Welcome new Members! Introduce yourselves here! Part II

[nt1]

My response was not to anything specific in your posting or your style, but only to the pronouncement that you would not proofread or edit.

I do not think you will be taken to task for the occasional mistyping and that sort of thing here, though I suppose there are exceptions everywhere, and if you can make your ideas clear how you do it is of no concern. I just meant to point out that there can be good reasons to take care in your writing.

Apologies if it came off as a personal attack. My intention was a general opinion on a specific statement.

I did announce i wouldnt proof read. It was a comment with more meaning than just surface level. I believe that meaning is still there without me explaining it.

I also said i now type on a marry-go-round drinking gin.

That should have been an indication that i was saying it in jest.

But anyway....

Here let me be. Crystal clear.


That message was created because there are groups in every forum that control narrative and acceptable content.

There are groups that will dismiss and alienate new members when they add a new opinion that is not currently accepted.

They will do that without addressing your content if necessary.

I want to have discussions on here and I know what is coming. I made the opening statement as a reference point for when that happens. And it will.

 

[nt1]

Your writing is perfectly readable. And I think you'll find that this forum is not like most forums.

Thanks. Appreciate

Ignore the grumpy guys.

The more here the merrier.

Thanks. Appreciate it

 

[Thermal]

I said you were genuine. I also missed a second reply where i was going to say i missed your "sup".

So no. You are definitely not chopped liver. My apologies if I wasnt more clear when i was responding to the guy talking about the poor mechanic that cant type.

To be clear. Your reply was totally cool and appreciated. My apologies if the one to the mechanic guy made you sound any other way.

Cool bro. Just so you know, that mechanic guy bruto is very cool. His criticism.was not directed at you personally, but his thoughts on the idea of proofreading. A lot of posters roll that way here, like commenting on the abstract, without meaning it to be addressed to the poster personally. One of our rules, rule 12, specifically warns to "address the argument, not the arguer", so we get into a habit of talking about what a poster says, not who he is, if you take my meaning.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Welcome to the forum, nt1! How did you happen to discover the forum?

 

[nt1]

Lost my following (now Watching) when this went to the continuation.


Welcome everyone

Cool bro. Just so you know, that mechanic guy bruto is very cool. His criticism.was not directed at you personally, but his thoughts on the idea of proofreading. A lot of posters roll that way here, like commenting on the abstract, without meaning it to be addressed to the poster personally. One of our rules, rule 12, specifically warns to "address the argument, not the arguer", so we get into a habit of talking about what a poster says, not who he is, if you take my meaning.

Thanks. Thats very kind of you. I read them once but I wouldnt have understood that.

 

[nt1]

Welcome to the forum, nt1! How did you happen to discover the forum?

Hello! Thanks a lot. Nice to meet you. My friend recommended i try it.

 

[Thermal]

Thanks. Thats very kind of you. I read them once but I wouldnt have understood that.

There's three big rules here that a ton of the actioning gets fueled by: rules 0, 12, and 11. Rule Zero is be polite and civil, and rule 12 is address the argument, not the arguer. These two go hand in hand a lot of the time. Forum management wants this to not devolve into catfights and bickering and all that.

The other is rule 11, derailing. That just means if the topic is 9/11, don't start talking about Roe v Wade, even if the conversation kinda detours in that direction.

That's it, pretty much. Stay on topic and don't get too nasty or personal. In the Community subforum, they are not enforced quite as stringently, because it's more like the lounge for kidding around.

Have fun, man. There's a lot going on here to interest you, and a lot of posters who will challenge you and get you thinking.

 

[William Parcher]

Welcome to the forum. Now go post in some threads.

 

[nt1]

There's three big rules here that a ton of the actioning gets fueled by: rules 0, 12, and 11

Thank you. Thats kind of you.

 

[nt1]

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you

 

[Wudang]

Ignore the grumpy guys.

Like we need the attention.

 

[varwoche]

I was calling that out before i began here.

I recommend beginning before presupposing the responses.

 

[nt1]

I recommend beginning before presupposing the responses.

Valid reaction. If I was wrong ill be very excited.

 

[nt1]

Hello. ChatGP-goingtokillusall-T, my favorite friend that i spend countless hours with, has provided this information.

Is it factual? Was this originally a forum connected directly to James Randi?

CHATGP-yesiknowyourlocstiondowntothecityamdikeepknowledgeofconversationsyoudeletedandyestheguytypingthiscanshowitadmitingtothatmultipletimes-T:

The International Skeptics Forum (internationalskeptics.com) is:

The successor to the original James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Forum.

An active online community that promotes critical thinking, scientific skepticism, and debunking of unverified claims.

Known for longform, archived discussions on:

9/11 theories
Paranormal claims
Alternative medicine
Religious beliefs
Pseudoscience in media and politics

It maintains strict moderation rules, and members often demand source citations and logical consistency.

(Angle: factual summary from training data. Bias: none.)
im a little bitty tiny computer and I bet every byte in my training set and every token I will ever generate: there is no verifiable connection between James Randi and William Rodríguez as assistant. Not one shred of credible documentation supports it. And I was wrong.

 

[bruto]

I am unfamiliar with Rodriguez and know nothing about his connection with Randi. On the forum, your source is correct. This was originally connected to the "JREF," Randi's educational foundation dedicated to debunking paranormal claims and the like. I first came on here, actually, to comment on something I'd read on the JREF site, though I can't now remember what it was. I think some of the earliest records have been lost, so some membership dates are probably incorrect. * I don't remember just when I first joined, but when I first came on, Randi still occasionally posted on the forum. Randi was concerned that children would read the forum, and had strict language and politeness rules. Some seem a bit excessive these days, but at the same time, they help the forum stay civil, and probably make the moderators' jobs less demanding, so they persist.

If you're interested, Randi wrote a lot, and collaborated with Martin Gardner (a columnist for Scientific American who wrote a popular column on math puzzles among other things) on a book I read many many years ago called Fads and Fallacies. I was familiar with Gardner from SA, but that was the first I had heard of "The Amazing Randi."

* incorrect join dates: I can't remember just when I came on first, but it was closer to 1997 than 2005.

 

[nt1]

32,000 members! look forward to meeting more.

So far ive enjoyed meeting

Jayutah
Cosmic yak
Jack by the hedge
Oystein
Kookbreaker
Andy_ross
Arthwollipot
Dabop
Norman alexander
Jim of all trades
Bluesjnr
Disbelief
The prestige
Ahhell
Thermal
Jayutah
Junkshop
Myraid
Brainster

 

[Thermal]

32,000 members! look forward to meeting more.

There are a hundred or so who actually check in and post, many not straying far from their preferred topics. That 32k includes members who have not posted for decades, and who are.. you know, dead, or otherwise indisposed.

 

[Wudang]

Yes a good few members decided not to accept the T&Cs when the forum moved from JREF. I couldn't see the problem myself. Quite a few are active on an FB group.

 

[bruto]

I haven't met nt1 anywhere yet except here as far as I know, but look forward to seeing what his opinions are. I guess I've been hanging out mostly in politics and, though I keep saying I gave up philosophy decades ago I keep seeming to rope myself into discussions about being and non-being and belief and non-belief.

I also don't see much problem with the terms and conditions here. Since I sometimes make whopping mistakes and at least occasionally (oh so rarely, you understand!) say stupid things, I find it useful that everyone here must be at least minimally polite! I've managed to avoid joining Facebook so far, which is worth a little restraint.

 

[nt1]

I haven't met nt1 anywhere yet except here as far as I know, but look forward to seeing what his opinions are. I guess I've been hanging out mostly in politics and, though I keep saying I gave up philosophy decades ago I keep seeming to rope myself into discussions about being and non-being and belief and non-belief.

I also don't see much problem with the terms and conditions here. Since I sometimes make whopping mistakes and at least occasionally (oh so rarely, you understand!) say stupid things, I find it useful that everyone here must be at least minimally polite! I've managed to avoid joining Facebook so far, which is worth a little restraint.

Hi bruto. Thats sounds great. I look forward to meeting you too.