Moderators suppressing some discussion

[CharonY]

In that case I will condemn the actions of moderators out of principle. I know you stole my box of cheese nips and replaced it with painted cardboard.

[John]

Considering how long certain discussions have been allowed to continue on these forums, I think it's safe to say the moderators err on the side of tolerance more than suppression of strange ideas.

The thread in question, and the websites linked therein, don't provide much in the way of evidence. Indeed, the websites are so silly I'd almost think the entire thing is one big troll designed to see just how crazy an idea people are willing to believe. But in a world where Scientology is a thing, one can never be sure.

Also, while logical consistency is great (not that this applies to the Time Cube idea), it doesn't trump experimental evidence in describing the universe. I'm actually not sure the argument is a matter of evidence so much as a semantic dispute. If the thread is re-opened, then perhaps we can explore things a bit. However, it's understandable if the thread remains closed.

[imatfaal]

In that case I will condemn the actions of moderators out of principle. I know you stole my box of cheese nips and replaced it with painted cardboard.

 

and they tasted twice as good knowing they were stolen!

@John - I can see what you mean - however, we have had more than one thread on evidence (scientific, standard, concerning religion etc) and they tend to polarise rather than explain. It seems to me that too often if a speculator is not willing to step back and examine his or her post critically and as objectively as possible then no amount of discussion on the nature of scientific methodology is gonna help. But if we are to have that discussion - and I see no reason why not - it should be in a different forum and not based on a singular and controversial example.

[Bignose]

It seems to me that too often if a speculator is not willing to step back and examine his or her post critically and as objectively as possible then no amount of discussion on the nature of scientific methodology is gonna help.

This is very true, and the toughest pill for most of us to swallow. Speaking for myself, I am ever the optimist that maybe, just maybe, with just the right words, that we might just get them to step back and actually understand. My estimate for the success rate on this is probably 1-2%. Anything anyone has as a suggestion to increase that significantly would be greatly appreciated.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Bignose

[DevilSolution]

I think that moderators suppress discussion on some things because they are unorthodox, I think that this forum suppresses your right of free speech. I believe in Timecube and I understand it, and moderators here are inexperienced with Timecube--they don't know anything about it, they haven't gave it a chance, and they call it stupid, like children, blocking it off from the rest of us. We cannot discuss it and give it true reconciliation because the moderators suppress our right to, just because we might prove them false, on the offhand.

 

Some things may be hidden from you to keep you submissive...

-wisdom.

 

I dont feel like that, I've offered a fair amount of 'crack pot' threads and they've always been asnwered with no condescending mannerism.

[studiot]

I'm so sorry the moderators have failed so miserably on this occasion.

 

 

sheep, you do realise that the main reason for closing your last thread was not to protect others from your offerings, but to protect you from others.

 

By starting this current thread you have totally circumvented their aim.

And furthermore mods, I wish to complain as I was forced to reduce the number of emoticons to what you see now.

So they do not match the line length anywhere near so prettily.

Edited November 20, 2013 by studiot

[Ophiolite]

This is very true, and the toughest pill for most of us to swallow. Speaking for myself, I am ever the optimist that maybe, just maybe, with just the right words, that we might just get them to step back and actually understand. My estimate for the success rate on this is probably 1-2%. Anything anyone has as a suggestion to increase that significantly would be greatly appreciated.

I rather think that at least some here are rather missing the point of the main values of discussions such as the one on this Time cube (which I missed). It is not the possibility of convincing the ideas proposer they are wrong, it is the opportunity for lurkers to see crazy ideas examined, tested and dismantled in a reasonably scientific manner. That can be an important means of fulfilling any educational function the forum may have.

[Bignose]

I rather think that at least some here are rather missing the point of the main values of discussions such as the one on this Time cube (which I missed). It is not the possibility of convincing the ideas proposer they are wrong, it is the opportunity for lurkers to see crazy ideas examined, tested and dismantled in a reasonably scientific manner. That can be an important means of fulfilling any educational function the forum may have.

Yeah, I'm with you. It is a significant reason I still post as much as I do in Speculations... to try to give a different point of view and not just let OPs run unfettered.

[iNow]

I can't help but think of this when I see threads like these:

 

 

[swansont]

I rather think that at least some here are rather missing the point of the main values of discussions such as the one on this Time cube (which I missed). It is not the possibility of convincing the ideas proposer they are wrong, it is the opportunity for lurkers to see crazy ideas examined, tested and dismantled in a reasonably scientific manner. That can be an important means of fulfilling any educational function the forum may have.

For this to happen, though, there must be something to debunk. Not some nebulous, nonsensical ramblings that fall under the "not even wrong" umbrella.

[s1eep]

For this to happen, though, there must be something to debunk. Not some nebulous, nonsensical ramblings that fall under the "not even wrong" umbrella.

I don't think what you say should be taken seriously. It's nothing more than a perverse insult...

[Phi for All]

I don't think what you say should be taken seriously. It's nothing more than a perverse insult...

 

You can't insult an idea, and your idea was all he was talking about. Personal insults aren't allowed.

[s1eep]

 

You can't insult an idea, and your idea was all he was talking about. Personal insults aren't allowed.

The semantics were round about "ramblings of a mad man"--this is mere perversion of his character and nothing to do with his theory. It's a very childish and cowardly way to operate, I agree with the before poster who said that things deserve a proper dismissal. A simple, "He's insane" is not any reason to not dismiss it properly; as said, it's just an insult--one that he has not accepted, and justly, an act of perversity. He is clearly not diagnosed insane, he has an unorthodox theory that is a long shot away from any of Today's proclaimed credible theories, but it's still a theory, and, I'm sure, it's still science.

Edited November 20, 2013 by s1eep

[swansont]

The semantics were round about "ramblings of a mad man"

That's not a direct quote, though. You just made that part about "mad man" up. I said ramblings, which are the subject matter. I never made a comment about the person(s) behind the words.

 

--this is mere perversion of his character and nothing to do with his theory. It's a very childish and cowardly way to operate, I agree with the before poster who said that things deserve a proper dismissal. A simple, "He's insane" is not any reason to not dismiss it properly; as said, it's just an insult--one that he has not accepted, and justly, an act of perversity. He is clearly not diagnosed insane, he has an unorthodox theory that is a long shot away from any of Today's proclaimed credible theories, but it's still a theory, and, I'm sure, it's still science.

However, this claim of personal insult is a complete fabrication of yours; it required you to embellish what was actually said.

[ydoaPs]

And there's nothing in principle wrong with being a mad man. One of my favorite people is a mad man with an ancient brand new blue box.

[Phi for All]

The semantics were round about "ramblings of a mad man"

 

It's tough to warp the truth when everything is in print like this. You should NOT stick with this intellectually dishonest line of attack. Complaining about someone's integrity and then putting words in their mouth is a very hypocritical approach.

[Klaynos]

...it's still a theory, and, I'm sure, it's still science.

No. Theory has a very precise meaning in science what was presented was not, is not, and shall remain not a theory.

[Strange]

but it's still a theory, and, I'm sure, it's still science.

 

Let me see...

 

Explanatory power? No.

Quantitative predictions? No.

Predictions tested and confirmed? No.

 

Perhaps you could explain what you think the words "science" and "theory" mean, because you seem to be using them in a slightly non-standard way..

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

You were asked not to make this a Time Cube thread. This is now closed.