No, the KB OP is simple and real. I also appreciate the schooling site you linked to, I may make use of that. I don’t think you’re intellectually arrogant at all compared to most here, just that, like anyone, you have limits and it’s more important to ‘mind’ them when you’re in official capacity. The damage you can do is greater, you can discredit the whole site, not just yourself.
In terms of Gobbos suggestion if I were a mod I would have replied: “can you be more specific and point me to a source of solid theory? I must warn you though, it may not fit in what Im trying to do here for the following reason” - and then the post you wrote to me.
The point I think is to take away all reason for people to think you’re enslaved to a particular intellectual agenda. Which itself is an interesting intellectual excercise.
I’ll stop interfering now. Thanks for listening.
Thanks for speaking.
Exactly what I fucking said. It is not the job of a moderator to do exactly what FJ said he was going to do. Read it. It is not the job of a moderator to impose their idiosyncratic view on others, nor to call conversations “fucking stupid” or other posters “asshats”, nor to decide what area of science you think is more important than others, whether it’s quantum physics over whatever else he means by the “trunk”.
You are fucking wrong if you think that science is a certain set of topics, and only those. What qualifies as a scientific approach to things is just one that is empirical, observational, experimental and evidential. Since that’s the case, you can absolutely include topics that are occult and pursue them in a scientific way—and thus they would belong in the science forum. FJ has no fucking business removing one of Gobbo’s threads simply because it contains the word ‘occult’----and any attempt at him justifying that by quoting a wiki article is a good case for removing him as a moderator in that forum, since he doesn’t seem to get what science is.
WAKE UP. If a moderator in the philosophy forum decides that philosophy is just stuff spelled with capital letters, then I have every right to tell him not to attempt imposing his view on others.
Hard work. Fixing things. Being a river…
Because I am a river.
I didn’t remove one of Gobbo’s threads by the way. I actually only removed a single post from my own thread, and another moderator moved the rest of the posts of his from the same thread. Something that I wasn’t planning on doing.
I’m not limiting the topics discussable in the Science forum. I’m limiting the topics I’m going to put in the Base Knowledge thread. People keep on acting like a Base Knowledge post ‘determines what’s true’ or ‘impose dogmatism’. It does nothing of the sort. It’s a recommended educational base. And it won’t be governed by me alone in the end.
I’m not stopping anyone from posting about the occult, talking about the science of the occult, anything like that. I’m not determining what’s right and wrong. I will not remove posts from the science forum for the sole reason that I disagree with them (though I may remove posts for other reasons, of course, and those reasons are subject to review by the other moderators and the forum participants as well).
I appreciate that you don’t like the idea of a Recommended Knowledge Base post, Von, I understand. But, to go from ‘I think it’s a bad idea’ to the blatant falsities of ‘You’re removing threads because they talk about the occult’ or ‘You’re limiting it to a certain set of topics’ is unjustified. It’s reactionary, emotional, incorrect. You see something you don’t like, and you make up more things not to like about it. You don’t have to make anything up, Von. You don’t need to make things up. I won’t be limiting the Science forum any more than is reasonable (I would, for example, move a thread that was clearly not about science at all, and I wouldn’t move a thread that makes scientific claims that I just happen to disagree with, unless there was another good reason for it independent of my disagreement).
So relax.
I don’t think you read my post. I didn’t say most of what you attributed to me. It’s still there, though…
Rivers,
It doesn’t matter if he’s moderator or not. There’s nothing wrong with the knowledge base thread in the sense that anyone should be able to make a thread like that, mod or not. It’s odd that you refer to the project as a “job” that Flannel should not be engaging in. If you disagree with his idea of a scientific/mathematical knowledge base then give your counter arguments. “That’s not your job” is a whacky response.
It wasn’t Gobbo’s thread, it was FJ’s “Suggestions for Knowledge Base” thread. FJ removed a few posts of his own and Gobbo’s about “the occult [being] the only place left where true science is occurring”.
You’re misrepresenting Flannel.
EDIT: Just saw Flannel’s response…
Only mods can make sticky threads. Only mods can lock their threads.
That’s true, and I suppose you could make the argument that he shouldn’t have stickied or locked his thread. Seeing as the knowledge base is supposed to be a work in progress for the Science, Technology, & Math forum, inviting participation from the members here, I don’t see why it should be a problem that he stickied it. Non-mod members have had threads approved to be stickied before. As to locking the thread from further comment, there is a recommendations thread where the content can be discussed and amendments recommended/argued. But again, although I find it somewhat petty myself, I can imagine arguments against using one’s own mod powers to do these things. I haven’t heard anyone arguing about that aspect of this situation yet, so I was focusing more on the content of the post.
I’ve explained why I’ve locked it. If it was just an unlocked, unstickied thread, everyone would just post links that they want everyone to read, and no one would care about it. That’s how threads like that turn out. They lose their value by just being completely open for everyone to share.
By locking it, and furthermore by setting up a system by which we can add and remove content based on various factors that will hopefully be optimal for ensuring quality, we can make a locked, stickied post that will not be devalued by the opinions of just any ol’ body, and will be always visible to those who wish to find more resources to learn, and always up for debate by those who wish to challenge what is or is not present in the post.
I don’t want it to be dogmatic, I don’t want it to be based on my perspective, but I also don’t want it to be ‘anything goes’. I, and a few other posters apparently, think it’s a good idea in general, and as long as I make sure that what I’m posting is representative of good science, as opposed to just representing my own biases, it will be a valuable resource for people who choose to take advantage of it. It will not limit discourse, it is not required, it is not unquestionable.
I didn’t mean hidden science so much as pre-science.
This should be palpable now in the modern age when you have scientists working on projects that are 50 years before they hit the public sphere.
Tesla, Reich - these are occult sciences. It’s not ‘dark’. They’re literally just not known by a lot of people. Yet. Anyone can go look up the theory.
Your reluctance in this area is how people can grow to be adults and not really know anything about Tesla or Reich. It’s valid science.
Start by removing your bias and perspective. By editing statements like this, for example:
Good catch, will do.
They both had sad ends, I understand Reich died in prison of a heart attack, allegedly after they poured pig fat on him and let dogs loose.’
Teslas writings were largely burned and his last words to his mother were, so I read:
“My years of service to mankind have brought me nothing but insult and humiliation.”