Ophiolite

Eric, it seems as if my post to you made sense to you. Did it? If so this conversation is at an end for me. My post, the piece in italics, was pure nonsense. It had no meaning other than an attempt to imply meaning where none existed. You seemed to 'understand' it. That should worry you.

Is there any scientific query in any of the posts in this thread? If there is, the query is not apparent. Eric, I suspect you don't realise how little sense your posts make to your readers. Here I have tried to recreate the feel of your posts: tell me if the following makes any sense to you and if you can see the scientific query in it? Walking through extended versions of a new shopping centre it occured to me that more should be done to understand the great jungles of the world. Green is still a misunderstood colour and much of what we make of it can lead to a reexamination - take for example the works of Thomas Hardy. You need to ask yourself this and go forward with strength. The strongman in the circus is a cliche, but bread and circuses is not and again you need to ask yourself. Will you do it? Is it worth the effort? Can you take the green and will it end in tragedy?

What do you mean by latency and by increased consistency in these contexts? And what does that even mean? You don't know what your own question was? Are you sure?

The content of your posts does not make this clear.

That is an interesting suggestion. I have given positive rep to posts, not because I felt they deserved it, but to counter negative rep that they certainly didn't merit.

I am stating very clearly that you have posted an entire post of mine from this thread without any acknowledgement that it was written by someone else. If you did that deliberately it was plagiarism. If you did it through sloppy work practices, which seems much more likely, then it was incompetence. You decide. I am referring to everything in your previous post (#69) from the words "Do you have a video of that please" until the end of the post. That is lifted directly from my post #60. My intention was to help you communicate more effectively with other members. My tactics were to take a more empathetic approach than that followed by other members. Your crudity and rudeness make this difficult. If you will pause for a moment and reflect on the lack of success you are having in getting your ideas across you may recognise that a change in your own tactics would be beneficial for you.

@Sreven Hawkins - next time you quote a chunk of my writing in one of your posts please have the courtesy to acknowledge the source.

That seems logical. I've never tried to vote again later, either positive or negative. Certianly you are barred from doing it immediately. My interpretation of some events a few months back may be faulty.

That's OK. I kept hitting the red one by mistake.

Yes. I do want to be clear that I don't want to know who cast either positive or negative votes, as it would tend to influence my own actions. I like the idea of negative votes being scaled against the number of postives given, but suspect it might be difficult to implement. It might also be good to bar more than one negative vote against the same post from the same person on succeeding days. I believe I was the victim of this on one occassion. And while we are on this subject I object to those 'wits' who have misdirections encouraging members to give them positive rep. This practice should be banned, especially when implemented by staff. You know who you are!!!!

If a new scientific research paper fails to lay out its findings in the abstract I am most likely to ignore it. Inability to summarise ones thesis in a few words is sign of a weak intellect and dubious argument. If this concept is as important as you believe it to be then someone had best get to work on presenting it properly. It's not a ruddy mystery story where we have to wait till the end to find out the butler did it. And as to the colour, I have yet to see a scientific paper, or a scholarly theological study delivered on a kindergarten dayglow background. Get some gravitas man.

Well, I just wasted a minute of my life looking at the first of the two links. Please explain to me where the first literal, testable and fully demonstable test of faith is. Tell me how insipid prose on a tourquoise background constitutes an approach that meets the criteria of science. That may sound hostile, for that is exactly what I presently feel. The opening post was intriguing and I was looking forward to a challenging, intellectual delight; a smogarsbord of science and religion; faith and fact. Instead I get a very large nothing and no incentive to waste time on the second link.

I am forced to disagree with you.

That's it exactly. If one gets rep for an active thread the same day, one usually notices it within that day. Once the post has scrolled of the current page, or at least far to the top it becomes practically invisible. Members who have perhaps entered the thread for the first time and are reading from the front may encounter an old post and give it rep. On another forum today, for example, I gave positive rep to a post over a month old. To Moontanman I vey much like the restriction on negative rep. It constrains one from acting in haste. Some users even abuse the current system.

I'll say it was me.

Naive self delusion is one category. Arrogant self delusion is another. Might it be locking time?

Fair enough. I've misinterpreted your position. When a member of staff posts in the Forum Announcements section the default position would be to understand they are speaking officially. I recognise that within the forum at large a "Mod Note" will be indicated, but such did not seem to be the case within the Announcements section, else the Captain's opening post would have been so designated. I'll keep it mind for the future.

Which is exactly how I would like to use them: to find the way of expressing what I shall express regardless in a manner that generates the most positive reaction that expression of that thought can generate. (Or that equally lets me know I have so disgruntled someone they feel need to give negative rep. If I know which post was frowned on I can reflect on it and see if I could/should have expressed the same thoughts differently.) And I have just explained in my prior post that this often fails to work. It is irrelevant if you think it should work - this member is telling you it doesn't work for me and I regret it doesn't work for me. If the system can not be adjusted to allow one to see which posts were repped, that's OK, but please don't try to persuade me that this is ideal. For me it isn't.

Hold on. If the object of the exercise is to encourage post quality, how can I know which posts have received positive or negative rep? It's one thing if the rep has been applied within say 24 hours, since one may well see the rep while moving through an active thread. But I've wasted time going back through four days of my posts trying to figure out what three people had found so endearing and finding nothing. I pay attention to what is that gets me positive rep and try to move my posts in that direction, but that won't work if I don't know which ones they are.

Your remark about the ignorance of bottlenecks is spot on and suggests that you have a superior grasp of the issues compared to some of the speciliasts in the field who allow their enthusiasm to overwhelm their scepticism circuits.

There is no evidence at all that the sun is hollow. There is a star sized amount of evidence that it is not hollow. No actual scientist would believe that it got its power from 'galactic currents', whatever they are, because there is no evidence that this is the case. There is evidence that the sun obtains its energy from nuclear fusion deep in its interior, just as other stars do. We have an excellent understanding of how this occurs and this has been validated by a mountain of evidence from observation of the sun, experiments in accellerators, examination of the spectral character of other stars, analysis of supernovae, studies of the chemistry of the planets and comets and meteorites, and so on. Who ever told you this is either having a joke, or is very gullible. Hope that helps.

I mean that your opening post is qualitatively poor in several ways. It lacks structure. The few facts it contains you get wrong. It is theologically weak - actually that is wrong - there is no meaningful theology in it. It is a cross between ranting and preaching. I could go on, but I think you get the point. To associate the nonsense you have written with religion is an offence to religion. That was what I meant. If you require further clarification please ask.

Come on Klaynos, not even religion deserves a post like that!

Aman, as you have stated in another forum you believe that the potential enrgy of a body depends upon how long it is supported within a gravity field, or how long it takes to be raised within such a field. For the record, would you care to confirm that on this forum?

Bio freck, the point Phi for All is making is that Darwinian evolution is achieved through the medium of heredity. I am also interested to know if you understand that.