A question from a new member

[Futilitist]

Ooops?

Just on my way out so I'll reply to the rest later, but I was involved in what?

Sorry, I guess you must be a different prometheus.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Ooops?

sorry, double post

sorry, double post

 

[rpenner]

... these science forums ... I was just banned for quibbling with the mods. ....

For example, Prometheus was the Judge in the mock trial of iNow.

Just on my way out so I'll reply to the rest later, but I was involved in what?

Sorry, I guess you must be a different prometheus.

http://thescienceforum.org/post9270.html#p9270 (iNow, Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:08 pm)
http://thescienceforum.org/post9442.html#p9442 (Ophiolite quoting Futilitist, Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:33 pm)
http://thescienceforum.org/post9426.html#p9426 (Futilitist, Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:10 am)
http://thescienceforum.org/post9463.html#p9463 (iNow, Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:54 am)
http://thescienceforum.org/topic807.html (Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:32 pm-Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:55 am) Two pages of reading would convince you Futilitist is a poor source of cogent arguments. The thread ended with Futilitist being banned.

(Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:47 pm)
If someone arrives to your home or private place of gathering and vomits on the carpet and shits on the walls, is it censorship to clean it up?

If someone arrives to a party and starts picking fights with attendees, and you as the host of that party give them clear feedback about their behavior and explain the potential consequences to them if they continue down their current path, is it bullying to escort them to the door when they refuse to comply or adjust their approach?

Also, as a reminder to Futilitist, you explicitly clicked, "I Agree to these Terms and Conditions" when you registered at and began posting to this site, and you implicitly reconfirm your acceptance of these conditions and terms each subsequent time you login.

(Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:32 pm)
You are all afraid of me. I am one post away from proving my case, beyond any doubt, with the evidence you tried to hide from the world. To any outside observer, you guys look very aware of your own guilt.

(Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:45 pm)
You weren't banned. You were suspended, and only after you continued to repost deleted content after requests/warnings not to.

It was made clear to you that continuing to repost deteted (trashed) content could result in suspension of your posting privileges. You chose to ignore that warning.

(Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:32 pm)
The original issue seems to stem around iNow saying he thinks you may have or neurological problem. After much digging, and instead of learning calculus i might add, it appears iNow's statement ... was an agreement with a statement by Ophiolite:

If, as I am coming to supsect, it is a consequence of a pesonality disorder then I hope you will take the opportunity in the near future to seek professional advice...

You may feel this constitutes bullying, but it is clear that this is part of a tit-for-tat exchange, in which you actively engaged. It is also not clear whether the intention was explicitly to harm, or a genuine expression of concern. Considering the tone of Ophiolite's long post i would guess the latter.
...
Editing posts to standardise fonts is common practice in forums i visit - it is also stipulated in the forum rules this does happen. I could understand if the actual content were being changed, but i understand this not to be the case.

The deleting of threads and suspension was perfectly reasonable in the context of [Futilitist's] spam attack.

(The last is, as explained above, probably not our prometheus. Our prometheus is master of all forms of calculus except, perhaps, functional.)

 

[Bells]

Sorry, I guess you must be a different prometheus.

---Futilitist

And perhaps you should not drag issues you have with other people on other sites to this site because some of their members may also post here.

 

[prometheus]

I'm not a member of the science forum, so this is a case of mistaken identity. I also have a much nicer avatar.

 

[Futilitist]

A formal complaint

I now wish to lodge a formal complaint! Is this the right place?

Oh good. Here we go.

I wish to lodge a complaint against Stoniphi for intentionally misquoting me in order to mislead others. This should be a clear violation of the Terms of Use agreement. He should be permanently BANNED !!! Here is a response that I was forced to make on loganonlove's Arguing thread:

While may of us here deeply appreciate the enthusiasm of youth, the great passion of the inexperienced and the naivete of the uneducated, like many/most web sites there are rules (also called "Terms Of Use") that you must agree to and follow if you wish to participate here.

I encourage all new members to review those rules if they wish to stay and play.

As for another "why":

Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.


The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.

If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.

....from his blog.



I am always a bit puzzled by someone who calls themselves an atheist....and then goes on at great length in extreme xtian terms dogmatically accepting the Christ myth as historic fact. :shrug: That seems so....contradictory.



Guess that sorta explains it somewhat....

Sorta is right! Ha ha ha! Nice try. Here is the way that quote above should have read:

Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.

The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.

If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others.

So the reason it sounds like two distinctly different speakers because it actually is!

My post sorta explains things a whole lot better. Reads kinda different when you get the quotes right, huh? All in all, a very amateur frame up. The space where the speaker designation goes is still evident! Stoniphi obviously believes that no one knows how to read. He is projecting. That's a psychology term.

By the way, why go to so much (little?) effort on my account? I've never even met you. Have I? Yeah, I'm feeling real welcome here!

Stoniphi, you, sir, need to read the Terms of Use! This is supposed to be a science forum. Seriously. I would like to register a formal complaint for intentional misquoting. Very sh!tty thing to do. If you were an actual scientist, you could loose all standing in the scientific community for this sort of fraud. You should at least apologize to me. Actually, you should be BANNED for life. You should never be taken seriously by anyone again. You will probably be promoted to moderator, instead! Shame on you, sir.

If you really want to know the truth, and I can tell you don't, go to my blog and read it for yourself. Here is a link: http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/10/picturing-ashvins-redemption.html.

If you really, really want to know the truth, I pity you. Go to:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php#c4 and check it out. But you have to sign up to see the really good stuff.

Here is the direct link to the juicy stuff after you sign in:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php?topic=910.0

I sure hope you have a strong stomach. Good luck.

I don't think this is a good place. You are witnessing a crime. Run Logan, run!

---Futilitist

To the Mods: You need to take this seriously. If not, this is a set up, and you know it. Do try and do the right thing here. I'm not holding my breath.

I tried to post this on the thread, but it is awaiting moderator approval. This is the first ethical test. The post is valid and should, by all rights, be approved. Should you decide not to approve my post, then you must at least remove Stoniphi's highly offensive and criminal post to me. That is only fair. That will be your second test. Pass these tests and we can go from there. Fail and I quit. Your choice, I don't give a sh!t. Hey, that kinda rhymes.

The ball is in your court. Tick tock.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

I'm not a member of the science forum, so this is a case of mistaken identity. I also have a much nicer avatar.

That is very good news to me. Will you look into my formal complaint please. I am being treated very unfairly. I invite you to check all the evidence out for yourself. If this is a real science forum, you will try to act ethically as a moderator. Please don't let me down. Sorry for the mixup on your screen name. Mea culpa.

I am now going to try to answer some of the other comments. Please don't hold anything against me.


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

And perhaps you should not drag issues you have with other people on other sites to this site because some of their members may also post here.

Dude, in the grand scheme, mine was a very small error. Oh, will I ever be forgiven. Give it a rest. Please note that this is my first comment addressing your rude remarks to me. I never did anything to you. Why are you so hostile to me? Have you perhaps heard of me before? Why are you so interested? Chill out, little baby-man.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

http://thescienceforum.org/post9270.html#p9270 (iNow, Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:08 pm)
http://thescienceforum.org/post9442.html#p9442 (Ophiolite quoting Futilitist, Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:33 pm)
http://thescienceforum.org/post9426.html#p9426 (Futilitist, Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:10 am)
http://thescienceforum.org/post9463.html#p9463 (iNow, Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:54 am)
http://thescienceforum.org/topic807.html (Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:32 pm-Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:55 am) Two pages of reading would convince you Futilitist is a poor source of cogent arguments. The thread ended with Futilitist being banned.




(The last is, as explained above, probably not our prometheus. Our prometheus is master of all forms of calculus except, perhaps, functional.)

OK. Let me get this straight. So, you are just some average member here that I have never had any interaction with before. Right? And you volunteered your own time to read through about 35 pages of very dense material. You formulated a negative opinion of me. You have now posted your concerns about me as a public service. Wow, that is all very commendable. Perhaps you can explain why you are so interested in little old me. This is very funny. Perhaps I was expected. Why do you think I am so feared?

---Futilitist

 

[Bells]

Futilist

Having waded through the horror of your links, even I had a difficult time determining who said what in what you are accusing Stophini of misquoting, simply because the formatting is so confusing and well, crap on your blog.

You are supposedly, and I use this term lightly, since it is becoming very obvious you are a sock of a banned member at present, a new member here. As a new member, it would behoove you to not stomp in here and falsely accuse a member of staff of doing something to you on another forum and then demanding that we ban a long term and very valuable member because he apparently misread the horrendous formatting on your blog site which does look like you are the person saying what he quoted.

So no, the ball is not in our court. There is no court. If you find it so appalling here that we do not bow down to your frankly ridiculous demands, then please, don't let the door hit you on the way out. His post was not criminal, nor was it offensive. It is not his fault if you cannot format your blog so that it does not have this on top of a post that is apparently belonging to someone else. Here is the quote in full and I have included the name that appears on top. And yes, from my end, that does look like you are the person who said it:

Quote from: Futilitist on September 14, 2012, 12:14:30 PM

Ashvin,

Even for an atheist like myself, the concept of redemption is a powerful one. But for a religious nut job like you, it just twists you up in knots. People like you never seem to be able to come to terms with their own guilt and complicity. I, too, find it tragic that I must be dragged kicking and screaming to my own crucifixion in RE's Smokehouse. But now you have to live with your part in that crime. I think it serves you right. And you call yourself a Christian! Shame on you.​

The concept of redemption cannot be a powerful one for the atheist, because there is no one worthy to redeem you (that you are aware of and accept). You can't be redeemed by yourself, some human guru, the Pope or the laws of nature. Redemption only has meaning in the context of a person who is uniquely situated to forgive you for your evil nature/deeds and atone for them, i.e. Jesus Christ.

If you are implying here that you were scapegoated in a manner similar to Jesus, you are wrong. Jesus never made a huge display of what was being done to Him, and, in fact, it was all a part of God's plan. He never once blamed other people or God for the fate that He had to suffer in the name of God's truth... which is exactly the opposite of the display you have shown on these threads - it was fantastic display of projection and external blame, and it had very little to do with reasoned analysis of the truth. When Jesus was scourged and ridiculed and berated, how did He respond? Compare that to how you responded to Karpatok and me and others. ​

I can assure you, Sir, that there is no crime here.

Dude, in the grand scheme, mine was a very small error. Oh, will I ever be forgiven. Give it a rest. Please note that this is my first comment addressing your rude remarks to me. I never did anything to you. Why are you so hostile to me? Have you perhaps heard of me before? Why are you so interested? Chill out, little baby-man.

I would also suggest that you do not insult people here.

I am giving you a public warning in this thread. Cease and desist.

You are new here and you have absolutely no right to demand we ban members and you have no right to drag your issues from other forums to this site and you certainly have no right to insult and abuse people here. If you fail to adhere to this site's rules, then yes, you will be moderated. Remember Futilist, posting here is a privilege, not a right. If you persist this fashion, you will face moderation. I hope I have made myself clear?

 

[Futilitist]

They had a upgrade. And spamming here got worse.

I like the new avatar.

---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Futilist

Having waded through the horror of your links, even I had a difficult time determining who said what in what you are accusing Stophini of misquoting, simply because the formatting is so confusing and well, crap on your blog.

You are supposedly, and I use this term lightly, since it is becoming very obvious you are a sock of a banned member at present, a new member here.

I am not a sock puppet. I am a new member. I was banned from another site. I have come to believe that all the science discussion forums on the web are actually owned and/or financed by corporations, and run as disinformation web sites. You seem *WAY* too jumpy to me. Out of all proportion. Methinks you protest too much. I do not believe you will treat me fairly or ethically. Why should I?

Just so I'm not totally confused here, the blue name means you are a mod, right? You have already made up your mind. I'm wasting my time.

Blaming me for Stoniphi's mistake is ridiculous, IMHO. If he is a member of your staff, you should fire him for incompetence if he did not do it on purpose, IMHO. He still should apologize, though, IMHO. That way, at least other members won't treat me unfairly due to his error, IMHO. I did nothing wrong, in actual fact.

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 am giving you a public warning in this thread. Cease and desist.

You are new here and you have absolutely no right to demand we ban members and you have no right to drag your issues from other forums to this site and you certainly have no right to insult and abuse people here. If you fail to adhere to this site's rules, then yes, you will be moderated. Remember Futilist, posting here is a privilege, not a right. If you persist this fashion, you will face moderation. I hope I have made myself clear?

Oh yes sir, sir. You have made yourself perfectly clear. I have no rights. I get it. Thank you. Please disregard everything I said about Stoniphi. I formally withdraw my formal complaint. I am sorry, and I promise never to do it again. Good night.

---Futilitist

 

[James R]

Hello Futilist,

I am not a sock puppet. I am a new member. I was banned from another site.

Hmm... that doesn't sound like a very good record. How many sites have you been banned from in total?

I have come to believe that all the science discussion forums on the web are actually owned and/or financed by corporations, and run as disinformation web sites.

Don't you think that's a bit paranoid-sounding? Could it possibly be that everybody isn't out to get you?

Just so I'm not totally confused here, the blue name means you are a mod, right? You have already made up your mind. I'm wasting my time.

It strikes me as a strange way to start your time at a new site - complaining about a long-term member after you've been here for about 5 minutes. I suggest you relax and post some content. Try to avoid antagonising people. See how that goes. Ok?

What I did at the science forum dot net was win the argument. They could never admit it. That is how we got here.

Is it your aim to "win" all arguments here, too?

 

[Futilitist]

Hello Futilist,

Hmm... that doesn't sound like a very good record. How many sites have you been banned from in total?

One supposedly permanent, but very recently lifted. One single day timeout. Not so bad really.

Don't you think that's a bit paranoid-sounding?

Yes.

Could it possibly be that everybody isn't out to get you?

I would certainly like to believe that. But I have thousands of pages of evidence in my database. Including these posts. 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.

It strikes me as a strange way to start your time at a new site - complaining about a long-term member after you've been here for about 5 minutes. I suggest you relax and post some content. Try to avoid antagonising people. See how that goes. Ok?

So much emphasis on socialization, so little on science. Interesting. You seem to see me as some sort of threat to your group.

People have a hard time telling the real world from the virtual one. That is why my experiments are so successful.

Is it your aim to "win" all arguments here, too?

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. Are you afraid?

And since I am generally right and nobody I talk to seems to mind being wrong...

---Futilitist

 

[James R]

Futilitist,

I would certainly like to believe that. But I have thousands of pages of evidence in my database. Including these posts.

I own the copyright on my posts. Be sure to ask me before you go reproducing them anywhere else, won't you?

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.

Interesting. How did you manage to get this "research" past the ethics committee of your university?

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.

Oh, I feel so manipulated. I fell for your clever ploy! Well done!

So much emphasis on socialization, so little on science. Interesting. You seem to see me as some sort of threat to your group.

Not at all. I was just conducting a little experiment of my own on you. You know how it is.

People have a hard time telling the real world from the virtual one. That is why my experiments are so successful.

Please post a link to your thesis if when it is completed. I'd love to take a look.

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. Are you afraid?

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?

 

[Bells]

I am not a sock puppet. I am a new member. I was banned from another site. I have come to believe that all the science discussion forums on the web are actually owned and/or financed by corporations, and run as disinformation web sites. You seem *WAY* too jumpy to me. Out of all proportion. Methinks you protest too much. I do not believe you will treat me fairly or ethically. Why should I?

This coming from the man who seems to believe that all are out to get him...

Futilist, you have spent more time on this site complaining about it than you have done actually participating in it. Does that not strike you as odd?

Just so I'm not totally confused here, the blue name means you are a mod, right? You have already made up your mind. I'm wasting my time.

I am indeed a moderator here.

And I can only make up my mind on what I see and all I have seen from you thus far is that you seem to be demanding we change and/or ban members. I have also seen you falsely accuse another member of staff and then disparage several of our respected and valuable members.

Blaming me for Stoniphi's mistake is ridiculous, IMHO. If he is a member of your staff, you should fire him for incompetence if he did not do it on purpose, IMHO. He still should apologize, though, IMHO. That way, at least other members won't treat me unfairly due to his error, IMHO. I did nothing wrong, in actual fact.

And neither did he. The post he quoted from your blog does look as if you are the person who said it. Demanding he be banned and accusing of having committed a crime is, frankly, ridiculous.

What I did at the science forum dot net was win the argument. They could never admit it. That is how we got here.

You do realise that the other forum you are speaking about has nothing to do with this site?

So why are you dragging the issues you appear to have had there, here? We do not care.

When you joined here, you joined, one would presume, to post here. Instead you have been combative, insulting, you have dragged your issues you have on other sites here and then you have criticised the format of this site, demanded others be banned... I could go on.

From what I read there, you did not win the argument. You won at the internet, certainly, but you certainly did not win the argument. There is a subtle difference.

Oh yes sir, sir. You have made yourself perfectly clear. I have no rights. I get it. Thank you. Please disregard everything I said about Stoniphi. I formally withdraw my formal complaint. I am sorry, and I promise never to do it again. Good night.

---Futilitist

No you do not have any rights to storm into this site and demand that we adhere to your wishes and disregard this site's rules in the process.

 

[R1D2]

I like the new avatar.

---Futilitist

thanks I am trying to be creative. Christmas like spirit and such.

I am not a sock puppet. I am a new member. I was banned from another site.

I will believe you that you are NOT a puppet...

Just so I'm not totally confused here, the blue name means you are a mod, right?

Apparently you have not seen this information...
http://www.sciforums.com/showgroups.php
We in green have over a 1000 posts and are considered as regular and valuable to sci...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Futilitist,

My first impression is that you are trying your hardest to be a paranoid victim and that is a very unusual impression to be left with. If it accurately reflects your dominant intentions and behaviors then you run the risk of becoming a persistent pain in the ass.

 

[rpenner]

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.

This is very funny.

Unclear antecedent. Maybe you don't know funny.

Perhaps I was expected.

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.

Are you afraid?

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.

 

[kx000]

Futillist, whats the statue?

Who's futile, you or I? Or do you step on the futile? Whats with the name?