Environment of a True Forum

[Divagating the Future]

The word forum is of Latin origin when one looks into Websters dictionary. While in high school I was taught about the Roman forum but it wasn't until I worked substituting school as one means of earning college tuition I really paid heed to its significance. In ancient Rome it was a public place; a place where causes were judicially tried and most importantly {to me} a place where orations were delivered. It was a place where there were discussions of public matters and interest. While preparing my lessons for next days lessons I could almost hear the loudness that must have existed. There must have been those who laid there claim to what they so claimed being true because it was established as being true. There were those shouting in opposition that the established truths were wrong; they claimed they had "proof" that their views were true. Then, there where those who disclaimed that either were definitely the truth; they proclaimed that the "truth" is that there just may be something else being actually the truth. Those brave individuals, I have the confidence, caused for there to be a loud outcry of opposition. Such were likely labeled soothsayers,heretics of truth,ignomouses and likely things inappropriate for this public article to make note upon.

Throughout the history of human curiosity, in search of what is true, it were THOSE individuals who made some of the greatest discoveries. Examples of such brave outspoken individuals include names and discoveries, now common knowings,litter history. Those as Copernicus and Galio with their contributions to astronomy,William Harvey and the idea of blood circulating, and Krebs with his ideas of the citric acid cycle were scorned,ridiculed and even ostracized among the established scientific elite. If not for R. Goddard the moon may still likely be nothing but made of cheese. [sic] To Goddard was written→" This is so an example of the ridiculous lengths to which vicious specialisation will take those of science." [sic] Bickerton a physicist. Humans would still be dealing with having to scrub out their cast iron frying pans if not for applications of the Nobel Prize winning Shechtman,whose discovery completely altered the basic understanding of the nature of matter. For those of ambition, I am sure they could extend this list to multitudes.

A forum should be one of converse not complicity. Not something in which each pats the back of those who agree with them. Yes, I have now the rather significant number of "unfavourables" attached to my profile. Some of which are due to computer malfunctions { double entries.} but mostly due to posts that are discordant to established contemporary views. Those I view with an honour. I want others to think,to contemplate.

Yes, I am aware neuropsychology is a new field and its findings are not "yet" accepted by the great majority of scientists today,even though there is as now considerably greater acceptance than there was when I first studied such. To put it bluntly, this is not a matter of rational rejection of poor experimentalization and insufficient data on part of the educated scientific community, but as so a prejudice. Almost all "real" scientists are simply not erudite as to what the principles of neuropsychology { call it parapsychology if you so wish}are,and prejudiced against looking at it.

This violates the true importance of what a forum is.

 

As now I am not one whose livelihood is pendant upon conducting scientific research. I work now as a hedge fund manager for a global investment/trading firm. However,yes, my areas of formal study- { Biology + Psychology },credentials-{ past experience acting as a psychiatrist for 2+ years},personal experiences,and teachings from my family, do lend me to have a special interest in this area as well as perhaps esoteric knowings.

I'm not sure where this old quote-saying has origin of, but its relevance still is pertinent..→"Today's fiction can well be tomorrow's fact. [sic]

Ushie ♀

[CaptainPanic]

Yes, I have now the rather significant number of "unfavourables" attached to my profile. Some of which are due to computer malfunctions { double entries.} but mostly due to posts that are discordant to established contemporary views. Those I view with an honour. I want others to think,to contemplate.

 

I'll save you all the time reading that long text.

 

(Summary of the text above):

After a huge intro, it's yet another complaint that "We, the Scientists" are united against those who try to make new discoveries that would overturn the established theories. We are all "patting each other on the back". And the REAL great names also had to fight the establishment, ergo, anyone fighting the establishment deserves kudos.

(end of summary)

 

Divagating the Future, Ushie, or Queen of Wands - a Forum is a place where people have a discussion, and listen to each other. You're a one-way speech, and you are proud that nobody agrees with your points. You're a monologue. That's not what a forum is meant to be like... There are millions of people that nobody agrees with. Only 1 might be the next Copernicus. All other 999,999 are simply wrong. If you do not even try to understand why you might be wrong, your scientific career is over before it even started.

 

It's completely acceptable if we discuss on this forum, and the conclusion is only that we agree to disagree. That's very common in science. The only way forward from there is experimentation. Not writing lengthy posts. Complaining doesn't help. And posts like this are not going to convince us that you're the next Copernicus. A working and tested theory (with experimental results) will convince us, nothing else.

[JohnStu]

Well, Internet has changed over the last 10 years. Plus, though this is called a Science Forum, it is still not a real life forum.

[md65536]

You're a one-way speech, and you are proud that nobody agrees with your points.

Am I nobody? I agree with some of her points.

 

There is a problem of people "patting each other on the back" in these forums.

I see idiotic posts by crackpots, and then a cold, often harsh but usually fair rebuking by experts (science's "trial by fire", into which humiliation sometimes gets mixed in and mistaken for something good). --- Okay, that's fine. Crackpots need at least a reality check.

 

I occasionally see idiotic posts by "experts" and staff, and no rebuking. I see idiotic posts voted up which I assume means they're considered "helpful". That's not fine. The "trial by fire" applies to all; it doesn't end once you've established yourself. I have not yet seen an expert admit to an error.

 

I see hateful posts by some staff, sometimes harshly "correcting" others' posts that were correct in the first place. And then, the hateful posts are voted up by someone! Who does this?! That's not fine! That's unacceptable and it defiles the forums and has brought me to the verge of leaving in protest.

 

It's got to the point where I can't always tell, by the content of or response to posts alone, the difference between a deluded crackpot and an expert.

 

 

 

It is only a case of "a few rotten apples." I've seen a lot of good conversations and examples of astounding genius, and learned a lot (especially from swansont and Dr. Rocket in particular), but I've also come to view the forums as "the infallible insiders versus the worthless outsiders", where one must prove themselves or be treated with disdain. Sometimes it seems like there is missing a sense of understanding that everyone is ignorant in some way, and anyone might be a genius or an expert on something, and that we're all just people, with flaws and with feelings.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Am I nobody? I agree with some of her points.

 

Though it seems a little strange to say, I don't think that's the point. She is herself saying that she is proud that peple are not agreeing with her or that they think she is wrong, etc. I'm sure somebody, somewhere agrees with something she says; you've at least proven that much. That being said, I don't think it invalidates what Captain Panic said.

 

 

I have not yet seen an expert admit to an error.

 

Which isn't to say it doesn't happen. I know I've admitted to it plenty of times myself and I frequently see posts by other res. experts that are prefaced with, 'I may be incorrect on this', or something to that nature.

 

 

I see hateful posts by some staff, sometimes harshly "correcting" others' posts that were correct in the first place. And then, the hateful posts are voted up by someone! Who does this?! That's not fine! That's unacceptable and it defiles the forums and has brought me to the verge of leaving in protest.

 

It's got to the point where I can't always tell, by the content of or response to posts alone, the difference between a deluded crackpot and an expert.

 

It is only a case of "a few rotten apples." I've seen a lot of good conversations and examples of astounding genius, and learned a lot (especially from swansont and Dr. Rocket in particular), but I've also come to view the forums as "the infallible insiders versus the worthless outsiders", where one must prove themselves or be treated with disdain. Sometimes it seems like there is missing a sense of understanding that everyone is ignorant in some way, and anyone might be a genius or an expert on something, and that we're all just people, with flaws and with feelings.

 

 

I agree with this to a point. I think that there are certainly some members here who use ridicule as a means of debate far to often and too readily. There are some members who I think perpetuate the arrogant scientist stereotype and this is, in my opinion, goes against what should be (and usually is) the nature of this forum. It is a real problem because it does and will continue push new and potential members away. Regardless of prior knowledge (and ignoring the case of crackpots), a person should be able to come here and engage in discussion and not walk away feeling like a complete idiot for asking a question. Most of the time that expectation is met, but there are always the few rotten apples, as you've noted, and it's those rotten apples that people tend to remember in favor of the good ones.

 

What I don't agree with is that your post seems to be implying this issue only applies to staff, which I find to be an extremely unfair assessment. I may be wrong in this interpretation, however, so feel free to correct me.

[md65536]

Which isn't to say it doesn't happen. I know I've admitted to it plenty of times myself and I frequently see posts by other res. experts that are prefaced with, 'I may be incorrect on this', or something to that nature.

I was about to erase that line from my post but now I have to instead take it back. Moments after writing it I discovered it was false. It was probably always false, but twisted in my mind.

 

I agree with this to a point. I think that there are certainly some members here who use ridicule as a means of debate far to often and too readily.

 

And then cargo-cult scientists like myself mimic the behavior and become the problem.

 

Ideally, established fire-hardened scientists should be treated with fire, and newcomers should be treated lightly. However, I realize that most crackpots are not going to benefit from being humored, and a harsh treatment is often necessary.

 

It must take great skill to know when harsh treatment is needed, and to respond to what is said instead of responding based on assumptions of the one who said it.

 

 

What I don't agree with is that your post seems to be implying this issue only applies to staff, which I find to be an extremely unfair assessment. I may be wrong in this interpretation, however, so feel free to correct me.

No, just particular cases that I don't want to mention.

My post involved venting, and was perhaps unfair and regrettable.

 

In general the staff and experts' posts are fair and above average quality. Sometimes there are posts that are let pass or upvoted, but would be torn to shreds if they came from someone with a negative reputation. And vice versa.

 

Edit: I guess I should say, bad posts are rarer among staff and experts. It's only the issue of "pats on the back all around" for all posts, good or bad, that seems to me to apply only to the established residents. It is a forum with an aristocracy.

Edited February 29, 2012 by md65536

[Klaynos]

Personal attacks from ALL members should be reported.

[CaptainPanic]

Am I nobody? I agree with some of her points.

If you take my comment literally, I was wrong. It would be quite weird if literally nobody would ever agree with her on anything.

It was a response to the OP, which seems to suggest there are only two sides: the experts vs. the (supposedly brilliant, but ignored and ridiculed) newbies.

 

There is a problem of people "patting each other on the back" in these forums.

I see idiotic posts by crackpots, and then a cold, often harsh but usually fair rebuking by experts (science's "trial by fire", into which humiliation sometimes gets mixed in and mistaken for something good). --- Okay, that's fine. Crackpots need at least a reality check.

 

I occasionally see idiotic posts by "experts" and staff, and no rebuking. I see idiotic posts voted up which I assume means they're considered "helpful". That's not fine. The "trial by fire" applies to all; it doesn't end once you've established yourself.

Actually, online forums are studied by scientists too. And I wouldn't be surprised if most of your comments are correct, and can even be quantified... but I am too lazy to look up any studies. Anyway, I don't think this forum is any exception. If anything, I think this place is one of the politest places on the internet. But since I am too lazy to look it up, I can't quantify that.

 

From a sociological point of view, it is perhaps even to be expected that people who meet on a forum every day will start to behave as a group. If you arrive here with only a few posts and no reputation, you do need to gain trust from the group. Of the top of my head, I cannot think of any social group where this is not the case. I would be interested to hear of any group where newcomers are immediately treated completely the same as any residents.

 

We have to find a balance between being scientists, and being online friends. There may be a few cases where this goes wrong, and hopefully those get corrected.

 

But the OP suggests that it goes wrong all the time, and I totally disagree with that.

 

[edited because my post was way too long. Deleted 5 paragraphs ]

Edited February 29, 2012 by CaptainPanic

[Tres Juicy]

The word forum is of Latin origin when one looks into Websters dictionary....

 

 

A) I see no evidence of your posts being unfairly "Negged"

 

B) There is a massive difference between being a visionary and just being wrong (evidence usually)

 

C) I have never seen anyone complain so much. You have posted under 4 different names, you have copy and pasted other peoples work into your posts and passed it off as your own, you make extraordinary claims without any evidence to back them up and when they are refuted you write a long post complaining and compare yourself to Galileo and copernicus - Really?

 

Yet, you still receive fair treatment from the staff and members alike (even when they disagree with you or when you are in breach of the rules)

 

What do you have to complain about?

[Spyman]

For those who doesn't know, Ushie has been banned:

 

Divagating the Future, aka Queen of Wands, aka First Cause, has been banned for continued plagiarism, soapboxing and trolling, despite being suspended for these things recently. We've rarely had so many posts reported by the membership.

From: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/

[CaptainPanic]

For those who doesn't know, Ushie has been banned

Then we need a new troll.

... Actually, what we need is a good troll.

 

We need a troll who understands the concept of brevity, spelling, grammar. And the troll should especially be good at hiding the fallacies. It's fun to read a post, and just know that there's something fishy about it, but not being able to figure it out. Why do modern trolls always have to write such huge posts, with terrible spelling/grammar? And why can't they at least make a decent point?

 

Trolling 101 says your argument should follow these guidelines:

 

- Introduction (opinionated)

- Method (fallacy)

- Results (fabricated data, cherry picking or exaggeration)

- Conclusion (ta-dah!)

 

Seriously, I remember that in the good old days, trolls were of much better standard than today.

*waves a cigar through the air*

 

[edited because it deserves a -1 to make a mistake in the sentence where you complain about spelling and grammar]

Edited February 29, 2012 by CaptainPanic

[Tres Juicy]

Then we need a new troll.

... Actually, what we need is a good troll.

 

We need a troll who understands the concept of brevity, spelling, grammar. And the troll should especially be good at hiding the fallacies. It's fun to read a post, and just know that there's something fishy about it, but not being able to figure it out. Why do modern trolls always have to write such huge posts, with terrible spelling/grammar? And why can't they at least make a decent point?

 

Trolling 101 says your argument should follow these guidelines:

 

- Introduction (opinionated)

- Method (fallacy)

- Results (fabricated data, cherry picking or exaggeration)

- Conclusion (ta-dah!)

 

Seriously, I remember that in the good old days, trolls were of much better standard than today.

*waves a cigar through the air*

 

[edited because it deserves a -1 to make a mistake in the sentence where you complain about spelling and grammar]

 

*Surreptitiously sets up new account*

 

 

[Phi for All]

I think CaptainPanic was very close earlier when he said:

 

You're a one-way speech, and you are proud that nobody agrees with your points.

Perhaps "few agree" would have been more accurate (except wow, +7, I think that's the rep record), but this is the essence of what goes wrong in these situations. We can tell when a person isn't interested in listening as well as speaking, giving us the respect that productive discussion demands. It's irritating and we don't respond well. And on a forum like this, soapboxing causes others to become too aggressive and hostile, and it becomes a cycle of bad behavior causing bad attitudes causing more bad behavior.

 

*Surreptitiously sets up new account*

Moins Juicy has been banned as a sockpuppet of another account. Il est bon de pratiquer mon français.

[Tres Juicy]

Moins Juicy has been banned as a sockpuppet of another account. Il est bon de pratiquer mon français.

 

J'allais à utiliser "Très drôle"

[md65536]

If you arrive here with only a few posts and no reputation, you do need to gain trust from the group.

I disagree. I feel that in the spirit of what Divagating the Future describes as a forum, any post would be judged by the content of the post, and not by the user name, user profile, or even opinions expressed in other unrelated posts. I can tell that some users judge like this, where even the "wrong poster" can write a correct post. For some, any post by the wrong poster is automatically wrong.

 

If this is more of a social group than a forum, then OP's point is valid. Many social groups are exclusive, and use excuses to justify the exclusion. It would be interesting if "science is a trial by fire" is being used as an excuse to be mean to outsiders.

 

I have come to view highly rated posts as meaning they're considered correct and helpful. If it's just an indicator of popularity in the group, I'll treat it as such. It is good that this is a place to socialize, and not just a formal academic forum. I will lower my expectations of precision, professionalism, and inclusiveness.

 

Edit: Err.. that is... I know it's an internet forum, and there are certain (lower?) expectations based on that, which I indulge in myself. But I also see the use of scientific principles, and the requirement that claims must be backed up with evidence, etc as things that elevate the forums above all that. I was hoping it was more of a modus operandi, rather than just an initiation test. Not "for outsiders, this is a thesis defense; for the "group", it's a club."

 

But the OP suggests that it goes wrong all the time, and I totally disagree with that.

I skimmed and cherry-picked, but I agree with you.

In OP's case, a few unpopular posts, uncommon and sometimes flawed use of English (easily misinterpreted), and others' assumption that one is "scum until proven worthy", seems to have made it the majority of her experience.

 

 

Edited February 29, 2012 by md65536

[Phi for All]

In OP's case, a few unpopular posts, uncommon and sometimes flawed use of English (easily misinterpreted), and others' assumption that one is "scum until proven worthy", seems to have made it the majority of her experience.

She'll probably never know it, or believe it if she found out, but these are all the reasons she wasn't banned earlier. The staff knows how hard it is for someone with real language trouble. But even attempts to explain misunderstandings met with rude accusations and threats of punitive action.

 

If there was any bias at all, honestly it was probably because of the combination of multiple accounts (which a LOT of people try to get away with) and the, as you put it, "sometimes flawed use of English" [emphasis mine], and the plagiarism. It really seemed like two people or more people were writing those posts, they were so different in style and ability. And who can reach an MD level of study and NOT KNOW that you can't copy the work of others without citation? By that point referencing should be second nature.

 

And I don't think any of the staff treats anyone as "scum until proven worthy". We're pretty careful about that, and have passed over some really knowledgeable people who definitely qualify as experts but lack the courtesy we need to keep people excited about what they can learn instead of depressed about everything they don't know.

[md65536]

If there was any bias at all, honestly it was probably because of the combination of multiple accounts (which a LOT of people try to get away with) and the, as you put it, "sometimes flawed use of English" [emphasis mine], and the plagiarism. It really seemed like two people or more people were writing those posts, they were so different in style and ability. And who can reach an MD level of study and NOT KNOW that you can't copy the work of others without citation? By that point referencing should be second nature.

 

And I don't think any of the staff treats anyone as "scum until proven worthy". We're pretty careful about that, and have passed over some really knowledgeable people who definitely qualify as experts but lack the courtesy we need to keep people excited about what they can learn instead of depressed about everything they don't know.

 

Don't forget the "uncommon and sometimes flawed use of English" [emphasis mine], which I think is important because sometimes it doesn't seem to be about whether or not someone is speaking properly, but whether or not "they speak like us".

 

My experience in this matter is that I've only seen some of the posts in question. I realize there are some posts that I wouldn't agree with and am not interested in, and I haven't bothered reading them. So all that I see is a few posts, that seem to me to be treated with harassment, disrespect, and unfairness. Now that I know that this treatment is due to other, unrelated posts that I haven't seen, that explains how such seemingly appalling replies are considered justified. I just have to realize that a reply to a post can be a reply to all the user's posts, which might be acceptable around here though it can lead to situations that are bothersome to me. (Even if it's not acceptable, I realize that I'm guilty of it too.)

 

 

 

 

"Scum" is probably a gross exaggeration. I think that more likely if someone starts off sounding unprofessional, they have to bend over backwards digging out of a hole that is the assumption that they're stupid or a troll etc. The assumption that someone's post is less intelligent than it actually is, also makes it easy to misinterpret.

 

I'm glad though that excitement is a goal of the staff. As a crackpot, I find depressing the sheer volume of knowledge I'd need to be more effective.

[hypervalent_iodine]

md, the other thing you have to realise is that a huge portion of what went on with Ushie happened through PM. I had her send legal threats, abuse, constant lies and all the while, she was crying bloody murder over situations that were completely misrepresented and misinterpreted. And this isn't the first place she's done this. Honestly, I don't think anything that happened was unfair. The fact that she lasted as long as she did was purely based on the fact that staff genuinely wanted her to become a contributing and productive member (myself included). Within a day of coming back she'd already broken the terms and conditions on 2 counts. There is a point where you have to say enough is enough.

 

The English barrier, to me, wasn't an issue until she starting trying to (badly) correct others on their spelling and gramma. I think what rubbed people the wrong way on the boards most of all was the superiority complex. Just my 2 cents.

[StringJunky]

 

The English barrier, to me, wasn't an issue until she starting trying to (badly) correct others on their spelling and gramma.

 

Skitt's Law get's everyone...I don't even think about attempting to correct people's grammar or punctuation, lest I fall victim.

 

Edited to correct punctuation...damn!

Edited February 29, 2012 by StringJunky

[hypervalent_iodine]

I wrote that on my phone, so the fact that there was only 1 mistake is actually a surprise.

[mississippichem]

If there was any bias at all, honestly it was probably because of the combination of multiple accounts (which a LOT of people try to get away with) and the, as you put it, "sometimes flawed use of English" [emphasis mine], and the plagiarism. It really seemed like two people or more people were writing those posts, they were so different in style and ability. And who can reach an MD level of study and NOT KNOW that you can't copy the work of others without citation? By that point referencing should be second nature.

 

Indeed. Queens of Wands/Div. the future...whatever the name was the day she was banned was definitely a case of a poster who had bad intentions. Nothing unfair occurred in my opinion. Like Hypervalent_Iodine said, it was by sheer grace that she was not banned earlier.

 

Multiple accounts of plagairism, and multiple accounts as well as a history of trolling the hell out of other forums lead me to believe that she was the kind of poster that would only bring poor quality threads here.

 

And I don't think any of the staff treats anyone as "scum until proven worthy". We're pretty careful about that, and have passed over some really knowledgeable people who definitely qualify as experts but lack the courtesy we need to keep people excited about what they can learn instead of depressed about everything they don't know.

 

I agree. Though it should be noted that ideas in the speculations forum begin with zero credibility. I assume posters post in good faith. In return the staff should confirm/deny their assertions in good faith which I think is done well here at this site.

 

It is only fair that an idea begin with zero credibility and gain or lose credibility according to its merit. As md says, it is unfortunate that people hold things against posters from other threads, but that is only human. You would have that to an even greater degree in a less moderated forum or to an even greater greater degree in a "real life" setting (think University department drama).

Edited February 29, 2012 by mississippichem

[md65536]

My apologies to Divagating the Future, for making her the subject of her own thread without a chance to respond. I hadn't realized that she was banned.

[CaptainPanic]

I disagree. I feel that in the spirit of what Divagating the Future describes as a forum, any post would be judged by the content of the post, and not by the user name, user profile, or even opinions expressed in other unrelated posts. I can tell that some users judge like this, where even the "wrong poster" can write a correct post. For some, any post by the wrong poster is automatically wrong.

 

If this is more of a social group than a forum, then OP's point is valid. Many social groups are exclusive, and use excuses to justify the exclusion. It would be interesting if "science is a trial by fire" is being used as an excuse to be mean to outsiders.

 

I have come to view highly rated posts as meaning they're considered correct and helpful. If it's just an indicator of popularity in the group, I'll treat it as such. It is good that this is a place to socialize, and not just a formal academic forum. I will lower my expectations of precision, professionalism, and inclusiveness.

 

Edit: Err.. that is... I know it's an internet forum, and there are certain (lower?) expectations based on that, which I indulge in myself. But I also see the use of scientific principles, and the requirement that claims must be backed up with evidence, etc as things that elevate the forums above all that. I was hoping it was more of a modus operandi, rather than just an initiation test. Not "for outsiders, this is a thesis defense; for the "group", it's a club."

 

Posts do get judged by the content, also from newcomers. But only scientific posts get the scientific treatment.

 

I think that this scientific thinking is rooted deeply in this forum, and there is little to complain about. But, when for whatever reason the science just totally fails in a discussion, this scientific thinking will be replaced by social rules. And very often, that will result in a situation which seems to be an argument between the frequent visitors (the "experts") against often just one person. But actually, it's an attempt by the frequent visitors (the "experts") to explain what is needed to get the scientific treatment (although I admit we can be even more polite in that - I think as a rule, this is a decent forum). The forum is open to anyone. But we have rules and etiquette. And those extend a little further than just the scientific method.

 

Note that the large, large majority of people who find themselves in a situation of "the Experts vs. the Newcomer" will have ignored the etiquette completely (probably never even read it), and often will have broken numerous rules too... and often started the discussion with a crackpot idea which has little or nothing to do with science, other than breaking some laws of physics. If you fail to live by the rules of ANY group, you get a warning. Multiple failures to live by the rules will get you kicked out of the group. Then it's the group against the outsider. Social rules are all that matter then, and the scientific method is irrelevant.

 

So, while there is a deliberate overlap between the scientific method and the forum rules, science does not provide any method to correct people that misbehave (other than asking to please reconsider something, which we ask before getting nasty). Social rules extend further, and they are sometimes necessary when dealing with humans.

 

Social interactions... It's nasty business, but sometimes it's the only option, even to a scientist...

 

p.s. These are my words, even though it may sound like I speak for the forum. I don't.

[Arete]

I'm relatively new here - it certainly hasn't felt like it's me vs the residents and I've had some fruitful discussions with the resident experts - particularly charonY as our fields of study appear to have some overlap.

 

It seems, at least to me, most of the new posters who have problems come in to the forum with an agenda and not to participate in a back and forth discussion which might actually result in some sort of meaningful discussion, and while I personally wouldn't consider an anonymous internet forum an appropriate venue to discuss ideas I was potentially thinking of exploring in future publications or even ideas I am currently working on in depth, I think this place is a good venue for honing my underdeveloped science communication skills

 

Indeed. Queens of Wands/Div. the future...whatever the name was the day she was banned was definitely a case of a poster who had bad intentions.

 

I'm not sure about everyone else here but it becomes apparent from posting style who's a professional scientist, educated layperson, student etc. When someone claims to be among other things - an expert psychologist and a successful investment analyst, you expect the poster to use certain language and posting style based on education, age, etc. and this poster just didn't add up. Even the overuse of caps in the sig line was a red flag regarding the likely generation of the poster and implied that they were younger than anyone other than Doogie Howser MD would need to be to have achieved their claimed accolades.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

As md65536 has pointed out, the thread has now become about someone who isn't here to defend herself anymore, so I'm going to close it. The topic can be raised again, without the personal references.