Posts by Keith Lee2

rustydrifter10 said:But the warning literally said you’d get a partial ban if you kept trolling, and you did. So, honestly, the ban makes sense.

rustydrifter10 said:After the midterm announcements, you actually picked up a few more strikes—so I wouldn't exactly call it a lie.

rustydrifter10 said:First off, you don't need more than one admin's opinion—it's enough as is. Not just here, but generally speaking.

Plus, you were warned about the partial ban. The mods told you exactly what would happen if you didn't fix how you were acting on the PDF, which you didn't do—so the ban shouldn't have come as a shock. After repeatedly ignoring warnings, even after getting warnings and being told this penalty was coming, there wasn't really any other choice. Mods have to keep the PDF running and protect the users, even if that means banning people who just won't follow the rules.

Daniel Ward87 said:
If these are the "new faces" popping up, then I can already tell you—your appeal isn't going anywhere.

Daniel Ward87 said:

EDIT: About that link you sent—it just says: Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Daniel Ward87 said:

Because of my reply to @nicole2007? I mean—what does she even have to do with your situation? Honestly, me being online right now is just a total coincidence—just random luck, really.

Daniel Ward87 said:Your complaint is closed. If you think I'm not being "neutral," honestly, that's on you.

The decision stands, just like before.

Keith Lee2 said:Since you guys see those facts as a reason for a ban—and I don't—
then clearly my complaint isn't actually about you, it's about
whoever can look at these facts objectively.
If there's anyone out there who can, please just check if my posts actually caused any damage,
which is why I got this partial ban in the first place.

There's really only one thread in the "natural science" subforum I follow, which is
"Space-Time"—I jumped in because my fellow user @Sprečo invited me,
but his posts were also flagged as "trolling," so he ended up getting a partial
ban too.
To me, a topic like space and time can't be purely scientific
without knowing exactly what time even is, so there had to be some
imagination and speculation involved—stuff that obviously wasn't taken well (at least not by me).
If this partial ban ever gets lifted—it sucks because now
I have to log out just to read links in my own posts,
which is on my own thread, no less—I definitely won't be posting in that subforum
until the moderators El Niño and TikTok apologize for their
condescending tone when they talked to me and @Sprečo.

staying out of things where you don't belong.
So, Daniel Ward87, I'm still waiting for an explanation.
2. You aren't going to talk to me like this ever again.
I know your easiest way to cover up an injustice is to try and make a person look crazy, but stop doing that—you've tried a few times already and it didn't work.

Seriously? You think you get to decide how I talk to you?

lonetrucker4 said:@Sandra Wilson68: Seriously? You actually don't get the whole "42" thing? 🙂 It’s straight out of a book by one of the biggest heavyweights of 20th-century philosophy!

They finally nailed down the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, but they totally missed the actual question... And it gets weirder... 😲 You can't have the question and the answer chilling in the same universe at once. It’s all tied up in set theory paradoxes—you know, that whole "set containing itself" mess—plus Tarski’s logic truth problems and those Gödel theorems. Plus, it all loops back to how we split consciousness from self-awareness, like that whole struggle with grounding the "Self" you see in Fichte and early Schelling.

@Amanda Jackson5: I am not pulling your leg, I’m being dead serious—I actually think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is some deep philosophical gold. Who cares if it's formatted as a novel? We’ve got guys like Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, even Ayn Rand, who wrote fiction to make their points. Not to mention authors whose entire books are basically philosophy in disguise! Dostoevsky and H. Hess were huge favorites of mine, and then there's the SF crowd... You can probably tell I'm not exactly a fan of that dry "analytical" philosophy stuff. 🙂 Same goes for the traditional metaphysics Sandra Wilson68 is preaching. You don't have to buy it, but seriously I'm not kidding around here!

urbanwalker72 said:Everywhere Sprečo posts, people just see it as trolling. Wherever there's an open corner of the internet, he’s there dropping his memes and bothering folks with obvious nonsense.

If you're trying to say you're just like him, you aren't gonna last long on any forums dedicated to natural science.

So, what—you want to overhaul the whole subforum so it stops being about natural science and starts being about whatever you think is appropriate?

If you wanna argue this from a different angle, go ahead and start a thread in another section.

Look, if they end up apologizing to you for some biased ban that you totally earned, then sure, I can close down the natural science archives.

If someone can keep trolling aggressively even after a million warnings without getting hit, then the whole forum is pointless...

Kevin Rodriguez4 said:The radius of the circle they're moving in—which is basically the foundation for everything else here—is standard stuff you learn back in middle school.

It’s honestly pretty cringe when someone tries to act smart but can't even remember basic middle school math.
Huge props to the mods, though—I don't know how you guys stay so chill.

shadoworca3 said:And then you just mess with my head. 😠
Like, if it's spinning, we still don't actually know if it's moving or just sitting there.

Daniel Ward87 said:I went through the thread and checked all the posts involving you and the moderator warnings—so, yeah, you're getting a partial ban. Look, it's fine to have your own take on a discussion, but in this case, your approach is just totally killing the vibe of the whole thread. Since you didn't back off even after being warned, I had to pull the trigger on a partial ban.

Keith Lee2 said:So, I've been following this whole Sharxtreme situation—makes me wonder if something like this could actually happen to someone else.
scenario:

I mean, I kind of want to just ban someone from the forum—you know? Just wipe them out entirely.
I'll set up a new account and drop a few posts—trying to nail that one forum user's vibe.
Then I start throwing insults at that guy—which is obviously a bad move—and end up getting hit with a permanent ban.
The mods decided I'm just some clone of another user I was trying to mimic—honestly, kinda sucks.
They’re banning him too—calling him some kind of "clone" of a user who's already banned—but honestly, he isn't even like that.
Not even guilty—honestly, I didn't do a thing.

I mean, honestly—this kind of thing could totally happen to me too—like, getting banned just because...
They actually think I'm just some clone of someone they already banned—it's honestly kind of wild.

If that kind of scenario actually plays out—then people on this forum are gonna start panicking for no reason.
You can get penalized even if you didn't do anything wrong—not exactly the kind of vibe you want in a community...
I mean, who wouldn't want to hang out there?

So... someone please convince me that this isn't actually gonna happen—like, tell me there's no way this forum is about to go down the drain.
Just another place where they go after punishing innocent people—honestly, it’s a joke.

given the vibe and style, even if you aren't actually a clone of that guy , it’s probably better for the community to just move past that kind of attitude
so yeah—peace out.

I didn't see a single insult, any trolling, or any personal attacks... honestly, I just see a top-tier intellectual that any forum would be lucky to have.

I guess I'm just a total mess—honestly said:So, you’re telling me Sharxtreme is supposedly some kind of cloned Elvis? lol—that's wild.
I don't really get what that's supposed to mean—or why being an Elvis clone is such a bad thing—but apparently some people took issue with it, so now Sharxtreme is playing Jailhouse Rock—just trying to be a little clever with the joke here.

Sharxtreme said:And yeah—if they decide to lock this thread like he wants, it won't exactly catch me off guard. Sending good vibes to everyone over at Philosophy, and a few folks from Natural Science and Alternative too—haven't really been digging through the rest of the forum lately. Night, y'all.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Well, now, as the late Joža Pankretić might have said: "Take a look at one thing here..." :
what Cinnabar and Presvetli are actually trying to achieve—their own narrow, individual interests. And what are they? To amass piles of cash; to be the big shot in town; to exert power over others, screw someone over, and so on.
If you take a closer look, these interests aren't the product of any autonomous creativity on the part of Cinnabar or Presvetli—they are success criteria borrowed directly from the norms of the community. Money is simply a standard of exchangeable value, a mutually agreed-upon measure of commodity value that circulates within the community. Without the community, money is worthless; that is to say, if nobody (the community) is willing to exchange your money for goods, it holds no value—money is merely a surrogate for value.

As for the personal interest in "being the boss in town"—well, to be the boss in town, you inherently need the town, which means the community is the only place where such an individual interest can even be realized.
To exert power over others, you require those very others—people who recognize that power based on shared communal criteria.

We could list examples all day, but there’s no need; the conclusion is self-evident: the narrow individual interests demonstrated by Cinnabar and Presvetli are defined by the community's criteria and can only be fulfilled within that community. And the meta-conclusion—Cinnabar and Presvetli cannot exist without the community; the community is their lifeblood. They are true creatures of society, much more so than Dudek.

Because, honestly, if Dudek were to take a moment to pogleti, he’d see he doesn't need the community at all when it offers him nothing.

Rachel Stewart36 said:Man, you’re seriously messing around here—either you just don't get my sarcasm, or you're being stubborn just to prove a point. Check the ego at the door, man; stop playing dumb when reading what people actually wrote because you're just making yourself look bad. This whole thread has gone completely off the rails now, so I don't see any point in staying involved.

Rachel Stewart36 said:forum user Lisa Hernandez3: My (rhetorical) question is really just a comment on how people love to toss scientific "tools" around in debates—while totally ignoring the fact that the whole field is pretty damn eclectic.

forum user Keith Lee2: Oh, look at him go. He claims he's being limited, then posts something like this; give yourself more credit man. 😁 As much as I dig your post, it’s a bit far from what I actually meant. And yeah, I make a distinction between a narrow approach and a narrow-minded person. Maybe try reading a little closer instead of jumping to conclusions? 😉

Rachel Stewart36 said:Just jumping in here. Why treat sociality as some separate category from the spiritual or the material? Isn't being social basically an amalgamation of both? Why split things up and isolate them—missing the whole point of how all these components actually interact to form a whole? The goal shouldn't be to deny "nature" or "culture," but to explain "gender identity" by embracing the sheer elasticity and variability of all those moving parts. Insisting that one side takes precedence over the other—or that nothing ever changes—just leads to these narrow, inorganic ways of thinking. Maybe defining "gender identity" should start by viewing a human being as a biological entity embedded in a social system—one woven together by interactions with everything from the physical and biological to the psychological, spiritual, and symbolic. It’s about acknowledging how they all play off each other to build a sense of self. Ignoring that interplay feels like a dangerous kind of reductionism—the kind that just feeds into various "ideological trends."

I've never bought into this "paradigm of separation" thing, though I seem to run into it constantly. Why slice biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, physics, math, philosophy... away from each other? Why divorce nature from culture and settle for such a limited view? Whatever happened to eclecticism?

Rachel Stewart36 said:Just jumping in here. Why treat sociality as some separate category from the spiritual or the material? Isn't being social basically an amalgamation of both? Why split things up and isolate them—missing the whole point of how all these components actually interact to form a whole? The goal shouldn't be to deny "nature" or "culture," but to explain "gender identity" by embracing the sheer elasticity and variability of all those moving parts. Insisting that one side takes precedence over the other—or that nothing ever changes—just leads to these narrow, inorganic ways of thinking. Maybe defining "gender identity" should start by viewing a human being as a biological entity embedded in a social system—one woven together by interactions with everything from the physical and biological to the psychological, spiritual, and symbolic. It’s about acknowledging how they all play off each other to build a sense of self. Ignoring that interplay feels like a dangerous kind of reductionism—the kind that just feeds into various "ideological trends."

I've never bought into this "paradigm of separation" thing, though I seem to run into it constantly. Why slice biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, physics, math, philosophy... away from each other? Why divorce nature from culture and settle for such a limited view? Whatever happened to eclecticism?