CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Alternative to PDF: Dealing with harassment/insults

Alternative to PDF: Dealing with harassment/insults

Started by Terry Nelson26 · · 👁 4 views · 6 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Terry Nelson26hollowtrucker77Ryan Gomez4Carol Lopez23
Terry Nelson26 Terry Nelson26 NewcomerOP
3 messages
joined Dec 2012
#1 ·
I have a question regarding this whole "alternative" vs. "science" dynamic here. Why is it that certain members get a free pass to insult others by implying they’re on cocaine or by mocking their education levels? It feels like people are throwing around insults constantly. Yet, the moment a user dares to bring up Alex Jones—specifically when discussing facts about the harmful nature of energy-saving bulbs—they get threatened with a ban by an admin or moderator. Seriously? If someone brought up Thomas Edison during a thread about lightbulb technology, would we see that kind of reaction? Why is this hypocrisy tolerated? Why do these self-proclaimed "scientists" get to lecture everyone else? And what's with all the talk about sanatoriums and similar nonsense? If the "alternative" crowd has just become Tesla, then I guess I understand. But has anyone else noticed how the "science" group relentlessly attacks the "alternative" users, while the reverse almost never happens? For those of us trying to be reasonable, enough is enough. I really want to know who is allowing this hypocrisy, these double standards, and the constant insults to slide. I've seen some colorful warnings handed out, sure, but a warning card is one thing; being threatened with a permanent ban just for mentioning a person who is presenting facts on a relevant topic is quite another. Thanks.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#2 ·
Maybe because the alternative doesn't involve being an absolute moron or peddling complete nonsense?
Or at least, it shouldn't.
Terry Nelson26 Terry Nelson26 NewcomerOP
3 messages
joined Dec 2012
#3 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Maybe because an alternative shouldn't involve sheer stupidity or selling people snake oil?
Or at least, it shouldn't.

I’m honestly lost on what you mean by "idiocy" or "snake oil." If you're implying that rejecting everything not officially labeled "mainstream science" is foolish, then fine—let's just drop the subject entirely. But if you aren't part of the site administration—and we both know you aren't—then continuing this conversation feels pretty pointless. I'm looking for a direct answer to a specific question. I'm not interested in debating how things *ought* to be. Can we stick to the facts?
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#4 ·
Look, I don't work in admin or anything, but I’ve spent enough time scrolling through alternative health forums to see plenty of stuff that has absolutely zero connection to actual brain science, let alone real medicine
Personally, I'm not against people using whatever helps them feel better, even if it hasn't been officially cleared by the FDA or whatever
But just because something isn't regulated doesn't mean any random Joe can show up with some half-baked nonsense he cooked up in his garage and try to peddle it as a miracle cure to scam and mislead people
Terry Nelson26 Terry Nelson26 NewcomerOP
3 messages
joined Dec 2012
#5 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Look, I don't work for the FDA or anything, but I've spent enough time looking at alternative medicine to see how much of it is total nonsense, not just bad science
Personally, I have nothing against people using unofficial methods if they actually help
But that doesn't mean every random guy can just walk up with some half-baked idea, claim it's a miracle cure, and start scamming or misleading people

As for me? I don't even give charlatans the time of day. They have zero credibility. Honestly, "spirituality"—or whatever label people want to slap on it—is basically a playground for these types. You could practically call anyone studying alternative therapies a fraud, because let's face it: it’s just easier to believe in a quick fix than to put in the actual work required to get real results and form an objective opinion. But that's a whole different conversation, isn't it? This thread is supposed to be about "questions for the administration."
Ryan Gomez4 Ryan Gomez4 Active Member
112 messages
joined Feb 2013
#6 ·
Terry Nelson26 said:I have a question regarding this "alternative" crowd. Why are certain users allowed to insult others by suggesting they’re on cocaine or mocking their education levels? It feels like people are getting hit with insults constantly, yet one user dared to mention Alex Jones—just because he was discussing facts about how harmful energy-saving bulbs can be—and immediately got threatened with a ban by an admin or mod. If someone brought up Thomas Edison in a thread about lightbulbs, would that be treated differently? Why is this hypocrisy and lecturing from self-proclaimed "scientists" tolerated? And what's with all the talk about mental institutions? If this "alternative" group has become Tesla, then I get it. Also, has anyone else noticed how certain "science" users relentlessly attack "alternative" users whenever things don't go their way? Enough is enough. I want to know who is allowing this hypocrisy, double standards, and constant insults. I saw some people get colorful warnings, but a warning is nothing compared to being threatened with a ban just for mentioning someone who is stating facts on a relevant topic. Thanks.

If you think a post is offensive or breaks the rules, just click the little icon on the left. If a moderator doesn't step in, report it here, but make sure to include the link. We can't do anything without specific info.
Carol Lopez23 Carol Lopez23 Member
30 messages
joined Apr 2005
#7 ·
Terry Nelson26 said:I find myself grappling with a question regarding our "alternative" community. Why is it that certain members are permitted to insult others by implying they are on cocaine, or by condescendingly questioning their educational backgrounds—which, quite frankly, is often misplaced? It seems offensive content is frequently unleashed, yet when a single user dared to mention Alex Jones (simply because of the facts surrounding the harm caused by energy-efficient bulbs) within a thread dedicated to those very bulbs, an admin or moderator threatened them with a ban. One has to wonder: would such a reaction occur if someone had mentioned Thomas Edison during a discussion on scientific principles? Why is this hypocrisy and the constant "lecturing" from self-proclaimed "scientists" tolerated? Furthermore, why is there all this talk about mental institutions and similar rhetoric? If the "alternative" side has essentially become ExxonMobil, then I suppose I understand. Moreover, has anyone else noticed, perhaps by chance, that certain users in the "science" camp relentlessly target "alternative" users whenever the opposite isn't happening? To those of sound mind, I say enough is enough. I am genuinely curious as to who facilitates and why this hypocrisy, these double standards, and this blatant disrespect are allowed to persist. I have observed that while some receive colorful warnings, a threat of a ban for mentioning a figure who provides factual information relevant to the topic is a far more severe matter. Thank you.

Who and where exactly?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads