I Have A Beef With You All
Pages
| Author | Topic: I Have A Beef With You All |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 34
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 16:27
Profile
Homepage
I have a bone to pick with Spiderweb. We've all seen the figures and all of the statistics: post counts are down. The old Spiderweb Boards don't have the same edge they used to and the community has gotten, according to the general consensus, rather board (durka durka) with the seeming lack of inactivity. I thought it was a pity too when I saw the decreased post counts and everyone seeming to be dismayed by then, remembering all the good, active times we used to have. I attributed it to a simple phasing out of interest as people got increasingly involved in different gaming systems or reading books, eating healthy, and jogging, or whatever. And then I noticed the amount of persecution on the Boards. Good lord, we're a lot of prudes. Half the posts in General alone seem to have been edited, and usually just because someone made a typo. Loads of times, when there's a thoughtful discussion topic brought up (what's wrong with quantum mechanics?) people focus much less on listening and a whole lot more on criticizing. It looks pretty rediculous in the middle of an argument to see someone resort to criticizing the syntax or diction of another person's post when it really has no bearing on the actual meaning of what they're saying. We've gotten so pedantic. We're totally putting the 'anal' in 'analysis'. Why not hold an actual discussion, and not a flame war? It makes the accusers look petty, and discourages any sort of creative thought, which is exactly what we, theoretically, need. Look at Synergy, who got so banged up because of his views on physics that he edited his contributions out of the topic simply to avoid being embarrassed. The nice thing about stuff that hasn't been proven is that it has no right or wrong. Let's try to avoid nitpicking and saying that the theories you believe in quantum mechanics HAVE been proven. Take, for example, that buggersome Uncertainty Principle. I mean, hey, when you can't observe the direction and location of electrons at the same time, how can you prove either? We're gamers. The vast majority of gamers don't use perfect spelling and punctuation online. It has pretty low bearing on what they're like in real life. I will personally admit that seeing someone type 'lol' in a post makes my eyes bleed, but it's not as though people can't read it (which anyone but a stiff or a pretty unintelligent person usually can). Is writing like 99% of younger Internet users any reason to denounce their thoughts and opinions? It's like thinking someone's a bonehead for having a Southern accent. Look at courtney's last topic. If that had been written in good English by an established member, would it have been closed? (Fatman's is still open, and has the exact same subject; she even talked about how much she likes Jeff's games) Give everyone a chance. What are we so afraid of? That we'll look more foolish than we already do? I'm making a stream-of-consciousness argument here, but the long and short of it is that it makes us look really stupid, prudish, and unwelcoming when anyone without perfect writing conventions, who doesn't use ideal English, and who has a unique viewpoint has their topics locked and are themselves ultimately ignored. We want to attract an audience, and have a welcoming environment, not just to stir up activity on here and to support the Message Boards community, but to support Jeff's games as well. So let's get off our elitist high horses, n let ne1 who wantz 2 join n talk, ppl (it's not like it's not English; it sounds exactly the same when you pronounce it). How can anyone be surprised that board activity is down? EDIT: I remembered some more of the stuff I had wanted to say. Yeah, this looks ironic. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 16:42: Message edited by: Robinator is a Beefcake ] -------------------- Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. 'Spiderweb Software' anagrammmed: 'Word-bereft A**wipe' Posts: 702 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 8
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 16:32
Profile
quote:I knew there was a reason I loved you -------------------- "Names is for tombstones, baby." -Mr. Big Posts: 699 | Registered: Thursday, September 20 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 8
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 16:33
Profile
HOOO-AH -------------------- "Names is for tombstones, baby." -Mr. Big Posts: 699 | Registered: Thursday, September 20 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7538
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:  -------------------- Do not provoke the turtles. They do not like being provoked. -Lenar My website: Nemesis' Refuge Posts: 743 | Registered: Friday, September 29 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:03
Profile
Homepage
O mores! O tempora! The debate that we had in Synergy's topic was no more harsh than normal Spiderweb debates. That's not to say that I entirely approve of everything that was said there, but it's no different than usual. I do think it's weird that Synergy erased all his old posts — it seemed cowardly — but even that is hardly unprecedented. Generally, good spelling and grammar are respected here because they make a post easier to read. Yes, if we were all reading this stuff out loud, we'd be able to decipher chatspeak eventually, but it's much slower and harder to read than simple, reasonably spelled, reasonably punctuated English, and it's not exactly hard to show at least a good faith effort at writing so that other people can read it. I was a little unsure about locking courtney's topic, since it was hard to tell if it was in fact trolling or spam or something — I mean, don't these boards exist so that people can get excited about Spidweb games and talk about them? — but I'm sure the decision was made in good faith. In other news, did Robinator just refer to fatman as female? This is at least the second time that someone has done so, and I'm wondering if I missed something. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5754
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:08
Profile
Snergy was probably trying to put an end to the debate because it was getting out of hand. That's not cowardly, that's smart. Posts: 626 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:09
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm pretty sure he was referring to courtney. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2238
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:16
Profile
Homepage
quote:I can't agree with you here. For any seasoned internet resident, chatspeak is just about second nature. We can all read it fine. Pretending to be flustered by it is just as ridiculous as grammerists finding a simple substitution of their favorite character insulting. -------------------- DEMON PLAY, DEMON OUT! Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:19
Profile
Homepage
I don't really understand why Synergy decided to spectacularly end that argument, but I do think that if you're arguing you can be reasonably expected to know what you're talking about. No, we're not all expected to understand quantum mechanics, but if you want to make that part of you're argument then I think you invite that expectation. Spiderweb isn't really merciless on poor spelling. We have very little tolerance for people whose writing would be rendered significally more comprehensible by a quick run through a spell checker. I accept that. First of all, Spiderweb has been that way for years, through times of many posts and lean times. Secondly, it's still a politeness issue: if you don't care enough about everyone else here to type competently, we don't care enough to read it. [Edit: Maybe some of us are familiar with chatspeak. I'm not. Most of my internet communication is with Spiderweb, and Spiderweb doesn't do chat. When I see it, it takes me some time to process it. Besides, every community is entitled to its own rules of conduct, and Spiderweb's include semistandard English.] —Alorael, who doesn't think there's a post drought anymore. And filling the gaps with illegibility and stupidity is still not a good solution at all. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 17:21: Message edited by: Guilt by Dissociation ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:36
Profile
quote:Right, because if it had gotten too much worse there would have been violence. :rolleyes: quote:As per usual, you reactionary, posturing dim-wit, you entirely miss the point. (1) On 'ideal English': The fad of Internet-persecuting poor grammarians and spellers on SW was just that - a fad. As much as you're trying to strike some kind of bold pose here, you're not actually proscribing anything that hasn't fallen into disuse already. Maybe it would have suited you to be such a hardkör hipztr rebal back when you hung around with the high-strung tools that went on to found Polaris - they were the soi-disant grammar-nazis who went into foaming rages at spelling and grammar errors. Only no, that wouldn't have made you look good. Instead, you jump on whatever looks like the bandwagon to you. Way to go! You're respectable on the Internet. (2) On unique viewpoints: Every viewpoint is unique; some are more valid than others. Your conversation on this subject is a thinly-veiled diatribe against the members who debated Synergy; it's thinly veiled and insubstantial on Synergy's actual behavior because (a) you don't like his opponents in the discussion but (b) you have no compelling intellectual reason to defend his preening, risibly false babble, and you know it. I certainly like boiler-plate naturopath quantum/philosobabble being referred to as a 'unique viewpoint', which I think in context means 'Alec disagrees with it'. That obviously means either I'm somehow the Borg or you're a tiny, tiny man too rhetorically inept to disguise his ridiculous grudges. I like the former answer, myself: Seven of Nine was pretty hot. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 17:54: Message edited by: Helena Blavatsky ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:46
Profile
Homepage
quote:Check the latest statisics. I'm happy with the latest post counts. quote:Okay, what's wrong with fixing a typo? What's wrong with making our posts a little more aesthetically pleasing, and behaving like we give a... darn. quote:This 'criticizing' is merely another person inserting their opinion or belief. That's why it's called a public forum, not a lecture hall. quote:Do you even know what a flamewar is? I'd explain it, but Wikipedia pretty much sums it up with this article. quote:That's like saying 'all dogs have fleas' when you have the only flea covered dog in the neighborhood. quote:You're right. A lot of us are not in possession of perfect spelling, punctuation, or grammar. But I don't think it's asking that much to make your posts understandable, or at least intelligible. quote:No. But that doesn't mean you can't try to write like a human being, instead of some sort of illiterate cyborg. quote:Hold it! Courtney's topic was very different from Fatman's topic. Fatman was recently released from his ban, and was announcing his return. Courtney's topic was a jumbled nonsensical mess that had nothing to do with spelling or grammar. quote:Tullegolar has some very different viewpoints on things, and yet only a couple of his topics have been locked, none of which were for his opinions or philosophy. There have been several members that don't have the best grasp on english, and they are treated just fine by most people. So I honestly don't see how this is accurate. quote:The only person I currently see on a high horse around here is you. You're making a lot of false accusations that slander the members of the Spiderweb Forums for no good reason. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 17:55
Profile
Homepage
Gah, I'm willing to admit that I'm losing a bit of faith in the Spidweb community as well, but it's mostly to do with the fact that oldbies tend to waltz in and act like they know exactly how everything here should work. or shud i tip lyk thes & than itll be bettr? ya rly zomg111 And to be perfectly honest, I never even bothered to look at Synergy's thread, because I've learned that anytime Synergy has something to say outside of a clever one-liner, the flames are only minutes behind. I'm proud to have found the obligatory Hitler reference on page three as well. When a topic like that hits 70 posts in just under a day, it's a clear sign that people aren't trying to sit back and have a civil discourse, they're just waiting for Alec to post his next diatribe so everyone can echo it. I don't want to defend anybody here, and I doubt Synergy wants my defense. I'm just sick of it all. The spambots haven't helped my view on things, nor have the departures, bannings, and topic-deaths. I'd like to see somebody prove me wrong for once, and I'd also like to see a thread where I feel like I can present a point of view without being insulted. Then again, this probably isn't the time, and this definitely isn't the place. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 18:05
Profile
quote:So I am the Borg! Woo hoo! Also: since when, exactly, is Robin an 'oldbie'? He's like one of those variable stars that goes between intense radio activity and comparative silence regularly, except instead of radio waves it's piss and instead of a star it's a contemptuous reactionary man-child. And you're basically drinking it by the flagon and shouting 'huzzah!' with him as if it is ale and this is some kind of disconcertingly homoerotic Renfaire. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 18:05: Message edited by: Helena Blavatsky ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 18:08
Profile
courtney is not a person and so there is no obligation to account her the rights of one. Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 18:32
Profile
I did wipe my posts for the sole intention of bringing a ridiculous and unfortunate discourse to a screeching halt. And it worked pretty good, ya think? It's a debate I never intended or cared to create with a brief, casual statement I initially made, but I let myself get sucked in unwisely. I'm an optimist. I keep thinking something more meaningful and enjoyable will come of my efforts. To my credit, I decided to let it all go in less than 24 hours this time, so I enjoyed another opportunty to test and exercise my self-control and discretion. It's anyone's choice to assume or believe my motivation was cowardice in wiping my posts. I'd ask, when has anyone around here known me to back down from my convictions or apologize for my perspectives? I have at times apologized for my inability to remember all my details with razor-sharp concision and recollection, and to put things in terms that 20 year old science majors and debate-team jocks can stomach. When you are 20, in or fresh out of college, you know everything, and typically in very black and white terms. Youth are full of knowledge, but lack wisdom and perspective only years can bring. And that's okay. It's just the cycle we all go through in life. Conversation typically becomes much more measured and thoughtful another decade or two into life. There's a hella lotta left-brain, young, male energy here, and I see it in that sense as a place very out of balance with the world as a whole and life as a whole. By that, I mean it is a skewed environment and reality. It's a subset of a subset. It's fine for what it is. Internet dialog, debate, bluster, brain-flexing, and virtual prowess all add up to less than nothing in the real world. It all goes into a big black hole, but it feels like it's been something. The car's on the blocks and the wheels are spinning. It's a flight simulator, perhaps, but you never go anywhere driving it. Please feel free to note that this is an admonition and reminder to myself as much as—if not before—anyone else. -S- [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 18:35: Message edited by: -S- ] -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 18:36
Profile
Well, there's that and there's the fact you're a titanic fraud no morally different from a street pusher, but I suppose you're free to choose which is more important to you. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 18:39: Message edited by: Helena Blavatsky ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 18:43
Profile
And Alec, your choice is whether or not to continue being an angry and hateful man in the world. That stuff's gonna take years off your life, and whether you believe that or not will not change that unfortunate consequence. -S- -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, the topic getting locked ended that discussion. (Or apparently didn't, given this thread.) Don't give yourself airs. :P quote:If you were to say the same things about Jews or black people that you say about college-age people, you would be banned and reviled. The fact that the minority that you're speaking about is not traditionally a persecuted one doesn't make it any better to judge individuals by your prejudices about an entire group. I shouldn't have to explain that age has nothing to do with it, and personal expertise does have everything to do with it. I wouldn't refuse wisdom from a five-year-old, if I heard it, nor would I turn my nose up at street sense from a homeless person on the bus (and I have learned things from homeless people on the bus). Some people here have a hell of a lot more background in biology than you do, so if they correct you when you're wrong, don't look down your snout at them and call them too young to know anything. When your facts are off, a twelve-year-old with an encyclopedia can correct you and be right. People were taking issue with your opinions, yes, but only because your facts were just not right. I shouldn't have to explain that bigotry is wrong and age has nothing to do with it. I shouldn't have to, but apparently I do. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 19:11: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:06
Profile
Though it may appear that the majority faction of Spidweb, headed by the oldbies, is exceedingly close-minded, it is important to remember that if someone asks for a debate, he will undoubtedly receive one on these boards. We like to stretch our mental muscles here, and considering that this is our medium of argument, we have to be powerful with words. As a whole Spidweb is not becoming a brutally reactionary, captious, xenophobic, monolith monster. I would only blame some people for that trend, and I am particularly reminded of some sick, poor individual who epitomized these problems with a "Hakkaa Paalle" topic. Concerning grammar and spelling, many online forums that are not filled with gossiping brats prefer semi-standard English as the norm. We are not no different, and only ask for the most basic of good punctuation from native English speakers. We only ask for good English from those who can type it out with ease. As I remember it, Magma is not perfectly fluent in formal English, and so we do not mind his errors. EDIT: I just thought it ironic, demonstrative, and poignant to point out that I spent a minute thinking about whether I should have checked out the spelling of Hakkaa Paalle before posting. :rolleyes: [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 19:11: Message edited by: Garrison ] -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:16
Profile
Homepage
quote:I don't think this is an attempt to continue the discussion. Rather, I think this thread is more about Robinator making a juvenile attempt to play hero and vigilante, and also is a desperate bid for attention. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:17
Profile
Homepage
I don't know. The condescension in that medicine thread bothered me, but there was plenty to go around. Synergy, you either don't respect the posters who argued against you or the arguments they used. I think there was a little bit of both, and just because it was phrased politely doesn't make it imperceptible. Debate becomes a frustrating exercise when points are dismissed as "you'll know better when you're older." On the other hand, abuse of Synergy's philosophy for itself and not for its merits was rampant, and abuse of Synergy personally crept in too. Alec was the obvious offender, but he certainly wasn't alone. I don't have any pretty conclusion to draw, really. We were nasty, and we're still nasty over it. Without agreement on the rules of engagement, so to speak, these debates become messy, angry, and worthless. —Alorael, who thinks that it would be much more interesting face to face. When he wasn't being shouted down or skimming because of the volume of counter-arguments, Synergy actually had some good points and, more importantly, he may have been willing to listen to reason. Yes, that's conceited. Without limits on the volume of information regurgitated or the number of participants, however, it's not a fruitful exercise. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:21
Profile
quote:It's not an offense if it's appropriate. :P You know, Alorael, I really don't like Alec-bashing becoming some kind of popularity contest. In the thread itself you were perfectly happy with my 'offending'. Which means either I've become the extremist people set up as a straw man to set themselves up as moderate by comparison or you're just bowing to peer pressure. Both strike me as unattractive situations: the first because I make a pretty lame straw man and the second because you're better than that. quote:You missed your calling being a Wikipedia editor; you belong in stand-up. quote:See, one part of this defeats the other: he skimmed exactly because he was unwilling to listen to reason. There's a reason when my opponent has a legitimate interest in an intellectual discussion I try to run what they have to say point-by-point instead of by summary. It keeps me honest; I can't do like he did and just disregard some vital part of the argument outright. For instance, Synergy didn't acknowledge until the next-to-last post that he rejected 'allopathy' without any strictly reasonable basis, never acknowledged his error in the statement about ionizing energy (he stated he probably got his source wrong, but unless he got it fundamentally wrong he was operating under a crucial misunderstanding), and when he was outmaneuvered by people more committed to science than he (I only count among that honorable body because I am not a venomous serpent in human form) attempted to abuse his way out of the conversation: (a) complained about *i, kel, etc. demanding explicit definitions in vain; (b) tried to turn the argument into 'philosophy', which he believes means 'making things up at random'; (c) attempted to shame me out of the discussion from the word go; (d) turned it into a panegyric against higher education, claiming knowledge of experience (and never acknowledging the fact that people older than him strenuously disagree with him, but...) (e) finally, when cornered as an abusive charlatan, attempted to erase all trace of his shame to save face. If any of that sounds to you like someone who could be prevailed upon to listen to reason, Alo, I have a bridge you might be interested in. Things would have been better if we had been 'polite', right? Indeed: I was the only person in the debate who was anything less than obsequiously, falling-over-backwards courteous to him from the word go, and yet he was already to (b) by the time I even got involved. Personally, I think my contribution was the most constructive. I exposed his nonsense for what it was without varnishing that exposure with warrantless politesse, rejected his ridiculous efforts to set the tone of the debate as a Carrollian tea-party blather, and when he became truculent shamed him as the fraud he was. But, of course, it was abrasive, and it is so easy to discredit someone for being abrasive. So easy, in fact, you need no other evidence. (I have yet to see anyone, outside of Synergy, actually dispute the substance of my posts; they go after me for being mean, mean Alexander Kyras, because that is enough to make what I have to say worthless.) Sometimes you need silk, Alo, and sometimes you need sandpaper. That's just how life is. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 19:41: Message edited by: Helena Blavatsky ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:21
Profile
The reason Synergy got skewered about quantum mechanics is that there are several physicists that regularly post on the boards. After spending that much time having to learn it, we get a little upset seeing it mangled. A few months back I was upset about the erroneous information on carbon-14 dating as it applied to the Shroud of Turin. When wrong information is presented then we should make an effort to get it corrected as soon as posible so we can have an informed debate. Also since there are several college and post college posters here, we get hung up about terminology. Words have definite meanings and using vague generalizations makes it extremely hard to understand what is being presented. It's worse than bad spelling or grammer since you can't be sure about the post's point. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:43
Profile
Homepage
In my defense, what I knew about that experiment was based on the popular literature and my father's reading. From what I know, that single result raised far more questions that it answered, and people acted as though the case was completely closed. But I will admit not having spoken with experts first-hand, nor having read the scientific literature myself, so (in properly humble fashion) I will defer, saying that I simply do not know. It's usually good to admit that one doesn't know when one really doesn't know. It makes it more credible when one actually makes an assertion of knowledge. [ Thursday, December 14, 2006 19:44: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, December 14 2006 19:53
Profile
I will readily admit I am not a physicist or any other kind of scientist and do not deserve the esteem *i does in that discussion. However, the duties of *i's office, and the fact he is a far more polite person, prevented him from calling a spade a Goddamn spade in the Quantum Physics & Genetics (or whatever it was called) topic. Synergy holds beliefs, and practices those beliefs (apparently for a living, I might add, which is why I call him a fraud in specific instead of just a liar) in direct contravention of what he knows to be true. His efforts to convince us of those beliefs were disingenuous, and his continued efforts to debase our intelligence is an extension of that. Debate with him is pointless outside of his own shifting, inconsistent territory. It's like playing a game of Mao: amusing if you know what's going on, but pointless as an intellectual exercise. He can labor under whatever delusions he likes. I gave up on trying to convince him of anything, because by all appearances he already knows all the benefits medicine has to offer and simply denies them in public because he profits - figuratively and literally - from doing so. However, his efforts at conversion made me angry. I will not abide a man profiting from human misery, and ignorance is the worst kind of misery. So the posts from *i and myself serve separate, converging purposes. *i's posts informed in a way only he could - and mine served, or at least I hope, to prevent disinformation. When it comes to fighting intellectual fraud, science and abuse are two prongs of the same spear. I am not good for the science, but plenty good for the abuse. I humbly submit that, as a moral man, I had no other choice. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |