OK. Let me get this straight. So, you are just some average member here
I am a member here with a common level of privileges with respect to this site. I don't think many here would describe me as "average."
that I have never had any interaction with before. Right?
It is certainly true that I have no conscious memory of encountering this exact posting behavior under this exact pseudonym.
And you volunteered your own time
My time is my own. I thank you for realizing that my use of it was a public service.
to read through about 35 pages of very dense material.
Meh, I've seen denser. In fact, I wouldn't put those threads above a 10-th grade reading level by my estimation. It's hardly rocket science. By the way, I prefer to read rocket science.
You formulated a negative opinion of me.
Close! I formed
multiple opinions of you -- all negative. But they differed from each other in significant ways.
You have now posted your concerns about me as a public service. Wow, that is all very commendable.
Being "not average," I am a paragon of so many virtues that I would be hounded by the many admirers of my god-like talents -- if it weren't for those pesky tragic flaws.
Perhaps you can explain why you are so interested in little old me.
While forming my many opinions of you, none of them were that I was interested in you, the human being behind the pseudonym "Futilitist." I was, rather concerned for the feelings of
this site's prometheus, whose job (in my opinion) is rather onerous and doesn't deserve unwarranted attacks on his character and judgement. I also thought it would be unfair for him to either have to engage with you or have to research to find the source material behind the claim.
Unclear antecedent. Maybe you don't know funny.
Gosh. As someone who is merely "not average" this seems like a breathtaking claim to global fame and renown. I think only Dennis Markuse/David Mabus is actually expected on certain forums that he has not yet posted on before.
Why do you think I am so feared?
Cites claims which are not in evidence. And (see below) may be an attempt to manipulate.
--
What I did at the science forum dot net was win the argument. They could never admit it. That is how we got here.
I believe arguments are won with evidence and logical argument. You demonstrated that iNow warned you that your behavior was unwanted and your posts were idiosyncratically formatted in a manner inconsistent with the forum's desired posting style and that iNow took specific action to abort your flood of unwanted posts, which by definition is the role of the site moderator. I don't recall you arguing a thesis from these demonstrated claims, but
that site's Prometheus thought you demonstrated iNow was doing a good job in a reasonable manner and that you were indeed on a spamming run.
--
Of course. It is the aim of any good scientist to win his arguments. Scientists do not agree to disagree. That is why they actually know stuff.
It's the job of
lawyers to win arguments, because they are partisan and mercenary. It is the job of scientists to pursue the nature of reality and necessarily they use observation, logic and math, and a professional collegial tone in publication. This is why, where the experimental record supports it, there is just one science and not "Australian science," "Indonesian science," "Japanese science", etc.
--
The database consists of multiple experimental tests done at multiple different online discussion sites. I am a researcher. I am working on a PhD. in social theory. The experiments form the basis of my thesis which is about group dynamics and the scapegoat mechanism. It is a little hard for people to understand all of what is going on just by reading the threads. I am intentionally using subconscious cueing to elicit specific responses to test my theory. Each experiment is custom tailored to fit the particular gestalt of each site. Taboo subjects are raised and pressed past the point where violence would normally result in the real world. But online, these boundaries can be easily crossed without bloodshed, resulting a wealth of observable and repeatable data.
I don't think everyone is out to get me. I just wanted you to think that. But since this experiment is already over, it doesn't matter what you think.
Interesting. How did you manage to get this "research" past the ethics committee of your university?
I am not a lawyer, but intentional infliction of emotional distress would seem to be an event that gives rise to legal liability in some jurisdictions and negative publicity in all jurisdictions. To do this to unsuspecting, uncompensated, human non-volunteers would seem a paternalistic ethical breach of the same type (if not the same magnitude) as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. It seems that you forgot the first law of sociology: Groups of people are collections of humans (and you, also, are a human).
--
People have a hard time telling the real world from the virtual one. That is why my experiments are so successful.
Experiments are well-performed or not-well-performed -- theories are successful or not. And I believe it is you who is having a hard time distinguishing a real discussion forum of pseudonymous actual human beings from a computer simulation of interaction with human beings. The term "virtual" only properly applies to the second.
--
So much emphasis on socialization, so little on science. Interesting. You seem to see me as some sort of threat to your group.
Your use of "afraid" and "threat" seem to indicate you are trying to manipulate James R in the style of your previously disclosed "experiments" at other sites.
Of scientists? I don't think so. Then again, some of those white coats can make me a little nervous. And you know that picture of Einstein with his tongue out? I find that one a bit creepy. What do you think?
We do not heed their dismal sound, // For joy reigns everywhere around. (epigraph from Gilbert and Sullivan's
The Mikado)
Inserting crude terms to manipulate people winds up making your posting style less cohesive and leads to low estimation of your ability to process thought and compose English. You may never again attain James R default estimation of your good will and potential to contribute to this forum.