Dear moderator, dear admin, dear all, Yesterday, if I wasn't dreaming, I found here a new poster, Silenus. (S)he wrote around 75 posts right on that day. No offence to other posters, but I found Silenus' posts are, in a unique way, such brilliant thoughts which stimulates my awareness, as if I was having an epiphany. However, I wake up this morning only to find that all his/her posts are gone (??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), and found his/her name in the banlist, because (s)he is apparently a sockpuppets of banned member (perhaps Satyr....???). I understand the rule of this forum, but I feel disappointed anyway... (s)he could be a sockpuppet of banned member, but yesterday (s)he behaved as a gentle(wo)man. In addition to that, why the posts are also deleted? Especially that I see the posts did not break any rules of this forum. All those brilliant thoughts are just gone.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or did I miss something? Whether (s)he finally come into war or something? Yesterday I have very limited time (and so is today, actually), as I have exam in coming few days. I just hope from your precious time... a short explanation. Would you.... Thank you and bye for now. [/exam mode ON *sigh*] p.s: please do not relate this to any "conflict" that currently going on in this forum. I am not against any mod or member. Just asking my curiousity right about Silenus. Perhaps the banning and/or deleting can be reconsidered. .
How could anyone possibly think that of you, inzomnia? In this respect you are 'least likely to'. Silenus was, of course, Satyr. In answer to your question, I have to say that I don't know how anyone could possibly justify banning a poster of Satyr's quality, except in the most extreme circumstances - which I don't believe have ever arisen. Actually I do. It's because some people think Sciforums operates best as a nanny-state, where members are 'protected' from unconventional, controversial views and the odd swearword. But, such is the stifling, repressive, depressing atmosphere here at the moment, that I hesitate to comment further. Some topics, it seems, are simply verboten. I'm pleased, though, to see someone as lovely and uncomplaining as yourself raise this important question.
I'm disappointed too. I joined this forum to extend myself in the intellectual arena and for my clunking cog brain it was a challenge just to decipher Silenus' questions half the time. I know Silenus( Satyr) could be devilishly belittling but I thought even his putdowns had charm and character and I like to think I'm a big boy and if he'd ever poured his scorn in my direction I would have been man enough to take it. From what little I've seen I don't think he should have been banned but here's the quandary, he knew the rules and was clearly highly intelligent yet was too stupid to hide his true identity for more than 5 or 6 posts( let alone, not get banned in the first place). I reckon sciforums is worse off for his absence.
Perhaps they "behaved" yesterday but they did something sometime ago in which they were warned of the consequences. If anyone is told to refrain from doing something on a forum run by a private individual then they should either adhere to what the rules are or just leave. What someone asks you to please be quiet do you keep on yelling? I'd think not unless you want to suffer the consequences. Why chance a banning when all you need do is just follow the rules set forth? If you can't then leave, it is just that simple. Remember this forum is not a democratic one and we really have no say as to what the rules are only the moderators and owner of this forum do.
Thank you for the church's opinion Bishop cosmic. But we are scientists and science has always shown itself as antithetical to authority. The truth can be quite inhuman.
Mmmm... this silenus was actually Satyr i do believe, judging the written work. Real shame he is banned. I wanted to talk with him one time...
Bishop Cosmic, We are animals. Lift up the skirts of the 20th century and what do you find? A mangled pussy. Satyr was passionately committed to showing us that pussy in all its gory detail and revealing ourselves in the process. They were queuing up to immolate themselves...they knew their pussies were fucked! Nature does not tolerate the humane.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I knew it was Satyr from his first post... I don't like seeing him banned. Right you are... right you are.
sorry a sense of proportion, a line in the sand, reasoned ethical posture on that basis, satyr is unfit. his defs do not coincide nor is it conducive to a society that seeks to endure i am not asserting that the banning utilized this as the criteria. it could have been due to entirely different, maybe even bogus reasons ja, administrative responses to issues that arise probably have ranged from the prophetic to the moronic ever since sci's inception, to the present day. no just my personal opinion you better be prepared to give something in order to take a greater, a lesser, or equal value a gesture anything! wanderer crip walked in here and sci does not suffer fools gladly now to those that find value in the wanderer's intellect lets discuss. preferably in another venue you boost. i detract keep this in mind i never lose Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
a sense of proportion, a line in the sand, reasoned ethical posture Real ethical problems arise; real conflicts arise; but they are comparatively rare, and they are not insoluble. It is often difficult to say with confidence what is the best solution, but it is seldom difficult to say what is the worse and what is the better solution. Humanity has, over the generations, worked out moral traditions, rules, principles, which have survived, and are daily reinforced anew, precisely because they do solve the great majority of our moral problems, precisely because it has been found that, by adhering to them, we best achieve justice, social cooperation, and the long-run maximization of happiness or minimization of misery. We do not have to solve our daily moral problems, or make our daily moral decisions, by a fresh and special calculus of the probable total consequences of each act or decision over an infinity of time. The traditional moral rules save us from this. Only where they conflict, or are patently inadequate or inapplicable, are we thrown back on the necessity of thinking out our problem afresh, without any "guiding principle" or "method of estimation." (Henry Hazlitt 1964 "The Foundations of Morality")
do you guys understand? sci aint interested in reinventing the wheel for every goddamn n00b that waltzs in here
