03 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI have been fighting against similar attitudes in the spirituality forum for years. People love to be black or white, all or nothing, when reality is often a mix, existing somewhere on the slider between two extremes. You (and others, some on the spirituality forum) believe that one must make their choice between science or religion. Another favorite source of contention seems to be Evolution vs. Creationism, and none the twain should meet. It seems these days that a lot of people believe that one should either believe in God and shut up about science, or one should embrace science totally and shut up about God. To make matters even more 'black and white' are a few who were once proponents of one or the other and then switch to the 'other side' and now they proselytize for their new side and declaim their old side as 'rubbish'.
I have noticed that absolutely nobody in this Site Ideas forum supports my proposal but virtually all the scientists in the science forum that have looked at my proposal, do -when it comes to deciding forum policy for the Science forum, which is SUPPOSED to be about SCIENCE and NOT GOD, that latter should count and the former shouldn't.
Surely the Science for ...[text shortened]... have some interest in SCIENCE and NOT for the trolls who have absolutely NO interest in science?
For me, back in college, I nearly completed my BS (yes, Bachelor of Science, thank you very much) in psychology. I have an immense respect for science as the mother of technology and I fully embrace both. I believe in the theory of evolution, understand the fossil record and archaeology was once an interest of mine. Science is necessary for living in today's world. But I am also a Christian. I go to church nearly every Sunday. While I do not consider myself a 'fundamentalist', some have called me that merely because I do take many portions of the Bible literally. My faith is unwavering, and I believe it is entirely possible that one day I may be killed or imprisoned for my faith but that does not deter me from my faith.
However, I do not consider science and religion as being at odds at all. Only the people who are interested in separating the two, and those they indoctrinate, believe that. I consider Science to be the 'how' of the universe, and Religion to be the 'why'. I believe that God created our universe and everything that lives in it, but I also believe He accomplished this through the Big Bang and Evolution. There is no need for acrimony between the two sides. One can study both without 'betraying' their chosen side.
And they can both exist in separate forums on this website without people constantly wishing to drive a wedge between them. Attitudes like "Post that over there" or "Don't post that here" pre-suppose that every topic under the sun fits only on one side or the other. There are scientists who believe in God and there are priests who believe in science. Between the two forums, I post mainly in Spirituality, but only because those folks seem the most in need of my opinions (that was a joke), but I have also posted in the science forum because I also have an interest in science and learning new things, I'm not a total stranger to that forum. Of course I think topics usually belong to one or the other, but to assume that people either believe one side or the other exclusively is baloney. And as soon as we start policing this and bringing in the stormtroopers to punish people is when we all lose the right of free speech.
I think the current system of there being a 'community standard' to post where a topic is most germane is reasonable. Ditto the idea of public shaming if posters continually post in the wrong areas, they should be made aware of the 'community standard'. I think the community can police themselves on this matter. Bringing in the 'iron boots' to solve this is not in anyone's best interests.
03 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by mwmillerI got the bigdogghouse RHP page but there wasn't any list of all the scripts that are available there but just a few example ones. But then I went back to http://bigdogghouse.com/RHP/ and, this time, unlike last time, when I clicked the BG script option, an 'install' box appeared so I licked it and, success! It is now installed 🙂
When you get to the bigdogghouse RHP page, there should be a list of all the scripts that are available.
When you click the title of the one you want, a new window should open and at the bottom is a box that says "install".
03 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneI agree with some of what you said there but, most of us who want to see and post in the science forum who have a genuine interest in science have NO interest in religious talk whatsoever and find our experience of the science forum totally spoilt by certain minority of theists (you excluded ) , who have NO interest in science, going in the Science forum and filling up the threads with religious posts which are hard to ignore. We scientists want to talk about SCIENCE in the science forum, NOT religion.
I have been fighting against similar attitudes in the spirituality forum for years. People love to be black or white, all or nothing, when reality is often a mix, existing somewhere on the slider between two extremes. You (and others, some on the spirituality forum) believe that one must make their choice between science or religion. Another favorite sou ...[text shortened]... s on this matter. Bringing in the 'iron boots' to solve this is not in anyone's best interests.
I have nothing against free speech (as you seem to imply ) so why cannot there be a separate “Religion versus Science” public forum or, alternatively, if you prefer, “Creationism versus Science” public forum so that anyone that wants to argue against religion or science can take that there but with the understanding that they are not allowed to put it in the Science forum? This would NOT be against freedom speech because they can still say whatever they like about that as long as they do it there and not in the Science forum.
I am not asking for any special treatment here for the Science forum; I get the impression that many religious people that use the Spirituality forum have their experience of their talks about spirituality spoiled by atheists filling up the threads there with anti-religious posts so I would ALSO be ALL FOR banning all anti-religious talk in the Spirituality forum and with the understanding that they are only allowed to put it into the Religion VS Science forum -so that is fair because then EVERYONE will be happy! (except the trolls which makes it doubly great! ) .
Anyway, I will try this BG script that I have just installed and at least give that a go but that would be a very inferior substitute to what I propose and only in part because I will still see any posts that respond to the trolling posts -extremely annoying.
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyActually - I think you will be surprised how fun it is to read the rebuttals without hearing the person they are rebutting. I know I was.
I agree with some of what you said there but, most of us who want to see and post in the science forum who have a genuine interest in science have NO interest in religious talk whatsoever and find our experience of the science forum totally spoilt by certain minority of theists (you excluded ) , who have NO interest in science, going in the Science forum and fi ...[text shortened]... part because I will still see any posts that respond to the trolling posts -extremely annoying.
05 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, I also find it fun to read the rebuttals 🙂
Actually - I think you will be surprised how fun it is to read the rebuttals without hearing the person they are rebutting. I know I was.
Still, seriously, I think RJHinds should be PERMANENTLY banned from the Science forum, not just temporarily banned whenever he occasionally becomes even more offensive and unpleasant than usual because he is ALWAYS SERIOUSLY and shamelessly extremely offensive!!!
He EXTREMELY OBVIOUSLY has NO interest in Science whatsoever and he just goes to the Science forum purely to bully and troll.
05 Nov 13
I think he has some notion that he's bringing the WORD to the benighted heathens, and so our rejection of everything he says reinforces that belief, so he persists. We're not doing this right. We have to figure out some way of convincing him that the benighted heathens are smarter than he is. It can't be that difficult, after all someone has managed to convince him that creationism isn't Looney Tunes ...
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by Kewpie
I think he has some notion that he's bringing the WORD to the benighted heathens, and so our rejection of everything he says reinforces that belief, so he persists. We're not doing this right. We have to figure out some way of convincing him that the benighted heathens are smarter than he is. It can't be that difficult, after all someone has managed to convince him that creationism isn't Looney Tunes ...
We have to figure out some way of convincing him that the benighted heathens are smarter than he is.
We have tried using reason; that failed. One of the many problems is that he is so delusional and arrogant that he even thinks he knows better about science than all the scientists in the science forum despite the obvious fact he doesn't because he has NO scientific credentials and has repeatedly demonstrate via his posts that he actually doesn't understand even some of the very basic principles of science. We have already PROVED to him via our debunks of his posts that he simply doesn't know what he is talking about and yet he STILL persists with his delusional belief that he is right about everything he says and arrogantly and delusionally and condescendingly makes out he is educating us! He is just too far gone. He even refers to himself as “the Instructor” which shows the extent of is delusional condescending arrogance. What else can we do? He is beyond cure of his insanity. If reason and evidence doesn't convince him that we are one hell of a lot smarter than him, what will?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyGood grief is this thread still going!We have to figure out some way of convincing him that the benighted heathens are smarter than he is.
We have tried using reason; that failed. One of the many problems is that he is so delusional and arrogant that he even thinks he knows better about science than all the scientists in the science forum despite the obvious fact he doesn't b ...[text shortened]... son and evidence doesn't convince him that we are one hell of a lot smarter than him, what will?
It's either ignore the troll (GB away script can help) or it's a moderation issue so send feedback and alert all his posts.
You say you've (all) tried ignoring him, but that's not the case really is it.
06 Nov 13
Originally posted by divegeesterperhaps the reason why this thread is still going has something to do with there being no effective alternatives of my proposal have been made here and, mean while, the perennial problem in the Science forum, remains?
Good grief is this thread still going!
It's either ignore the troll (GB away script can help) or it's a moderation issue so send feedback and alert all his posts.
You say you've (all) tried ignoring him, but that's not the case really is it.
07 Nov 13
5 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo offense meant -the script you have suggested and I have now installed is effective and is good (for me personally ) 🙂
Fine! See if I offer you any more scripts. ðŸ˜
I was not referring to effective alternatives for dealing with just my PERSONAL announce of trolling but rather effective alternatives to prevent the parental problem of trolling to ALL uses (so that means OTHER uses ) of the Science forum -the script IS effective for me personally but, the wider problem still remains. The proposals I made are mainly for OTHER uses, not me!
One suggestion that was made several times in the early days of this thread was to form a "private science club".
What was the problem with using that idea for a solution?
There are no restrictions on who can apply for membership.
The club administrator decides who becomes a member.
The club administrator can remove a member who becomes undesirable. << I think this is the case. >>
The club administrator moderates your 'members only' forum.
I don't see a down side here.
This same idea can be used by anyone who wants to have a more tightly controlled forum.
07 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by mwmiller
One suggestion that was made several times in the early days of this thread was to form a "private science club".
What was the problem with using that idea for a solution?
There are no restrictions on who can apply for membership.
The club administrator decides who becomes a member.
The club administrator can remove a member who becomes undesirable. ...[text shortened]... here.
This same idea can be used by anyone who wants to have a more tightly controlled forum.
What was the problem with using that idea for a solution?
I vaguely remember someone telling me that I have to pay for membership to this chess website before I am allowed to make my own private science club here -is that correct?
If so, I would have to know how much I would have to pay and possibly think about that depending on how much money we are talking about here baring in mind that I, as always, have little money to spare and am forced to spend money like a poor man. There are many other things I would also like to pay for -if only I could. Perhaps someone else who is currently already allowed may wish to make a private science forum?
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by humyYes, you do have to be a subscriber to create a club. You do not have to be a subscriber to join one, however.What was the problem with using that idea for a solution?
I vaguely remember someone telling me that I have to pay for membership to this chess website before I am allowed to make my own private science club here -is that correct?
If so, I would have to know how much I would have to pay and possibly think about that depending on how much ...[text shortened]... Perhaps someone else who is currently already allowed may wish to make a private science forum?
So just get someone else who is a subscriber to start the club. It doesn't have to be you.
Surely someone in your science group is a subscriber.
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by mwmillerI may look into it.
Yes, you do have to be a subscriber to create a club. You do not have to be a subscriber to join one, however.
So just get someone else who is a subscriber to start the club. It doesn't have to be you.
Surely someone in your science group is a subscriber.