ydoaPs

I'm not sure why one would want to utilize an electron microscope in this case, anyway.

This thread was just a bad approach. For example, you would have been much better off with an opening post like "I tried to post in the politics section, but it seems that I am not allowed. Can anyone help or tell me why I can't post there?". Notice how this way gets the desired information, but does so in a way that is not hostile or irrational. Hostility breeds hostility; that's why we have the etiquette guidelines. You have the same issue with your thread about climate change. Instead of coming here talking of some conspiracy among the world's scientists, you could have had a better chance just trying to learn more about the science of climate change and then seeing if you should believe the scientists. we've got several threads about the science here, and we've got several very knowledgable members who would be more than willing to point you in the right direction in terms of learning resources. If you've got questions, we're more than happy to help you; That's why we're here. However, if you come at us with hostility, we're less inclined to help.

Think about this for a moment. Rather than using the site's search function to see if there are restrictions for posting, you automatically jump to a conspiracy perpetrated by the evil godless liberals. Did you even peruse the forum prior to making your hypthesis that only the 'liberal elite' can post on this site? I don't think so, as had you done so, you'd see that we have quite a few(including the Politics moderator) conservatives. It seems to me that you may not be mature enough to post in politics. I'm not staff, but I've been around long enough to know pretty much how they work. You show up accusing us(and climate scientists) of dasterdly conspiracies without doing any research. We do, on occasion, bend the restrictions for new users who show interest in the politics section who also show that they are mature enough to discuss politics, but I fear that you've excluded yourself from such rule bending with this thread. By the general sense of your post, I think I should explicitly say this, since you may not infer it(you may actually do the opposite). My thoughts here are NOT based on whether or not you're a liberal, conservative, or moderate; they're based on your posting behaviour. In case you're wondering, we also have restrictions for the religion section. These restrictions are here for a reason. People, in the past, have joined only to discuss politics and/or religion rather than science. While this is a science discussion forum, having a few users posting mainly in non-science areas would not be too bad were they able to do so civilly. Unfortunately, these people(and many other people who do post in politics and religion) are not able to do so civilly. It can be tough at times, since politics and religion tend to lend toward heated discussions since they both usually involve people dedicated to their views. We encourage people to argue against the ideas rather than the people presenting them. We do, in fact, have rules and etiquette guidelines which you agreed to follow by joining the site. If you have any questions, comments, or conspiracy theories, feel free to contact a staff member. I've read you're posts, and it seems to me, that you're not the kind of user that would be productive in the politics section at the moment. Perhaps you'll mature after a while(I sure did over my time here) and demonstrate the ability to discuss these issues civilly and logically, and I hope you do. Note that this is not a requirement to post in the section(although repeated hostility may get you removed from the politics usergroup), but it is a requirement to post in it prior to meeting the restrictions. By all means, prove me wrong. I genuinely hope you're the type of person who can positively contribute to the politics section. It's great to have a new opinion. Or you can completely disregard this post and go nuts after you meet the restrictions, however, I don't reccomend that as it may end up with you being removed from the politics usergroup. Do you have any sources for this? I don't know about oil rigs, but if there is a spill from a ship, the ship's captain is personally responsible for the damages caused. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be similar for spills from oil rigs.

Think about this for a moment. Rather than using the site's search function to see if there are restrictions for posting, you automatically jump to a conspiracy perpetrated by the evil godless liberals. Did you even peruse the forum prior to making your hypthesis that only the 'liberal elite' can post on this site? I don't think so, as had you done so, you'd see that we have quite a few(including the Politics moderator) conservatives. It seems to me that you may not be mature enough to post in politics. I'm not staff, but I've been around long enough to know pretty much how they work. You show up accusing us(and climate scientists) of dasterdly conspiracies without doing any research. We do, on occasion, bend the restrictions for new users who show interest in the politics section who also show that they are mature enough to discuss politics, but I fear that you've excluded yourself from such rule bending with this thread. By the general sense of your post, I think I should explicitly say this, since you may not infer it(you may actually do the opposite). My thoughts here are NOT based on whether or not you're a liberal, conservative, or moderate; they're based on your posting behaviour. In case you're wondering, we also have restrictions for the religion section. These restrictions are here for a reason. People, in the past, have joined only to discuss politics and/or religion rather than science. While this is a science discussion forum, having a few users posting mainly in non-science areas would not be too bad were they able to do so civilly. Unfortunately, these people(and many other people who do post in politics and religion) are not able to do so civilly. It can be tough at times, since politics and religion tend to lend toward heated discussions since they both usually involve people dedicated to their views. We encourage people to argue against the ideas rather than the people presenting them. We do, in fact, have rules and etiquette guidelines which you agreed to follow by joining the site. If you have any questions, comments, or conspiracy theories, feel free to contact a staff member. I've read you're posts, and it seems to me, that you're not the kind of user that would be productive in the politics section at the moment. Perhaps you'll mature after a while(I sure did over my time here) and demonstrate the ability to discuss these issues civilly and logically, and I hope you do. Note that this is not a requirement to post in the section(although repeated hostility may get you removed from the politics usergroup), but it is a requirement to post in it prior to meeting the restrictions. By all means, prove me wrong. I genuinely hope you're the type of person who can positively contribute to the politics section. It's great to have a new opinion. Or you can completely disregard this post and go nuts after you meet the restrictions, however, I don't reccomend that as it may end up with you being removed from the politics usergroup. Do you have any sources for this? I don't know about oil rigs, but if there is a spill from a ship, the ship's captain is personally responsible for the damages caused. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be similar for spills from oil rigs.

If it's the same as this thread, then most likely, this thread will be closed. We don't encourage posting the same thread multiple times(especially if the previous one was closed).

I've never performed THAT art, especially in this thread!

I think that's about all that needs to be said.

I don't think it is, as normal users don't have that ability. Moderation staff, however, have been known to review a closed thread, clean it up a bit, and re-open it. Now, what you might be thinking about would be an extension of Section 2 Article 8 which deals with 'soap boxing'. While it is not explicitly mentioned, creating a clone of a previously closed thread may fall under this category. This thread, however, falls into neither category as it is calling into question a specific instance of moderator action. Last time I checked, inquiring into policy is allowed. We do, in fact, have a moderation policy(some of which has been made public upon changes). The mere fact that it changes is a sign that it is not immutable and as such is not beyond questioning. You can contact a moderator if you have any questions about the site and its policies, or you can post your question in the Suggestions, Comments, and Support section of the forums. For the thread in question, I chose to contact the acting moderator via our site's InternetRelayChat as well as contacting an administrator via PM. We do, in fact, have rules and etiquette by which posters are intended to abide(you agreed to them by joining). This thread, afiact, is just asking about the rules for moderators and for justification of a specific instance of action. While we do have the rules and etiquette for the general public, I feel that the moderation staff should be held to a higher standard. As a former Army officer, this idea should be of no surprise to you, mooeypoo. This is effectively the subject of my discussion with both you and the administrator. I feel that a certain moderation etiquette and perhaps a change to the moderation policy(given I don't have access to the policy in its entirety) are needed. I've always been trained with the 'praise in public, admonish in private' mindset when it comes to leadership, but that might not carry over from the military to forum moderatorship. I just think it may look poorly upon the site, when viewed from a newcomer, to see any thread closed immediately and/or with a harsh message. Sure, the poster in question may have a habit of behaviour that is against the rules, but new users won't know that(I wasn't even familiar with the poster in question in this case, and he had a history). In such cases, I think that deletion with the mod note(and perhaps a couple of infraction points) sent to the user would be the best option. There is a definite place for visible action; I'm not disputing that. It just needs to be done with more finesse, imo. We need public actions, but they need not be done so bluntly. The mod notes, in times when public action is needed, should be made with the audience in mind; it's not just the offender who reads the thread. When private action is needed, a more stern mod note is permissible. We need to take the audience into account. Please, don't take this personally, as this is just the latest instance. It has, in my opinion, been a trend of the staff as a whole to have public action which may be perceived questionably. As we say in the military, perception is reality. Your actions can be completely legitimate, but still seem to outsiders to be wrong. This is exactly right, but there are multiple ways to handle the situation. Some are better than others.

We do have a religion forum. IIRC, all you need to post there is 50 posts(which you now have) and a positive reputation(which everyone has). You can also get access via moderator action; just ask. With that said, I don't know if your question really has any meaning. What is a "GOD"? I can't know if something exists if I don't know what it is supposed to be.

Wait, what? You say it's false, but still believe in it. What are the other 5 impossible things you believe before breakfast?

I happen to have similar thoughts, but this post is probably better suited to the Suggestion forum rather than the Speculations forum. I did, however, choose to let my thoughts be known via PM rather than the forum itself. If you ever feel the need, you can contact a staff member.

So, can I try? I'd hate to be distrusted by you.

Just like mamma used to make.

See above.

nwrt

Bump. What's the status of the redesign?

Um, no.

That's exactly what it means. Concepts are not the objects they represent.

There is nothing to necessitate the 'greatest conceivable thing' to actually exist. You're moving from concept from object with no justification. A god who isn't a homophobe is greater than one that is, so the Ontological argument cannot apply to YHWH. Even within Christianity, the concept varies wildly.

Your version is a nice circle. I think you might want to find a better form to discuss. Does not follow. One can imagine things exist without them actually exist. I can conceive of Batman existing without him actually existing. That doesn't necessitate actual existence. As does the concept of 'god.'

[19:35] <Sylar> sudo make me a sandwich [19:38] <mooZzZZzz> password: [19:38] <Sylar> ****** [19:39] <mooZzZZzz> Access Denied. Prepare your own sandwich.

Who says the universe was born?