I have a question about the Trash Can subsection...

[Reaper]

What types of threads, exactly, qualify for going in there? How exactly does a thread end up going in there, and do you get infraction if it happens to be one of our own?

 

 

 

Not that I will try to create such a thread, but I'm just curious....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Threads that violate the Speculations Rules are dumped there.

[alanejackson]

I have not been back to this forum for a while, because the topics I posted were moved, and one was put in the trash, for no good reason! Ignorance and bias the only reason I can see.

 

And then I was told I was selling something, which was/is not true.

 

This is not good judgement on the part of mods, for sure, in my case.

 

My "Jesus and the bed" post was trashed, yet I get replies form those that study and little which are good;

 

<Before the word sleep became part of our vocabulary, the word dead was used, meaning not conscious. The word dead covered all the conditions for being found not conscious. People 2000 years ago, not yet having the word sleep, would have described what the carpenter Jesus was doing as raising the dead. With hindsight, through the study of history, we can now see and understand that Jesus was raising the sleeping, by giving them beds. The manger, praying before going to bed, and the spread of furniture with Christianity, all points to Jesus being responsible mass utilization of the bed....

 

Of course! He WAS a Carpenter!

 

I find that the purported etymology of the words discussed is very intriguing, to say the least. I'll always remember these "raising the dead" images, when I hear regular preaching, from now on.

 

This is the funniest thing I've read in a couple of days! Thanks ala!

~~~~~~~~~

 

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:08 pm

FFT

Moderator

 

"This is the best miracle apologetic I've ever seen."

 

I had to use the dictionary to try to figure out the meaning behind that sentence.

apolo[getic

adj. 5Fr apolog=tique < LL(Ec) apologeticus < Gr apologctikos, suitable for defense.

1 defending in writing or speech; vindicating

2 showing realization of and regret for a fault, wrong, etc.; making an apology.

n. a formal defense, often written, of a belief, cause, etc.

I take it to mean something like:

This is the best miracle defense I've ever seen.

This is the best miracle explanation I've ever seen.

~~~~~~

 

I post these topics that I'm studying to get feed back, and here, the post gets trashed and locked. The facts show mods here need to take more time looking into what they do.

 

Justice Hugo Black--

"Freedom to speak and write about public questions is as important to the life of government as is the heart of the human body. In fact, this privilege is the heart of our government! If that heart be weakened, the result is debilitation; if it be stilled, the result is death."

 

If a man can convince me that I do not think or act right, gladly will I change, for I search after truth. But he is harmed who abideth on still in his ignorance. - Marcus Aurelius

[ajb]

alanejackson, maybe this is not the place for a person to exercise the right of freedom of speech. This is a science forum that has rules about the nature and content of the posts. It is not a "free for all".

[alanejackson]

alanejackson, maybe this is not the place for a person to exercise the right of freedom of speech.

 

Maybe? The facts show it has not been, for me. Others? Should it be? Yes, surely! Without it, people keep thinking their right, when correction could have educated us all.

 

Without freedom of speech, all you have is people playing politics, making themselves look good, while keeping the turth from correcting them.

 

That is not "Science", and that's not real learning!

 

Job 21:14 Yet they say to God, Depart from us, For we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways.

 

PS. My new posts get added to the old ones, now. Boy, you people just have not got a clue. But you've got the power to block others, while you act like your right. Sick puppies, acting like they know science! Smart people not allowed to play too! Well, I was looking for education, not a political camp!

[insane_alien]

alanejackson, science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. if what you say has scientific merit, it will not be deleted.

[ajb]

Maybe? The facts show it has not been, for me. Others? Should it be? Yes, surely! Without it, people keep thinking their right, when correction could have educated us all.

 

Everyone is free to scientifically challenge any comments/remarks/calculations posted on here.

 

Without freedom of speech, all you have is people playing politics, making themselves look good, while keeping the turth from correcting them.

 

You have the freedom to post science based stuff, not just random thoughts or stuff just not suitable for this forum.

 

That is not "Science", and that's not real learning!

 

As above. Post question, answers, corrections, comments etc. But they should be relevant and meaningful.

 

Job 21:14 Yet they say to God, Depart from us, For we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways.

 

Leave your gods out of this.

[alanejackson]

Everyone is free to scientifically challenge any comments/remarks/calculations posted on here.

 

The facts show that is not true.

 

alanejackson, science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. if what you say has scientific merit, it will not be deleted.

 

Well, I can't get feed-back if the topic is locked. Without discussion, how can scientific merit be determined?

 

I put the topic where others with that interest would go, and someone moves them to the trash, or under non-science discussions.

 

Science is made to be only politics, when correction is blocked.

 

Science shows, not tells, others what to leave out. You don't seem to have learned that. And that's my point. Your way leads to us all being left ignorant.

 

 

Religion without science is blind,

Science without religion is lame.

-Albert Einstein

 

History without science is blind,

Science without History is lame.

-Alan E. Jackson

 

John 7:38 - He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

[swansont]

The facts show that is not true.

 

 

 

Well, I can't get feed-back if the topic is locked. Without discussion, how can scientific merit be determined?

 

I put the topic where others with that interest would go, and someone moves them to the trash, or under non-science discussions.

 

Science is made to be only politics, when correction is blocked.

 

Science shows, not tells, others what to leave out. You don't seem to have learned that. And that's my point. Your way leads to us all being left ignorant.

 

I have yet to see a post from you that has much scientific merit. You make claims, but they are not backed up by any corroborating evidence and in many cases are simply wrong. Scientific claims must include an avenue for falsifiability. There are loads of people with their own pet theories that "explain" a whole bunch, but they don't bother with testable predictions, and if you don't do that, there's no legitimate complaint about posts being moved out of the science forums. It's speculation and/or pseudoscience, and that's where it belongs. It does not have a place in discussions involving established science.

[Phi for All]

PS. My new posts get added to the old ones, now. Boy, you people just have not got a clue. But you've got the power to block others, while you act like your right. Sick puppies, acting like they know science! Smart people not allowed to play too! Well, I was looking for education, not a political camp!

This is done automatically by the vBulletin system with multiple, concurrent posts only. It saves database space due to less framing, it's more efficient and it looks cleaner. It also keeps people who try to boost their post counts honest.

 

It was not done to control and persecute alanejackson, no matter how much it appears just that way to you. But thanks for the rigor you used to ensure your paranoid conclusions were properly jumped to.

[alanejackson]

It was not done to control and persecute alanejackson, no matter how much it appears just that way to you. But thanks for the rigor you used to ensure your paranoid conclusions were properly jumped to.

 

Paranoid conclusion? My posts were not moved, and one locked? I was given an infraction of 7 for advertising. And told what I shared was Bull XXXX!

I 've posted/shared on other forums alot, first time to have my new posts, not look like their new. And I can tell politics at work. Anyone that studies can.

 

Psalms 119:150 They draw nigh that follow after mischief: they are far from thy law.

 

Psalms 120:3 What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?

 

You make claims, but they are not backed up by any corroborating evidence and in many cases are simply wrong. Scientific claims ......

 

Well, that's why I shared them. Did I miss where you backed up your claim of me being "simply" wrong?

 

I'm sorry if I missed it, where was it hidden/moved to?

 

Psalms 119:61 The bands of the wicked have robbed me: but I have not forgotten thy law.

[swansont]

Well, that's why I shared them. Did I miss where you backed up your claim of me being "simply" wrong?

 

Burden of proof is on the one making the original claim. You never gave any evidence you were correct.

 

But OK, I'll humor you. "If you were to research information concerning the pineal gland, you would find it described mainly as a gland of unknown function."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland

First hit, and has a lot of information.

[alanejackson]

Burden of proof is on the one making the original claim. You never gave any evidence you were correct.

 

But OK, I'll humor you. "If you were to research information concerning the pineal gland, you would find it described mainly as a gland of unknown function."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland

First hit, and has a lot of information.

 

It's humor, right, but how bout doing some science.

 

I've studied/researched it for more than 20 years! Many "books" say what I said. I have a new idea as to its function. And claim it's a matter of life and death for people.

 

One hit on wikipedia is not research, is it? I'm not talking about my spelling maybe being wrong. Althought it would help me.

 

I've tried to up-grade at wikipedia, some political writer from Washington, playing mod kept dumping my add ons. No kind-of review or anything.

 

Now you claimed I was simply wrong on many counts. I'm waiting.

From your reply, I take it I did not miss it earlier.

[swansont]

I'm not playing this game. I'm not your personal fact-checker. You have your treatise on magnetosynthesis/magnetrition, and it's up to you to back it up. It's quite possible your "contributions" to wikipedia get dumped for precisely this reason — unsubstantiated material.

[Reaper]

I guess it won't be long till this thread ends up in the trash can .

[swansont]

I guess it won't be long till this thread ends up in the trash can .

 

Or moved to the thread where such discussion can take place

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30304

 

This thread is about why posts get moved to the Trash Can, or Speculations. Specific subjects discussions are off-topic.

[alanejackson]

From: BAL-TORR (BALTORR)

Posted: 3/11/99 5:18 AM

 

"Ok, I read this thread (all that hadn't been arbitrarily deleted), and I thought to myself "This guy could be on to something, or he could be completely wrong, I need to hear more to be sure"...Boys and girls, that's called having an open mind. Some of you guys and gals cuffed and stuffed the man for no good reason except that what he was saayin was way out, according to your frame of reference. You know that is not right. Give things a chance. I'm not sayin the guy is right or wrong, but there is really no reason to jump on him with both feet without knowing all the facts. You wouldn't do it on the street, why on a message board? I don't know if his invention or his idea works, and I may never know. Depends on if I decide to research it or not. But I wouldn't want to go down in history as one of the first to trash Fulton, Edison, or Einstein without knowin what I was talking about. You guys know I have nothin but respect and friendship for some of you. On the other hand, I don't see how you stand by and let someone who has no qualifications, scientific or otherwise, delete messages in a string that deals with this kind of subject matter. How are we to develope an opinion or learn anythuing about a possible real breakthrough, if someone who has a closed mind and NO expertise in the sciences is allowed to delete parts of the discussion? Just another reason I don't chat in Copsonline anymore...But aside from that...you guys give new ideas a chance, maybe the guy is on to something, maybe he isn't. Neither is a reason to just shut the door. Nice to talk to y'all again..Bal-torr"

[Reaper]

Swansont, how many traits in a row must you see in one post before you win a game of crackpot bingo?

[swansont]

From: BAL-TORR (BALTORR)

Posted: 3/11/99 5:18 AM

 

"Ok, I read this thread (all that hadn't been arbitrarily deleted), and I thought to myself "This guy could be on to something, or he could be completely wrong, I need to hear more to be sure"...Boys and girls, that's called having an open mind. Some of you guys and gals cuffed and stuffed the man for no good reason except that what he was saayin was way out, according to your frame of reference. You know that is not right. Give things a chance. I'm not sayin the guy is right or wrong, but there is really no reason to jump on him with both feet without knowing all the facts. You wouldn't do it on the street, why on a message board? I don't know if his invention or his idea works, and I may never know. Depends on if I decide to research it or not. But I wouldn't want to go down in history as one of the first to trash Fulton, Edison, or Einstein without knowin what I was talking about. You guys know I have nothin but respect and friendship for some of you. On the other hand, I don't see how you stand by and let someone who has no qualifications, scientific or otherwise, delete messages in a string that deals with this kind of subject matter. How are we to develope an opinion or learn anythuing about a possible real breakthrough, if someone who has a closed mind and NO expertise in the sciences is allowed to delete parts of the discussion? Just another reason I don't chat in Copsonline anymore...But aside from that...you guys give new ideas a chance, maybe the guy is on to something, maybe he isn't. Neither is a reason to just shut the door. Nice to talk to y'all again..Bal-torr"

 

emphasis added

 

That's just it, though. We don't know all of the facts. Things are claimed, but not corroborated, and when corroboration is asked for, all we get is complaint about persecution. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "None" is, alas, quite ordinary.

 

That's what gets material moved to speculations.

 

And you know what? People don't generally get in my face on the street, spouting nonsense, and interrupting a discussion. And if they do, I'll damn well say, "Prove it!" to them if I want to.

 

The thing about people on the internet claiming to be the next Fulton, Edison or Einstein is they're invariably wrong.

[alanejackson]

I just checked your profile, "PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University ".

 

Is that true? Boy, what a joke! Do they sell them on line too?

 

You can tell educated people by their fruit!

 

The thing about people on the internet claiming to be the next Fulton, Edison or Einstein is they're invariably wrong.

 

"Now you claimed I was simply wrong on many counts. I'm waiting."

 

And that's the reason my post is in the trash, someone like you acting before they think.

 

Can you read and study? I've learned that people here make in hard by deleting and moving post, but you made a claim, that I think the facts I've shared show as false. But that does not seem to matter much at this forum.

 

If your right, I'll/we'll learn something. If I'm right, will you learn it?

 

Now, put-up or........ keep doing whatever.......

 

Justice Robert Jackson--"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

 

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

 

"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent, soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

 

Isaiah 66:14 And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the Lord shall be known toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies.

 

.......I'll damn well say, "Prove it!" to them if I want to.

 

And you tell them their wrong, without backing it up?

 

The rule in "Real Science" is that there is no such thing as proof, only disproof!

 

 

"MAGNETRITION"

 

Good news for some. Bad news for others.

 

It now is shown that all lab animal experiments were flawed because the animal's need to move about in the earth's magnetic field was not taken into account. Like NASA, and all medical diagnoses up to now, something they were not aware of was playing an important part, but went unnoticed for many different reasons. With the lab animal experiments, many researchers reported seeing what they and/or their supporters wanted to see. They essentially led many into embracing their personal beliefs, or prejudices against others, by the deception of allowing their assessment to be referred to as proof.

 

" READ THE BEST BOOKS FIRST, OR YOU MAY NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THEM AT ALL." -- Thoreau

 

 

Ezekiel 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

[ydoaPs]

Did you actually read the agreement when you signed up? Did it guarantee you freedom of speech? Just asking.

[Klaynos]

As neither and American or a Christian...

 

Freedom of speech is NOT the freedom to have whatever you want published, posting on these forums counts as the forums publishing what you want. You have no bill of rights on the internet SORRY!

 

You're religious quotes just make people think you're a bit crackers... Personally I just snigger, and ignore them, others will consider everything else you have to say pointless because of that.

 

I strongly suggest you research what modern science is and about the burden of proof before you go around insulting people and their qualifications. When it's quite clear from previous posts you've made that you really have very little clue...

[Phi for All]

I just checked your profile, "PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University ".

 

Is that true? Boy, what a joke! Do they sell them on line too?

 

You can tell educated people by their fruit!

Not subtle enough. You can tell educated people by their lack of fallacious logic. You, on the other hand, get an infraction for Flaming. I'd like to give you another one for the "fruit" comment, but as far as I can see it's just ironic. I guess educated people use their "fruit" for something besides making cake.

[ecoli]

I just checked your profile, "PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University ".

 

Is that true? Boy, what a joke! Do they sell them on line too?

 

You can tell educated people by their fruit!

OSU is a fairly prestigious institution, AFAIK.

 

Do you have, or are you working towards a degree? At what institution?

Registering and posting untested urban legends on various online forums doesn't make one a "real" scientist, I'm afraid.

 

While, initially, people like Einstein, Darwin, may not have been universally received right away, they did the math and the experiments, and have withstood the test of time. They survived the peer-review process. Has it occurred to you, that your ideas have been relegated to the scum at the bottom of the internal barrel, not because you're being persecuted, but because its all been debunked by people far more intelligent, and with a higher standard of scientific rigor than yourself?

 

Its far easier to claim matrydom akin to Galileo than it is to also have the work that makes your ideas as worthwhile as Galileo's were. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

 

 

 

"Now you claimed I was simply wrong on many counts. I'm waiting."

 

And that's the reason my post is in the trash, someone like you acting before they think.

Or, more accurately, someone like you posting them before actually reviewing the real data.

 

I wonder how many different science forums have banned you around the internet... do you think this is merely coincidence?

 

Isn't there a point where a universal rejection on your ideas is because they are simply just bad ideas? (and not persecution by scientists).

 

It's Ben Stein's false claim from "expelled" anyway. They just want their bad, faith-based ideas accepted as science, without doing any of the work. It's far easier to gain emotional appeal by claiming persecution than actually getting grants to conduct an experiment.... And that would probably require a position at a univeristy, which would require a degree from an accredited institution, which would require disciplined study.

 

 

Can you read and study? I've learned that people here make in hard by deleting and moving post, but you made a claim, that I think the facts I've shared show as false. But that does not seem to matter much at this forum.

can you read and study? If that's the case, go get a college education. Understand the basic tenants of scientific understanding. Work hard, and then, if you can apply these understandings to your ideas, then we can talk about it in a useful way... but not bloody well until.

 

Justice Robert Jackson--"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

That's all well and good, but this isn't the United States of Science forums. The constitution gives you a right to say whatever you want, but it doesn't give you the right to force everyone to listen to your unsubstantiated "science" (AKA bullshit).

In signing up for this forum, you gave us moderators and admins the right to censor what you say if it doesn't conform to our standards.

 

IF you don't like that, then find a different forum.

 

"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent, soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

You still have to provide proof that dissent is truth. We will only eliminate such dissent if you cannot support it with scientific rigor. You have failed to do this repeatedly.

 

Keep in mind, nobody is taking away your ability to believe and talk about your ideas. But, this forum is not a public space. It is privately owned, and you are allowed to communicate here at the owner's pleasure.

If you don't like that, find a different forum!

[swansont]

Swansont, how many traits in a row must you see in one post before you win a game of crackpot bingo?

 

Fill out a card. There's now a link at the bottom of the post, so you can generate one.

 

(It's my opinion that the center square should also be an "any fallacy" wildcard, in addition to the randomly generated attribute)