Forum conspiracy theory!

That all forums have government agents of science that stalk the prey to make sure they do not develop, agents that stalk their targets on every forum, agents that slip into the forums and play the you are wrong game.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hm... thought you were leaving... whatever happened to

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I had a tantrum, never said I was leaving, cya was just a cya at the time.

Ask yourself this Kittamaru, for what motive is there to call the person stupid most of the time, keep saying you have not learnt nothing(presumptions), mock my literature, and not realy discuss the topic at hand but trying to force a discipline on the person, especially when in psuedo science which is the equivalentt to random thinking and making things up from your perceived image of science, no danger to science yet the same individuals seemingly follow me and stalk me, the same individuals who are on other forums and do the same thing.
I see worse ideas than my own left open in main forum, this tells me it all, the behaviour of these people is not normal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you can not discredit the idea , discredit the individual by humiliation tactics.

I know their game, try to flame the individual, try to sway the mods, discredit the person and not the idea.

 

Mhm... riddle me this, theorist - what should be done when you have a person who is convinced that they alone are right and the rest of science is wrong, even though the simple facts state, quite plainly, that the person is wrong; what do you do when the person in question ignores all the evidence, hand-waves away all the facts and figures, and generally makes an intentional fool of him or her self in order to promote an idea?

 

That depends on forum section, I was in the Psuedo section, there is no harm to science from a Psuedo scientist, Psuedo is the individuals look at reality, offers no evidence and is no harm , meaningless banter and thoughts, discussion and looking at perceived differences.
I accept all the present information to be true, do you really think I am that stupid that I would accept any of my own ideas without real justifiable evidence?

Pseudoscience is the fun part of science, main sections are serious, you had a vote and everything to clarify all that, what section was what.

So why do they target me, what is their personal motive?

It is not normal behaviour, they come in two's and discredit me for something that does not even need discrediting, I smell conspiracy.

 

You see conspiracy, I see the defense of science... you have to remember, if we don't defend science (and knowledge in general), then things like schools not being allowed to teach evolution, or having AP History classes banned (because they supposedly paint America in a bad light).

Science is under attack by stupidity... and as a result, those who like science, social progress, and all things logical tend to get a bit... heated... when people ignore it in favor of pet theories.

Were you in the right section? Yes, in a way - however, when information is repeatedly given to you (such as the fact that white-light has no specific frequency) and you choose to ignore it, you fall out of "pseudoscience" and into "trolling".

 

So do you really believe that, or are you just trolling? That is more of a rhetorical question.

 

I was saying the same thing about light ,


such as the fact that white-light has zero
specific frequency.

I never said I did not accept the facts, I argued my own ideas against the accepted ideas. There is a difference in that, psuedo science does not need present information quoted back, the person knows the present information, accepts that to be true , but has an imaginary look at it from a different angle to see if they can see something of a use.

I am not a troll, trolls are out to hurt people, insult people and try to get people to flame, I posted in the correct section, perhaps a name change for the section would it make it perfectly clear to people the intent of the poster.

Change the name to ''imaginary science'' that would show clear intent of the poster(s) like myself, a proper free for all, all your so called ''trolls'' are then refined to one section.

 

I am not trolling, I just think it odd and how I sort of get followed about and people discredit me for things that do not even need a present information response, You know the definition of psuedo , I know you are all not stupid, so why such a defence in a psuedo section? why I am deeming myself a danger to science because of this very reason.
It is very odd when I know you are clever people.

 

Golly, that is odd!

 

That is what a troll is. Trolls take the counter position no matter how stupid or illogical and then just keep repeating the stupid/illogical idea trying to inflame reasonable people.

 

In a Psuedo section that does not need any science defended because the Psuedo science is just of the imagination and not deemed to predict anything, be evidentially true or justify anything. I suggest it is members that do not realise what Psuedo science is defending against something that is not an attack on science.
This was cleared up by this forum, when the mods defined the rules regarding section posting. Psuedo science is clearly stated what the definition is.

I can not be a troll in psuedo by very definition, it does not require the content to be scrutinised and present knowledge to be defended.


''discussion
dɪˈskʌʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.''

I was under the illusion that this was a discussion forum, in psuedo section we are not discussing present information, we are running ideas past science and the discussion suppose to be only focused on the ideas talking points.

A defence is not needed or warranted.

 

Again a comment aimed at personal insult rather than joining in the discussion.

 

My only conclusion by such actions of defensive nature is that science is worried people may believe my gibberish so feel the need to defend.

 

What you were saying was that "white light has a frequency of zero" - that is vastly different from "no specific frequency."

Perhaps this is the big issue here...? You need to be clear and concise - do not use large words where smaller ones will suffice, keep it simple, etc.

I will say that I am certainly afraid people will believe your gibberish...

We have a community with a large database of built-up knowledge and posts... if some poor kid comes here looking for answers, finds your posts first, and believes them to be fact, then goes to school and repeats that information, what do you imagine will happen?

 

I am sure that if a minor came onto this forum looking for an answer, they would be at an age where they knew the difference between Psuedo science and proper science.


I see what I said white light has a frequency of zero, is the same has saying white light has a zero or no specific frequency, because surely no something gives a zero value always?

 

I do not break the rules, I post in the correct section, there is no need to say I am wrong, there is no defence needed of present information in a Psuedo section, that is not what Psuedo is about.

In a Psuedo section the poster knows his ideas are wrong without you telling them , it is imagination and discussion.

The idea is so that none scientist can post their thoughts, and one day proper scientist's might just spot something that is true that the poster probably would not even understand.