Sayonara

This site has been developed over many, many years and it has worked very well indeed for thousands of members without the benefit of your semantic impositions. Nobody here has any obligation to defend the rules of the site to you. Again, if you want to engage here in a discussion that interests you, then you’re going to have to operate within the rules of the platform while you do so, regardless of whether or not you appreciate or agree with those rules.

‘You rules are fake’ is a meaningless proposition. You’ve been given your options, and your response shows what your choice is. I wish you the best of luck with that.

Disputing what the rules are or should be is not the same as expressing an opinion on how aggressively or liberally moderators enforce the rules. You have a choice here. Continue to grind your own personal axe in the same environment where you have already been told plainly that a platform for those views will not be made available, or end up being sanctioned. Hint: railing at the rules you agreed to abide by when you joined, and blaming everyone else for your inability to work within those parameters, is not the optimal strategy.

That thought will eventually become a corrosive force in your life if you let it. We are living through a time when cultural perception is saturated by illusory examples of great achievement and success but 99% of it is media-enhanced BS. Everyone thinks they’re starring in the film adaptation of their own life. Everyone presents themselves as a glamorous high-flier on social media. It’s no wonder there’s this feeling of dejection and insufficiency spreading throughout western society. The first thing you should do, immediately, is consciously make the effort to stop comparing yourself to other people. We do that all the time without realising it, and from a psychological health perspective it is deeply unhelpful. The likelihood is that this is the largest single factor contributing to your sense of being underwhelmed at yourself Instead, compare yourself to who you were 1, 5 and 10 years ago. What’s changed? Why? What do you like and dislike about that? What steps can you take to duplicate and enhance the useful changes and phase out the mistakes?

They’re like... galactic minutes

Okay so it's been about 15 years since I decided I couldn't be bothered to code an entire online game. For those of you who don't know (which I guess is the majority of you who haven't been stalking me) I've spent the past 5+ years publishing the Armada Wars universe as fiction. After four books the characters are in their stride, events are dire, and it's starting to get really fun. At some point I may well come full circle and - if the fan base gets big enough - look at game dev again. Also... one million necromancy points

Haven't you always been senile? Or am I thinking of Phi for All. Okay maybe I'm going senile.

You go away for five minutes, and when you come back there's a thread like this which hasn't been closed immediately after a single "no" reply. What happened here?

Imprecise wording on my part, mea culpa. He says the results suggest a specific motive, and I characterise this specificity as the 'conclusion'. Perhaps I should have said that he could not possibly justify selecting one of many possible motives as being one that is suggested by the available evidence, given that there is no such evidence accompanying the reputation total on each post. Ironically, this was my point to him.

A logical fallacy occurs when invalid logic or an unsound logical argument are used in furtherance of an argument. Since I made no argument, no logical fallacy can be said to have occurred. My comment is best characterised as jest, and it is aimed at the juxtaposition of the import of the OP's chosen subject matter with the apparent clumsiness of his tool use. You cannot possibly make a conclusion about the motives behind upvoting. You cannot say why people voted, only that they did. You also cannot assume that the community is homogenous and there were no downvotes, only that there were fewer downvotes than there were upvotes. Since you're taking the super serious high road and calling "logical fallacy" (albeit incorrectly), it seems very strange that you'd then draw such a spurious inference. I suggest you drop this now. In future when you see a post which you think is abusive, off-topic, or otherwise breaks the rules, use the post reporting tool like you're supposed to.

I strongly disagree. This is not a request for help made by someone who wants us to check his work and give him pointers; it was linked for us with the comment that it is a "one-page article, which clearly shows that the current interpretation of the theory of relativity, on the slowing down of clocks in motion and time dilation, is wrong". In that light, it is a very strong indicator that the OP does not have a good understanding of the academic process or any formal system of peer review. This in turn allows fairly accurate inferences to be drawn about their rigour and acumen. And I did not state that it did. I am entirely free to make comment on the fact that Dropbox is not an academic or publishing resource, regardless of your views, and I will thank you not to police my posting decisions.

Ah dropbox, that well known repository for peer-reviewed papers.

That was just a free taster. We have to pay Cap'n ransoms to keep it going

He was talking about having religious faith, not the academic practice of theology.

Unless she's part of an away team and that's her communicator.