Lord Antares

How often does it result in a person acknowledging the rebuttal?

I just found out that if you click ''unread content'' in the activity tab, it displays it like on the old forum software. But not many will care enough to figure this out. EDIT: You don't even have to enter the activity tab. There is ''unread content'' button on the main page''.

Thanks for that. I might do it but my gripe wasn't that I couldn't filter the unwanted threads, it's that there were few that I wanted to click at. This filter will only save me the trouble of reading a thread title which I will discard, but it won't help with the lack of technical threads. Again, it's just my opinion, people can post what they want.

I don't think the balance can be shifted. People post in those sections because they want to, not because something is influencing them to do so. It doesn't just come from new members. Rubbish comes in the form of science as well, with people posting drivel in the speculation section, so new members will make bad posts regardless of the limitations. Senior members like to discuss politics, ethics etc. as well. I cannot blame them as those sections exist and they are free to do so. I personally never click on those threads and that's fine. I think it's because those topics are easier to talk about. They don't require as much knowledge, brainpower and, most importantly, there are no prerequisites which would stop them from posting, unlike the science sections where people refrain from posting because of their lack of knowledge in the department. I generally either post questions or read threads. I rarely answer other people's question simply because I don't have the knowledge that the well respected members here do. So, to sum it up, the majority of the forum population is not ''eligible'' to talk science as well as the best members, whereas everyone is equal and eligible to talk about politics, religion, ethics, lounge stuff etc. That's why I think we see a lot of non-science and I doubt you could circumvent that artifically.

Agreed. And it's not just religion. It can be empty philosophy, pointless ethics (like the definition of good or evil) and lots of politics. I've lowered my frequency of visit because I simply cannot find threads I enjoy reading. I love to learn from reading scientific threads with only technical content.

You don't keep the ''keep me logged in'' checked? i have no problems when I'm constantly logged in. Of course you might have your reasons why you don't want to stay logged in though.

Complete rubbish. This is bad philosophy, at best. Nothing useful, no quantification, no statement and no prediction. Just a jumbled mess of words which do not constitute a meaning.

That's clearly a hallucination. I can see how it would happen. I used to take speed a lot (similar to meth but weaker). If you stared at something for a long time on the comedown, you would see it when you would turn your head away. I could totally see it happening.

He is banking on the fact (if it's true) that he can hit the veins exactly where he sees them. As I said, it could be explained by the assumption that he has lost weight and has sunken skin which actually does expose his veins.

I object to the logic of this experiment. You've only tested this on yourself, correct? It is easily possible that as you got skinnier through the use of meth and your skin got more dry, your veins got accentuated so they actually are visible to everyone? You presumably haven't done tests on other people, so the veins you see on pictures and others are most likely hallucinations. Always exaust the logical explanations first. Paranormal later.

Consciousness is a ''thing'' but there is not enough info on it for there to be any real science behind it. Therefore, there can be belief about consciousness, but that belief is outside of established science. On the other hand, gravity is a proven concept and to say there can be belief or disbelief about existence of gravity is senseless. I explained it clearly. The onus is on you to reply sensibly. You are going in loops and making empty statements. Threads are required to make sense. Your does not make sense. Therefore, it is logical to conclude your thread will be locked. Repeat offensees will lead to a ban. Seeing how you already got banned once for making nonsensical threads and arguments, it is not entirely reasonable for me to assume you will be banned again. I guess you could say I hypothesise you will get banned, as opposed to believing you will get banned. See what I did there?

Alright, I give up. It's clear to me that you won't start making sense. Have fun before the thread is inevitably locked.

What is your point with these links? I assume it is to show that there are branches of science which aren't proven, therefore, it is belief? You are wrong. Firstly, all presumptions by science ever made are made for concrete reasons as a result of concrete observations and patterns. Then they are tested and either accepted or discarded. Darwin made a hypothesis which he had confidence in even though it wasn't proven, because he made legitimate observations and pieces of evidence. Belief is none of that. Belief is just belief.

No it doesn't stictly express that. In fact, it doesn't express anything. Your posts are very lackluster and incoherent. What you did strictly claim, twice, is that scientists believe in science, which is a fallacy. Science can't be believed in. It can be learned, though. Then you went on to link videos where famous scientists believe in something that has nothing to do with science, claiming that somehow belief is linked with science. And no, I don't want to click on your link. You've been advertising it for the longest time and it's pure drivel. All in all, please start making some sense or you will get banned again. It's not a threat by me, it's just a very likely outcome.

Can you please stop making strawman and bad arguments? No, I'm not saying that. They know science but may or may not believe in something outside of science. Consciousness, dimensions or whatever they may be talking about is not science (at least not yet). Calculus is and you can't believe or not believe in it. You either know it or you don't. Same goes for all tested sciences. Yes, it is. But still, you claimed the opposite.

No one believes in science. No one informed, anyway. Science is a collection of data which is proven to work or be useful in some form or another. The laws in science have been verified to work every time they have been tested. Thus, there is 0 belief in science. In fact, it is opposite to belief, since the definition of belief is being conviced of something without having evidence and being able to know whether it is right or not. What some scientists believes has absolutely nothing to do with science. It is their personal belief, and not that of science itself. It is like if I said that because Roger Federer believes in incarnation, tennis itself advocates reincarnation. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I didn't say there is complete equality everywhere. But inequality certainly isn't the standard anymore. What about the men being forced to do all the dirtiest, most dangerous and hardest jobs? Why is the percentage of men in those jobs close to 100? And why do I remember, when applying for student jobs, ~50% of jobs not being available to me specifically because they sought women? Presenters, waitresses, hostesses, receptioners, you name it. And they were the best paid jobs too. Why did my female friends earn so much more money than me for a significantly shorter time because those jobs were not available to me? I don't care, but I want to point out how everyone focuses on the cons of being a woman, rather than pros. No one cares when men are being mistreated in some cases. Take a look at male actors and role models. How many of those which are being pushed as handsome are not well built? Name one. How many who act in romantic movies are ugly? But it is irrelevant as long as it's also women who are ''pressured''. Also, it is a conscious decision of a woman to look a certain way. I've been told by some of my female friends that they want to look sexy because they like male attention. No one on earth is forcing them to do that. When has a woman been rejected because she hasn't go silicone implants? The majority of them get by just fine without them. However, there IS a discrepancy between ''attractive'' and ''unattractive'' women. I completely agree that life is, generally speaking, much better for attractive ones. But that's a different issue alltogether. I would rate the quality of life by ease with which they can life it in descending order like this: 1) good looking woman 2) good looking/wealthy man 3) ugly man 4) ugly woman Keep in mind that ''ugly'' and ''good looking'' are mock terms used loosely to match the average person's opinion. And how can she say her wild assertion with any certainty other than a personal opinion? It's fairly obvious but of course, I don't have proof for you. It's like asking why blowjobs are much more frequent in porn than the female counterpart. Do I really need solid evidence to say that it's because it's made for a man's enjoyment? It's not the reason he got elected, though. It was simply because of a lack of a better candidate. If there was even a half-normal, averagely likeable candidate, I assure you they would have won. It's like if we had to choose between two candidates, one of them a thief and the other a child rapist and murderer, and we chose the former and everyone who voted got accused of supporting theft. If I lived in the US and voted for Trump and got accussed of being a mysoginist or rapist or whatever, I would take that as an unprovoked insult. What is the problem in women willfully choosing to get breast implants? Are you shunning them for making a choice for their body? You may have a point when all women are forced to get breast implants. They are not bad BECAUSE they are founded in her own frustration. They are bad for being assertive, unelaborate and unsupported. I guess I misenterpreted machismo then. My point is, there are inequalities for both genders. Women are expected to spend a lot of time on applying makeup and stuff, which sucks. Men are expected to be strong and get in fights for their women where needed and pay for their stuff, which doesn't suck, because who gives a fuck about men, right? As long as it's the women's issues we are focusing on.

You're right. I'm looking now. There are more guests looking at profiles than threads. It would be slightly less weird if those were profiles of known and active members, they they all seem to be looking at profiles of new and unknown members. Take a look at this. It definitely seems off.

And? Are you implying that all of them want to study and work? I know a great deal of women who are more than fine with not working. Generally speaking, those who want to study will study and those who won't will prefer a man who works. Is there a problem with that? I know many intelligent women; all of them academically more successful than myself. These kinds of women will generally finish college and get a good joob. I see nothing but choice there. So? Is it men's fault that they do so? Are they forced to do it? What percentage of women do that? And what about the men who work out and build their body to impress women? Are men oppressed as well then? Women like men like that and they make sure to achieve that, so they are ''forced'' to do it just the same as the women who get silicone implants, no? You have got the reason for that incredibly wrong. It is because the majority of porn viewers are male. Men, generally speaking, don't care and probably don't want to look at a guy's face during a video. It's completely foolish to say that men's faces are ''hidden'' because of ''chauvinism''. Either way, it's not true for the majority of videos anyway. In 2017., no. You are aware, are you not, that a great number of women prefer ''macho'' men? They are naturally drawn to them for safety reasons. Of course, less so than in nature, but this is 100% true in nature. So you're just telling women what to like. All I see is frustration here. Do you have any arguments? I keep seing women shunning other women for doing things they don't like, such as not getting a degree or job, getting breast implants etc. It is like you are completely unaware that there are women who prefer that. All you are trying to do is force women to be a certain way, which is funnily ironic, given the context of the post.

Isn't it the same as on the last iteration of the forum? You could write on someone's profile, no? It's like writing on one's wall on facebook.

This is not a fault of the engine, it's yours tbh. Whenever you have shared terms with something else, it's only natural that you will run into the other term, why wouldn't you? If you search for the term ''head'', how is google supposed to know that, for example, you wanted to search for the verb head (as in head somewhere) and not a body part or any array of terms which may be connected to that word? It's working as intended. That's why you simply type ''head verb'' instead of ''head''. It's simple. It's false that Google used to be better or that there were better browsers before google came along. Google might be oversaturated compared to how it used to be, but it has definitely got A LOT more to read about. There's information on absolutely everything. There are countless pages' worth of useful text on there. The problem might be finding them among some potential trash, but it's there. Google is at its best.

Yes, it does actually work. Two people I know have gotten their phones to work using this method. She is probably not lying. As String says, silica gel packs will work even better. Anything that absorbs moisture, really, but you have to do it sooner rather than later. The sooner, the better.

This may be an ignorant question, but is it possible (and useful) to add captcha for posting threads as a new user? Would that not filter out bot spam?

Or click on the star/cirle (depending on whether you've posted in the thread) and it will take you to the first unread post. I've been doing that on the old forum since I joined. I wasn't even aware that clicking on the thread title took you to the new posts.

No, it was 100% showed as StringJunky.