iNow

Many thanks. Appreciate the guidance. The button to block followers did indeed appear when using a proper sized browser on a non tiny mobile device and the request from my OP has been satisfied. Thanks all.

Thank you both (and also sensei for the tips... and even koti for being consistent and true to his character). I’ll need to check in the morningas these options don’t seem to appear on mobile (which is likely why I missed it when attempting to address it on my own). Does this situation improve at all if I take a screenshot of the photo and share the screenshot instead?

Exactly, though it’s at least reassuring to see it was a carpet bomb approach to many users and not a rifle targeted at me. +1 for the extra intel I suspect he can comment on why people might do this, but likely isn’t aware of what specific configuration options are available here on SFN in the Admin Panel.

I’ve had a bunch of randos who’ve never even once posted here start “following” me in the last few weeks... I am notified when they begin following. My understanding is that the follow function is basically a subscription to get updates every time I post. My intuition is that it’s not being done for any positive purpose or because they wish to learn from me etc., and may in fact be a coordinated effort to learn more about me and plan for a social engineering attack of some sort. Maybe (hopefully) I’m wrong, but I’d simply rather not have followers. Can followers be blocked? Can I disagree to their desire to follow me, or be given an option to Approve/Deny the subscription to my posts? Can the feature be disabled entirely sitewide? Any other options available besides crossing my fingers and hoping I’m just being paranoid?

I definitely think a change is needed to deal with this, but I'm also not currently well enough read on the subject to describe in any detail what specifically that might/should look like. Apologies for the tangent or being off-topic. Didn't intend to derail. Yes, thanks. That was a good overview. I would take minor issue with the suggestion that the motivation of some is to social engineer reality itself, but I can see the point he's making and appreciate the need for caution here.

It was a throwaway comment. Encourage you not to waste any further time wondering about it.

In which case, you've now also acknowledged that you're not arguing in good faith and have no place as a member here. Thank you for that. Also, I suspect you're BOTH unable AND unwilling, but that's just an opinion.

Glad to hear it. Good luck. Now, please answer the question you keep evading or acknowledge you're unable.

All I did was ask you to clarify your statement. This one: You claimed there is a center of consciousness in the brain. Where do you assert that is?

And that's against the site rules to which you agreed when creating your profile.

So, no? You cannot support your claim? Unsurprising.

No thank you. You claimed there is a center of consciousness in the brain. Where do you assert that is?

I appreciate your honesty. Thank you for acknowledging this.

Right, but I've asked you a question here. Are you actually unable to answer it, or just unwilling? That's fine. You're under no obligation to interact with me, but perhaps you should attempt to clarify your comment for other readers. You said there was a center of consciousness in the brain. Where do you claim that is?

Never really did in the first place, but perhaps now you can answer my actual question?

Which part of the brain do you assert is the "center of consciousness?"

Not at all. Encourage you to just think critically and be cautious of which ideas you accept as helpful and valid and which you treat with skepticism and additional scrutiny.

Once again, where? Which ones? That mention of agenda? It was about stuff like this. No need for this here.

I accept your concession. Thank you for confirming your agenda here.

Then please proceed and do so. As I shared already in response to the first time you posted that one study: That over 20 year old paper has since been refuted and the preponderance of current day evidence speaks strongly against your central assertion.

Right. That’s precisely my question. Which part(s)? Apology accepted, comrade. Again, where?

I must’ve missed it. Where, exactly?

Sure, but will you please answer my question? I asked which parts you have displayed as inaccurate and you said “put.” It doesn’t make sense. Maybe a translation problem? I’m truly devastated reading this. Feelings all hurt and whatnot. Again? You still haven’t addressed that which was already shared.

You really need to refresh yourself on the definition of this word. You keep misusing it. I’m just reporting an axiom.

I would advise caution against thinking JohnSSM is in any way representative of the community here, or the scientific community more broadly. He’s just trolling