down his rabbit hole. Even the very title of many of his threads needs to be challenged: Something like "Here is a picture of a UFO" would be fine if he were using the conventional definition, but under his definition, he's already jumped the shark and needs to be called out on it not agreed with that the photo is of a UFO.

 

[Bells]

Before I make the same mistake I think you may be making, let me ask you - what do you think my opinion is in regard to MR and intellectual dishonesty?

You appear to be arguing that his new argument in regards to time travelers, for example, is not tantamount to intellectual dishonesty in how he is using the term itself. If you read how he is employing the narrative, he is describing aliens and I am not talking just about time travelers or beings from another dimension. I am also talking about using terms such as "non-human intelligence". To wit, if they were humans traveling back in time, they would not be "non-human". He uses terms like this and then rebukes anyone who correctly describes them as aliens, since this is what he has argued for and about for years, because he did not use the word "aliens".

In other words, he is describing aliens without using the word "aliens" and then he is declaring that people are lying because they used his descriptions to correctly ascribe the term "aliens" when he did not say the word "aliens". He has changed the meaning of the word and moved the goal post. And it is absolutely dishonest in my opinion. An analogy would be someone describing using a toaster to toast bread as being grilled bread and rebuking people for saying he was talking about toast.

 

[Magical Realist]

Such pedantic hairsplitting to trap me into some bogus rules violation. Are you seeing this Yazata and clueless? Shades of Kittamaru circa 2014. Tks Ophiolite for trying to lend some sensible perspective to this blatant attempt at micromoderation. The explanation is simple: I used to think maybe aliens, but have since decided they are more likely interdimensionals. What's the big deal? Does anyone really know? Oh right. Swamp gas! I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. lol!

 

[krash661]

The project was shut down.

maybe only to ensure the public?-- in others words, the public was told it was shut-down?

 

[krash661]

But we have no evidence of such.

whom exactly are the " we ?"

 

[Bells]

Such pedantic hairsplitting to trap me into some bogus rules violation.

Trap you?

Seriously? I tell you that you need to comply with the rules and actually support your claims about UFO's with actual evidence and you consider it to be a trap? If I was intent on trapping you, you wouldn't be here. I am literally, and I mean literally, trying to get you to abide by this site's rules. I honestly cannot understand why you would rebel against something we all have to comply with. You make a claim, it's on you to support it. It is not on you to make claims, declare them as fact and then demand people prove you wrong when they ask you for evidence.

Are you seeing this Yazata and clueless? Shades of Kittamaru circa 2014.

For the first time, you are actually making me regret standing up for you back then. I lost friendships over my defending you.. and for what? This?

Tks Ophiolite for trying to lend some sensible perspective to this blatant attempt at micromoderation. The explanation is simple: I used to think maybe aliens, but have since decided they are more likely interdimensionals. What's the big deal? Does anyone really know? Oh right. Swamp gas! I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. lol!

You aren't helping yourself at the moment, you realise that, don't you?

If you think they are "interdimensionals", you will still be required to support this extraordinary claim with evidence. You make an extraordinary claim, you are required to support it with evidence. Actual evidence.

Whichever or whatever you want to latch on to claim wise, the requirement for you (and everyone else) to support their argument with evidence, does not magically disappear. You can move that goal post 100 times, you will still be required to support your evidence. You will need to define what and who you mean by "interdimensionals".. From where and when, for example.. And you will need to provide actual evidence that UFO's, for example, are being piloted by "interdimensionals". And I can tell you now, you'd have probably come off with an easier option if you'd just stuck to aliens.

 

[Ophiolite]

Bells, MR is as free as anyone to have a personal take on the meaning of a word. He is also free to be sloppy and inconsistent in his use of words. The price he would rightly pay for this would be to be misunderstood and perhaps to be castigated for poor writing. Hounding him for alleged intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified price.

MR, there is a serious disconnect between your perception of quality evidence and that held by the scientific community at large and, in particular, its members on this forum. You can rant and rave as much as you wish, but until you demonstrate a willingness to properly entertain alternatives, cease making absolute statements and stop bringing up previously refuted items, then you are going to get nowhere.

Frankly, this whole thread is unseemly, or has become so. In that regard it does at least answer its own question.

 

[sweetpea]

the word " we " is what the issues are-- when used it implies society as a whole--which my not be the case, but there are some whom actually know. Just because the facade of society has not confirmed this with its feeble, low level mentalities that are a majority of society, does not mean there is not any proof.

Krash, you quoted me, but the ''we'' was from Yazata's post. so, I don't know who your talking to?

 

[Bells]

Bells, MR is as free as anyone to have a personal take on the meaning of a word. He is also free to be sloppy and inconsistent in his use of words.

If he is going to have his own personal little meanings for common words, which he changes to suit the climate of the thread he is posting in.. In other words, changing known meanings for words to be something completely different, he needs to make that clear each time. Because when someone comes out with a term like "non human craft piloted by an alien being" and he has suddenly decided that this means "interdimensional being" - as in someone who has somehow managed to jump from one parallel universe into our universe on demand, perhaps to show off his cool ride *rolls eyes* - that he should advise participants of this sudden change of meaning and define what he means. Not to mention he would need to be able to prove parallel universe existed with supporting evidence.. And I am fairly certain those who participate in the Physics sub-forum are salivating at the prospect.

Frankly I am appalled that you are defending someone changing the meaning of words to get away with lying, not to mention so he can then file reports about others who are using common and correct interpretations for words and declaring they are lying because he never said what they are correctly interpreting.. Because on a whim, MR decides to change the meaning of words.. Which is essentially what he is doing. It's not the thread that is unseemly, Ophiolite.

The price he would rightly pay for this would be to be misunderstood and perhaps to be castigated for poor writing. Hounding him for alleged intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified price.

Hounding him?

This is laughable.

I repeat, and I mean this in the commonly known and defined words... If MR makes a claim, or declares something extraordinary is fact, he needs to be able to provide evidence to support his argument. This should be a no brainer.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Such pedantic hairsplitting to trap me into some bogus rules violation.
Tks Ophiolite for trying to lend some sensible perspective to this blatant attempt at micromoderation.
The explanation is simple: I used to think maybe aliens, but have since decided they are more likely interdimensionals. What's the big deal?

I gotta say... Bells seems more intent on scorin ponts than doin whats best for Sciforums.!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

If you think they are "interdimensionals", you will still be required to support this extraordinary claim with evidence. You make an extraordinary claim, you are required to support it with evidence. Actual evidence.

Just speculat'n. Not really a claim at all. But keep trying to infract me. Maybe eventually you'll hit on something by chance. Hey maybe you can get your old pal Kitt to help you cherry pick past statements by me. He's an old hand at trying to ban and infract me for alleged "intellectual dishonesty". Never seemed to work though. With two vindictive mods working on it, maybe your chances will be better.

Oh..and fyi? With all the lying and misrepresentation you have obsessively done of me recently, you are the last person to preach anything like intellectual honesty. Look in the mirror before judging others.

 

[sweetpea]

If the next ufo sighting is in fact a sighting of an alien spaceship, then it will be a sighting of an alien spaceship regardless of what 'proof' is provided or what Kittamaru thinks

So, you would know for a fact it's an alien spaceship without proof? Is your point the word proof, I could change it to evidence.

My point was that no amount of debunking of earlier ufo cases can eliminate the possibility that the next ufo sighting really will be an alien spaceship.

Yes, and we will know that by the proof/evidence.

I don't think that it's realistic to expect proof in matters of fact like these. (By proof, I'm thinking in terms of formal deductive proofs.) What we need instead is persuasive and convincing argument. These arguments will need a logical structure, but it will likely be looser and more intuitive than a formal proof and its premises won't obviously be true or false but instead will have different degrees of likelihood or plausibility.

My bold.
I'm not following you here yazata, are you saying the proof/evidence is in the arguments we use. I think there must be other life out there in space. But, when and if, it visits us, will we want some form of proof/evidence that it is 'not of this earth'?

 

[Ophiolite]

If he is going to have his own personal little meanings for common words, which he changes to suit the climate of the thread he is posting in.. In other words, changing known meanings for words to be something completely different, he needs to make that clear each time.

I shall try to be patient, but in your persistent refusal to actually note what I am saying you are looking very much like MR.

We all have personal little meanings for words, some common, some not so common. In many cases we think these meanings are generally held by the population at large. There is no intended deceit in this - it is just an aspect of language usage. It would have been helpful if he had been quicker to acknowledge the meaning he was applying in this case. It would have been helpful if one of us had asked for a definition of terms at an earlier stage.

Because when someone comes out with a term like "non human craft piloted by an alien being" and he has suddenly decided that this means "interdimensional being" - as in someone who has somehow managed to jump from one parallel universe into our universe on demand, perhaps to show off his cool ride *rolls eyes* - that he should advise participants of this sudden change of meaning and define what he means.

Of course he should have done so, however failure to do so is not proof that he is intellectually dishonest, just rather poor at presenting a logical argument.

Frankly I am appalled that you are defending someone changing the meaning of words to get away with lying, not to mention so he can then file reports about others who are using common and correct interpretations for words and declaring they are lying because he never said what they are correctly interpreting.. Because on a whim, MR decides to change the meaning of words.. Which is essentially what he is doing. It's not the thread that is unseemly, Ophiolite.

I'm disappointed that you are unable to approach the matter objectively. You are convinced he is lying. I suspect he is just a muddled thinker. My hypothesis is better supported by the evidence of his many threads than yours.

Hounding him?

This is laughable.

I repeat, and I mean this in the commonly known and defined words... If MR makes a claim, or declares something extraordinary is fact, he needs to be able to provide evidence to support his argument. This should be a no brainer.

Hounding him? Yes. All you needed to do was to make something akin to your last statement once, then act on it. Instead you have made lengthy post after post. Simples.

This has, I think included, throwing in the occasional bit of moderation. That's highly questionable moderator practice - moderating a thread you are involved in. No wonder the poor dear feels persecuted.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

.. No wonder the poor dear feels persecuted.

OK, I like Magical Realist from a science fiction perspective, and he does respect not posting in main science subforums - it appears to be an invitation for other subforums.

But, if I were to post some of the things he does, I'd have to move the goal posts as well. Because it's ridiculous! Maybe it's an indication that he knows what he is posting is garbage. And there then is something else for continuation of this thread.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Bells, MR is as free as anyone to have a personal take on the meaning of a word. He is also free to be sloppy and inconsistent in his use of words. The price he would rightly pay for this would be to be misunderstood and perhaps to be castigated for poor writing.

Agreed.

Hounding him for alleged intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified price.

The intellectual dishonesty came separate. He's been misusing the definition of "UFO" for years. Yes, it is annoying, but when it is consistent, it can be let go/worked around.

And yes, he's entitled to change his mind about a definition. But he isn't entitled to change the definition mid-discussion, with no call-out and then deny he did it. That's the lie.

Yes, MR displays disorganized/sloppy/inconsistent thought processes and yes that makes some of what he does non-malicious. But it is implausible that he could deny something he just consciously did, accidentally. It is implausible for that to be anything but a lie.

If you disagree, could you be specific about the exact quoted statements and how you think they could plausibly be anything but a lie?

Frankly, this whole thread is unseemly, or has become so. In that regard it does at least answer its own question.

Agreed. And IMO, we can take that analysis a step further: moderators agree that an infraction has been committed. So why is there even a discussion about it? Make a decision, take corrective action and close the thread. IMO, the tack taken by the moderators contributes to the poor reputation of the site and low traffic.

 

[krash661]

Krash, you quoted me, but the ''we'' was from Yazata's post. so, I don't know who your talking to?

when i quoted you that was post 308 though-- this is now post 346.
i am simply talking too anyone whom can answer the question, or is actually willing too answer it. but it is not an actual question, but designed to get individuals to think-- instead of ranting and raving about how there is no evidence simply because the majority of the public thinks not(which is meaningless since the majority of the public are simply low level minded and such)-(stupid is the majority nowadays)--this is simply ridiculous from my irrelevant opinion.. as i have mentioned before-- there is " in your face of cannot be denied evidence " --it is simply a matter of whom has access to it-- which is 100% for sure not the public--as it is typically the inexperienced and uneducated public whom screams such things as " there is no evidence ."
(shakes head)

 

[Russ_Watters]

Ophiolite, could we walk through the line of logic please, because I'd really like to understand your thought process:

1. MR used to claim UFOs were aliens. Now he claims they could also be time travelers or beings from another dimension (but still also could be aliens). I believe we are agreed on this.

2. MR disavowed his previous claim: "I have NOT claimed they are aliens." I believe we are also agreed on this.

3. Are we agreed that MR's statement in point #2 is false?

4. What plausible explanation is there for the false claim besides lying? And please don't just say "sloppiness": Please be specific. What sort of thought process could enable a person to change his mind like that and falsely deny changing his mind without that denial being a lie?

For my part, while I'm aware that offenses must be proven, I come from a stricter school of thought on intellectual honesty: that it is an affirmative responsibility. Sloppiness is not an acceptable defense and it only affects the harshness of the punishment.

 

[krash661]

Ophiolite, could we walk through the line of logic please, because I'd really like to understand your thought process:

1. MR used to claim UFOs were aliens. Now he claims they could also be time travelers or beings from another dimension (but still also could be aliens). I believe we are agreed on this..

i agree, MR needs to comprehend that EBEs and IBs are different elements and are not the same as such.

I come from a stricter school of thought on intellectual honesty:

true, but one must keep in mind that, only from an "anthropocentric " perception/stance.
edit--
humans are simply newborns and nothing more. humans only know of things from there progressions--which may not be correct or any other such-es-- keep this in mind.

 

[Magical Realist]

Ophiolite, could we walk through the line of logic please, because I'd really like to understand your thought process:

1. MR used to claim UFOs were aliens. Now he claims they could also be time travelers or beings from another dimension (but still also could be aliens). I believe we are agreed on this.

2. MR disavowed his previous claim: "I have NOT claimed they are aliens." I believe we are also agreed on this.

3. Are we agreed that MR's statement in point #2 is false?

4. What plausible explanation is there for the false claim besides lying? And please don't just say "sloppiness": Please be specific. What sort of thought process could enable a person to change his mind like that and falsely deny changing his mind without that denial being a lie?

For my part, while I'm aware that offenses must be proven, I come from a stricter school of thought on intellectual honesty: that it is an affirmative responsibility. Sloppiness is not an acceptable defense and it only affects the harshness of the punishment.

LOL! I feel like I'm at the Salem Witch trials standing with a noose around my neck. What else can they hang me on? Stand by folks. They'll find something!

Note the cherry-picked statement by me back in 2015:

"They exhibit all the characteristics of non-human craft piloted by alien beings."

Now what is an alien being? Is it an "alien" in the sense of a extraterrestrial? Not necessarily. An alien being is simply any entity we are unfamiliar with. "Alien" is being used as an adjective here, not as a noun. It means strange or unfamiliar, not an extraterrestrial. So the fact remains:" I have not claimed them to be aliens". But I also haven't ruled it out. Comprende?

But why should I pander to this Grand Inquisition led by Bells and the usual band of 5 trolls that always gather round to join in on kicking and spitting on me when vindictive mods attack me? My OP has been answered. Traffic is so low now because of this moderator-led persecution of some members over others, submitting them to a scrutiny and standard of posting that they never apply to anyone else. It's all so obvious now. If you are a new member here, this is what you can expect if you don't believe the same things the majority here believes. Harassed and targeted and slandered for nothing more than posting compelling evidence for things nobody wants to believe in. This is why traffic is so low here. And it will remain low as long as this sort of sadistic abuse of minority posters is allowed to continue unchecked.