Nicholas Reyes86 said:I posted that video in the appropriate thread, and once you removed my link, I stopped engaging. On that other thread , I was attacked and insulted by so-called "experts," likely just sophomore students at MIT who think they know everything. No one stepped in until I fought back. You all act as coordinated as politicians.
Your first sentence is false. You forget that posts remain in the thread for admins to see, including the one I deleted for you.😉 It concerns this thread:
starting from the 4th post, which I removed.
Regarding the other thread, starting from this post:
you were talking nonsense, and people recognized it. Even though you call them "likely sophomores at MIT" to try and discredit them, I am telling you that even a high school senior is enough to recognize your nonsense for what it is.🙂
Anyway, who are you to dispense justice in this thread too? I expect an intervention from the admins because it is clear that shadoworca3 resorted to crude ad hominem attacks based solely on his own prejudices. Are you just here to gloat?
You will get your justice if I see you again on PZ.😉
The penalty was fair; if it were up to me, I would have handed down an even harsher one. You burst into the Natural Science forum peddling those free energy cranks from YouTube—which is pure trolling—and when shadoworca3 warned you we wouldn't tolerate it, you tried to play it off. Calling everyone who disagrees with you "old-school trolls" and "attack dogs" is clearly just more trolling, which is exactly why you got a warning. And yet, you're still complaining?
Before that, you posted a YouTube video about orgone, which I deleted without issuing a strike. Then you targeted the moderation, leading to my first warning. Then you doubled down by acting foolishly to troll us again, prompting a second warning, both times without a formal strike. Now you're complaining? Next time I catch you pulling this nonsense in Natural Science, you’ll be hit with a permanent ban immediately.
What gives you the right to lecture us about intelligent design on PŽK when you can't even manage a discussion on the IRS? Why don't you just head over to one of the subforums where you're actually on topic and talk to people who genuinely care about it? 🤷
What do you think of this latest post, the Inquisition, the witch hunt... 😁
Look, you received your partial suspension on October 29, 2012, along with a three-day ban. It was a bit clumsy since you can't receive PMs while you're banned. This wasn't just about one single post following a warning; it was regarding your entire contribution to the site and your general modus operandi. You received several warnings—not just from shadoworca3, but from me as well—yet you ignored them all and simply kept doing what you were doing. The "Advanced Physics for Laymen" thread, specifically when looking at the posts from October 29, 2012, and your attempt to "debate" the Skeptic, becomes one of the most tedious reads on the whole site. It’s everything: trolling, dumping massive walls of incoherent text, and constant provocation and mockery without even knowing who or what you are targeting. Then, in this post, you pointed out the reason for all that rambling and nonsense:
Walter Brooks5 said:If it is impossible for me to kill my great-grandfather before he meets my great-grandmother, then it means time travel is impossible. Interestingly, time travel really is impossible, but for an entirely different reason; however, whatever that other reason may be, one must admit there is a very good reason for that reason to exist, right? Something feels purposeful here...
Which once again exposes you as a creationist troll, which isn't your first time. You already had a warning before, when I caught you using that "I don't want to say X, but X" rhetorical trap. This time, you got a red card for trolling. Even a red card didn't stop you; instead, there was a series of provocations aimed at wand and the Skeptic, who had to state twice that he was stepping away from the argument with you. That resulted in your three-day ban, and after you failed to provide any valid reason why you shouldn't also receive a partial suspension, that was issued as well.
So, I have a company registered under the name Deloitte at the Delaware Court of Chancery. The full legal name is quite long: Deloitte for computer services and trade, LLC. A few years later, someone else in a different city, let's say Chicago, registers a firm called Deloitte, with the full title being Deloitte for services and trade, LLC.
I'm trying to understand how this is even possible. It feels like they drain your soul when you submit a name proposal because they insist it can't even resemble an existing entity, let alone be identical. Does this constitute an intellectual property violation, or was it an oversight by the Federal District Court?
Look, I get it if we were talking about local spots—like if Joe Biden could run an In-N-Out Burger called "Joe" in Indianapolis, while someone else runs an In-N-Out Burger called "Joe" in San Francisco. But this is a major LLC operating across the entire United States, owning the domain google.com, and now someone somewhere in America opens a completely different LLC with the exact same name, Deloitte. What steps should I take now, and who is responsible for handling this complaint?🤷
If you have something to say, say it. 🤷 People here generally complain about the penalties they receive, yet the penalties given to others aren't their concern and shouldn't be. That being said, I must correct your inaccurate statement; Wand was issued a yellow card, which you could have noticed while watching the red card given to Cosmopolitan.
Your penalty was issued for trolling. And do you know one of the fundamental traits of a troll? Trolls want to see others punished. 😉 Oh, and they become quite bitter when their plans fail. 😳
Furthermore, from this post, it is evident you were aware of the policy we maintain at PZU regarding creationist trolls, yet knowing this, you engaged in creationist trolling at PZU. Nice to meet you. 🙂
Jeffrey Lee10 said:At the Mercury hospital in Chicago on Petrov Street, Dr. Lidija Erdelez is an extraordinary physician. She exceeds every possible standard—from her technical expertise to her pleasant communication style. I truly cannot find a single flaw in her work. I have twice as much experience as most, so my opinion carries weight. I didn't rely on connections or money to see her; I simply heard about the hospital on the radio while driving and decided to go. I have never experienced anything quite so wonderful in my life.
Brian Edwards78 said:That isn't an excuse. 🙂 We should strive for better.
I understand, but grammar and spelling aren't my top priority; they never seem to make the list. Please refresh the page, I edited the post. If you were referring to what was written above, I believe it should be all rather than every. I am not entirely certain, though. 🤷 In my own logic, it would be for all of us/you/them or simply for everyone, not even for all of us as I usually write it, so I am clearly mistaken somewhere. 😵
I can handle those things if I really put my mind to it, but in a normal conversation, I’m practically illiterate. I don't think there's much to be done about it; even when I try to speak or type properly, there's always a mess of grammar, typos, and other mistakes. That’s just how I am. 🤷
Is this what you mean:
Zachary Mendoza2 said:there are other chats that are public for everyone.
That's the accusative case—referring to whom or what the chats are for; for all the frogs, people, robots in this world, for all of us, for me, for you, for them, for everyone. I have no idea if it should be everyone or all; it seems to depend on whether we are talking about people or things, or living vs. non-living. Only an expert would know; I'm not sure 😳
I would argue that allowing authors to moderate their own threads is generally a bad idea. However, this reminded me of a concept I proposed once: creating a specific sub-forum where users could start their own topics and act as their own moderators. This idea came to me after seeing "welcome PDFs" on other forums, where someone starts a thread to introduce themselves, others welcome them, and eventually, it evolves into a dedicated chat group. Another reason this occurred to me is that there is a gap between our two current paradigms: we have topical discussions where chatting is prohibited, and then we have public chats open to everyone. What is missing are "private" or small-group chats—spaces where a specific group can hang out without the risk of getting a warning for off-topic posting, or feeling forced to interact with crowds they don't necessarily click with in the public channels. At the moment, there isn't as much demand for these small group chats as there was when I first thought of this. A few groups have formed spontaneously in different sections and migrated to the general lounge areas, but I still believe having such a dedicated corner on the forum would be a solid idea. That is what I remembered. As for the suggestion to allow authors to moderate their own threads everywhere, I vote against it.
briskjackal5 said:The fact that about 99% of people out here have absolutely no clue what’s actually going on doesn't really change a thing when it comes to the gold prices you'll see at the shop.
-Steve
That is correct, though I would argue it directly impacts purchasing power. Supply is extremely limited right now, making it possible to buy as much as one wants given how few buyers there are. As demand rises here in the States, supply issues will inevitably arise regardless of current pricing.
The purpose of prison isn't about punishing someone just because we hate them or because they're different. It's about protecting future victims. Some people will refrain from committing crimes simply out of fear of the law, which protects others. The world is objectively better because prisons exist. They are also considered "humane," though that's a bit of a stretch. Honestly, the world would be even better if we just eliminated such criminals instead of feeding and housing them, only to release them after a set period. Many just go right back to their criminal ways. In fact, for many, prison acts as a school for crime—a place to learn how to commit offenses and evade justice, while building connections within organized crime networks.
As for the philosophical debate over whether they are guilty by nature, guilty by choice, or merely products of a broken society—leave that to the philosophers to babble about over drinks. As far as I'm concerned, providing protection to innocent victims is far more important. If the perpetrator suffers a little in the process, so be it. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Besides, who cares. It is only natural to be responsible for your actions and face the consequences, just as it is natural to experience things in life that you didn't deserve. That's just how it works. 🤷
Generally speaking, I find more fulfillment in environments built on cooperation and mutual sharing rather than those defined by competition and conflict. 🙂 However, I occasionally enjoy playing Monopoly, too. It’s a bit selfish, I know, but nothing brings me more satisfaction than wiping everyone out and cramming all four players into my little house while they fume about it. 😳
Anthony Garcia19 said:I’m talking about our core values—the natural ones. What comes first: a) power over others and owning stuff, or b) cooperation, helping out, freedom, and being creative? Do we want todominate and control or share and work together?
But how can one do that when 🤷 If I am surrounded by good people who share with me, I want to be that same way toward them. But if they seek to enslave me just to enrich themselves, then I want to do the same to them 😳
Anthony Garcia19 said:You didn't quite hit the mark there. Specifically, why is one community one way and another community something else (one good, one bad)? Based on your last point, it sounds like both you and Karen Rodriguez3 believe people aren't all built the same.
I have been trying to avoid answering whether we are all truly equal. 😁 I am not sure what you mean by that. We are equal in terms of our basic needs: food, shelter, self-actualization, and so on. We are also equal because we belong to the same species, with two arms and two legs, faces, etc. Otherwise, I would say we are quite different. 🤷 In fact, I can distinguish people at first glance by their appearance, the sound of their voice, or how they speak. I can even recognize people on this forum just by their writing style; forget avatars and usernames. 🙂
Karen Rodriguez3: I see your point; you believe those individuals have simply shaped their environment to suit their inherent nature. My view is different. I don't believe in a fixed "nature." Human nature is essentially the capacity to become anything. If you take a child from one community and raise them in a completely different one, they will adapt and adopt a totally different worldview. That worldview becomes who they are.
I suppose there are exceptions to my rule—for instance, psychopaths seem to be born that way; it's just their nature, though we don't truly understand why. But a typical child can be raised to be a decent person, or they could just as easily be raised to be a killer or a thief, without ever questioning if their actions go against some internal compass.
Anthony Garcia19: It seems what I shared with Karen Rodriguez3 actually addresses your concern as well. Aside from those born as psychopaths, you simply have people who experiment with cheating or greed, perhaps out of pure curiosity. That is entirely human. Then you have those for whom this behavior isn't new; they’ve seen it firsthand, lived through it, or were raised surrounded by it. The world isn't a bubble where deception is some unknown concept. Simply put, it exists and cannot be eradicated. It can only be kept in check through constant effort to root it out.
