Oh, wait. Obscured-By Clouds. (Unusual first name. He was bullied a lot in primary school.)

Just to remind you what you said was (my emphasis)

Brain man wrote:The number of mods who were on power trips at RDF now eating humble pie in forums and meetups where they are shunned or considered badly is a testament to the factthat in science people remember these activities. Its not like business or other fields where you can just get away with this kind of thing, then move on into the crowd to your next project and its all forgotten. Science has a very long term memory.

The two major fallouts at RDF had nothing to do with science (other than RD wanting to get rid of the "frivolous" aspects of RDF)
One particular individual who is possibly "shunned" in some forums (but not at meetups) is not being shunned by scientists per se, he is shunned by ex-RDF members some of whom who may also be scientists.

I heard that the forum people were suppurated from the rest of the site.

We were all very excited.

Paul wrote:We were all very excited.

I was not.

Brain man wrote:not the whole name, but many used part of it.

No they didn't.
There was another who used his initials.
Try again.

Brain man wrote: The point is I would stll not bring up the identities of these people here.

No don't bother trying again. I think it's quite clear that you're clueless about people and events at RDF, and in any case they have no bearing on your allegations about this place and pseudoscience.

Paul wrote:Just to remind you what you said was (my emphasis)

Brain man wrote:The number of mods who were on power trips at RDF now eating humble pie in forums and meetups where they are shunned or considered badly is a testament to the factthat in science people remember these activities. Its not like business or other fields where you can just get away with this kind of thing, then move on into the crowd to your next project and its all forgotten. Science has a very long term memory.

The two major fallouts at RDF had nothing to do with science (other than RD wanting to get rid of the "frivolous" aspects of RDF)
One particular individual who is possibly "shunned" in some forums (but not at meetups) is not being shunned by scientists per se, he is shunned by ex-RDF members some of whom who may also be scientists.

Richard specifically said that the activity was irrellavent to the business of science and reason.

It is not reasonable to put fringe theory into pseudoscience. Richard himself rebuked and was disdainful of systems theorists in his younger years and now those people have made it back from fringe into the mainstream again. The system was already hard, but whats going on now is a disgrace and making a farce of the creative advancement of knowledge basically to profit from entertaining judge judy style rabble rousing.

NOTE: when i mean profit, that does not mean just financial profit, but any kind of gain, if it be pleasure gained from being able to ridicule something or the chance to form a goal directed group at the expense of another minority.

so the point is if we had lovelock or margulis, capra, sloan etc proposing ideas now, they would be binned here straight into pseudoscience, where the idea is to demarcate them so they cannot get back into the system.

Brain man,

someone just told me about this thread and I've only read from page 7 on, so apologies if I should get the wrong picture.

I read your last few posts here as follows, in your view:

-This thread (and possibly others) is in the wrong category
-It should not be in the wrong category and there seems to be a hidden agenda for it being in this category
-In fact, there seems to be an overall underlying agenda to push atheist ideas but not scientific ideas
-The owner of this site just saw an opportunity to generate money
-You will participate in attempts to bad-mouth this place on various sites

I think those are your main points, please correct me if I missed any or misrepresented them.
Once you did that I would like to address those from my point of view.

Nothing is not "binned" into pseudoscience. It's only a convenient label. It gets discussed whatever.
Would it make a difference if it went under the label "Fringe and pseudoscience"?

If someone's work deserves not to be treated as fringe or pseudo, it's up to them to do the bloody work to get it accepted in mainstream science. How or where it is discussed in RatSkep is NOT going to influence a peer-review board no matter what silly claims you make about google.

Pseudoscience or science is just a label. I know string people who would label loop quantum gravity pseudoscience and vice versa. Nothing to get too excited about. Who cares ? This is just the internet - a bit of fun

LIFE wrote:Brain man,

someone just told me about this thread and I've only read from page 7 on, so apologies if I should get the wrong picture.

I read your last few posts here as follows, in your view:

-This thread (and possibly others) is in the wrong category
-It should not be in the wrong category and there seems to be a hidden agenda for it being in this category
-In fact, there seems to be an overall underlying agenda to push atheist ideas but not scientific ideas
-The owner of this site just saw an opportunity to generate money
-You will participate in attempts to bad-mouth this place on various sites

I think those are your main points, please correct me if I missed any or misrepresented them.
Once you did that I would like to address those from my point of view.

I Didn’t expect this to occur here, but mostly these points are not correct.

-This thread (and possibly others) is in the wrong category

yes that is correct. Due to the high google rank for this site, you need a separate fringe category section and agreement with several moderators based on demarcation rules between fringe and pseudoscience with some kind of in depth statement on the thread for why that has occurred. Otherwise it comes across as an unconsidered tabloid review.

-It should not be in the wrong category and there seems to be a hidden agenda for it being in this category

I have no idea if there is an agenda or not. My experience and understanding is these things organize themselves for all kinds of reasons. Agendas kick in far later when enough people are interested in a particular self organized activity.

-The owner of this site just saw an opportunity to generate money

No idea at all on that one. Only the owner can say, or the opinions of a media expert has the tools to determine if this is true or if so, did it occur later. i.e. I was part of founding sports clubs founded from enthusiasm, which later became an economic concern when the activity grew. I still do not know. My opinion is It “looks” like it was founded from enthusiasm and an umbrella from the RDF fallout far as I can tell, but has gained value which the owner may or may not be aware off.

-In fact, there seems to be an overall underlying agenda to push atheist ideas but not scientific ideas

How would I measure that ? And again what is an agenda, self organized activity, consensually agreed intent, or some combination ?

All I can say is that i thought this was a science only site when I joined. Like a more wide scope topic form of physics forums. Later when I click on the active topics I can always find a lot of activity geared towards the atheist agenda. There is both going on at the same time. The point is these two aspects don’t work well together IRL science circles so there is no reason to expect that will happen here.

That theories are misclassified here in the manner they do shows what happen when science and politics mix.

-You will participate in attempts to bad-mouth this place on various sites

I don’t know what bad-mouth means in legal terms, but if you mean criticize and analyze the activity that would be correct but nowhere except one well designed site optimized to appear under this one in google. The idea is to take all the fringe theory out from the pseudoscience section, and re-appraises if they were classified correctly, with a method or not. Also laying out any attempts or appeals by their authors and what the result of that was. Opinion will be asked from the authors of those works on how they view all this. If they were to come here they will be barraged by ridicule and in joke discussions which do not address them directly. Depending on how this goes other sites will be looked at.

Also an introduction page summarizing what happened at RDF to give rise to these forums and how atheism and science have become mis-conflated for the worse set against example of higher level science activity where you rarely get this, and when it does trouble arises. However it can be done correctly. One prominent positive example where it was managed well was the "beyond belief" season on the science network.

Lastly, I have tried to attempt to discuss this matter here and it took 6 months to get a reply from moderator which was not a discussion but a thread cleanup.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... 21288.html

twistor59 wrote:Pseudoscience or science is just a label. I know string people who would label loop quantum gravity pseudoscience and vice versa. Nothing to get too excited about. Who cares ? This is just the internet - a bit of fun

racist terms are just labels. Labels are one of the most powerful forces people inflict on each other.

Brain man wrote:

LIFE wrote:Brain man,

someone just told me about this thread and I've only read from page 7 on, so apologies if I should get the wrong picture.

I read your last few posts here as follows, in your view:

-This thread (and possibly others) is in the wrong category
-It should not be in the wrong category and there seems to be a hidden agenda for it being in this category
-In fact, there seems to be an overall underlying agenda to push atheist ideas but not scientific ideas
-The owner of this site just saw an opportunity to generate money
-You will participate in attempts to bad-mouth this place on various sites

I think those are your main points, please correct me if I missed any or misrepresented them.
Once you did that I would like to address those from my point of view.

I Didn’t expect this to occur here, but mostly these points are not correct.

-This thread (and possibly others) is in the wrong category

yes that is correct. Due to the high google rank for this site, you need a separate fringe category section and agreement with several moderators based on demarcation rules between fringe and pseudoscience with some kind of in depth statement on the thread for why that has occurred. Otherwise it comes across as an unconsidered tabloid review.

-It should not be in the wrong category and there seems to be a hidden agenda for it being in this category

I have no idea if there is an agenda or not. My experience and understanding is these things organize themselves for all kinds of reasons. Agendas kick in far later when enough people are interested in a particular self organized activity.

-The owner of this site just saw an opportunity to generate money

No idea at all on that one. Only the owner can say, or the opinions of a media expert has the tools to determine if this is true or if so, did it occur later. i.e. I was part of founding sports clubs founded from enthusiasm, which later became an economic concern when the activity grew. I still do not know. My opinion is It “looks” like it was founded from enthusiasm and an umbrella from the RDF fallout far as I can tell, but has gained value which the owner may or may not be aware off.

-In fact, there seems to be an overall underlying agenda to push atheist ideas but not scientific ideas

How would I measure that ? And again what is an agenda, self organized activity, consensually agreed intent, or some combination ?

All I can say is that i thought this was a science only site when I joined. Like a more wide scope topic form of physics forums. Later when I click on the active topics I can always find a lot of activity geared towards the atheist agenda. There is both going on at the same time. The point is these two aspects don’t work well together IRL science circles so there is no reason to expect that will happen here.

That theories are misclassified here in the manner they do shows what happen when science and politics mix.

-You will participate in attempts to bad-mouth this place on various sites

I don’t know what bad-mouth means in legal terms, but if you mean criticize and analyze the activity that would be correct but nowhere except one well designed site optimized to appear under yours in google. The idea is to take all the fringe theory out from the pseudoscience section, and re-appraises if they were classified correctly, with a method or not. Also laying out any attempts or appeals by their authors and what the result of that was. Opinion will be asked from the authors of those works on how they view all this. If they were to come here they will be barraged by ridicule and in joke discussions which do not address them directly. Depending on how this goes other sites will be looked at.

Also an introduction page summarizing what happened at RDF to give rise to these forums and how atheism and science have become mis-conflated for the worse set against example of higher level science activity where you rarely get this, and when it does trouble arises. However it can be done correctly. One prominent positive example where it was managed well was the "beyond belief" season on the science network.

Lastly, I have tried to attempt to discuss this matter here and it took 6 months to get a reply from moderator which was not a discussion but a thread cleanup.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... 21288.html

So you don't actually know who the owner is.

Regina wrote:
So you don't actually know who the owner is.

not specifically. A name was given to me by an SEO expert but i would not put that online.

He does not know the name of the Great and Wise One ? Surely this cannot be true.....

Paul wrote:Nothing is not "binned" into pseudoscience. It's only a convenient label. It gets discussed whatever.
Would it make a difference if it went under the label "Fringe and pseudoscience"?

there is massive difference between fringe and pseudoscience.

look at the diagram and spot the difference, then read for more in depth insight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science

If someone's work deserves not to be treated as fringe or pseudo, it's up to them to do the bloody work to get it accepted in mainstream science. How or where it is discussed in RatSkep is NOT going to influence a peer-review board no matter what silly claims you make about google.

there are limits to what an individual can do at a particular point in time. Much of fringe science has problem which cannot be resolve at that point for all kinds of reasons. How do you know what effect some of these threads could do. Have you investigated it, or sought the opinion of those subject to them ?

twistor59 wrote:He does not know the name of the Great and Wise One ? Surely this cannot be true.....

I do but i am not breaching the FUA by putting personal names on here, considering the context.,

Brain man wrote:

twistor59 wrote:He does not know the name of the Great and Wise One ? Surely this cannot be true.....

I do but i am not breaching the FUA by putting personal names on here, considering the context.,

It is true that many fear to refer to him by his true name. It is said that JK Rowling drew inspiration from this for her "he who must not be named" theme. Those of us in the inner circle are told his true name, but have sworn never to divulge it to infidels.

All hail the Great One. Peace be upon Him.

twistor59 wrote:

Brain man wrote:

twistor59 wrote:He does not know the name of the Great and Wise One ? Surely this cannot be true.....

I do but i am not breaching the FUA by putting personal names on here, considering the context.,

It is true that many fear to refer to him by his true name. It is said that JK Rowling drew inspiration from this for her "he who must not be named" theme. Those of us in the inner circle are told his true name, but have sworn never to divulge it to infidels.

All hail the Great One. Peace be upon Him.

ARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH! But I have! Used his name, I mean. Am I doomed?