Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'delete account' in content posted in Suggestions, Comments and Support.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • News
    • Forum Announcements
    • Science News
    • SFN Blogs
  • Education
    • Homework Help
    • Science Education
  • Sciences
    • Physics
    • Chemistry
    • Biology
    • Mathematics
    • Medical Science
    • Engineering
    • Earth Science
    • Computer Science
    • Amateur Science
    • Other Sciences
  • Philosophy
    • General Philosophy
    • Religion
    • Ethics
  • SmarterThanThat Forums
    • SmarterThanThat Videos
  • Other Topics
    • The Lounge
    • Politics
    • Suggestions, Comments and Support
    • Brain Teasers and Puzzles
    • Speculations
    • Trash Can

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL




College Major/Degree

Favorite Area of Science



Member Title

  1. Science DISCUSSION forum. We sit at an imaginary table and talk about science. We don't jump on top of the table and start shouting everyone down. We don't attack people, we attack ideas to make them stronger or show they're rotten. That's how the methodology works in science. The only real problem here is that you're trying to present your "opinions regarding the mind" (paraphrasing) to people who have studied what mainstream science has observed, and they've found several points where your opinions don't reconcile with what's known. They've pointed those out, but you continue to post your pre-prepared book excerpts without taking any criticism to heart. It seems like you're trying to advertise and ignore critiques, both of which are against our rules, so that may account for the differences in your expectations.
  2. I started a thread about debunking 9/11 conspiracies a couple years back and it was closed before anyone could reply. I was told by a Moderator that such a thread may attract an unwanted element (trolls and conspiracy nuts) to the site. My thread didn't contain anything objectionable and hadn't broken any forum rules yet was closed. I accept the Moderators choice as they felt it was beat for the site. I don't consider it unfair. They are many reasons for a thread to be closed and no single rule can account for all scenarios.
  3. Why do we want you to stick around ? Because we've gotten used to you. This forum is a community of friends. I've disagreed with and probably pissed off quite a few people, yet I respect and would buy a drink for any one of these guys if I ran into them. ( have to hurry and delete my address from my profile, if Ophiolite looks me up, I have to buy him that expensive, single malt crap )
  4. We have clear rules about what belongs where. Here's a link to what goes into speculations. Censorship would be to delete it. We don't delete it. We don't suppress it. We just categorize it. Note that if you follow the rules of the Speculations forum, your average tinfoil hat junk does not belong there. It might at first end up there by accident (or because we're a friendly bunch of mods), but we have a trashcan for the really bad stuff. Thank you for your suggestion.
  5. How do I remove a warning point on my account on this website?
  6. Here is a few handy rule of thumb, if your unsure of something ask it in a question mode. Don't hijack threads to do so however its best to create your own thread when asking questions unless its particular to the OPS post. If your answering questions make sure you can back up every answer you provide with a peer review source, believe me the number of times I've had to defend my answers over the years this is a crucial step. If you want to Speculate on a non mainstream (Ie found in textbooks) idea, start a thread but within the Speculation forum and be prepared to follow the guidelines. A good theorist wants people to blow holes into his idea, it saves him from years of work if someone can point out flaws that he cannot account for. One of those guidelines is never reply in another persons thread with your own speculation. I tend to take this one step further, to never reply with personal favourite models but reply with an answer you know you can find existing in a textbook.
  7. I find the quote system cantankerous at best but one tip I have discovered Write some text, any text you can always delete it later, before you invoke the quote function. You can then come back, at any time, and paste into the quotes at will.
  8. As it isn't possible, this isn't really relevant, but I thought I should clarify anyway - my thinking was more along the lines of a new category of forum user, trusted members chosen from the active userbase given an upgrade and not any Tom, Dick, or Harry newbie. As they'd only be able to hide the spam and not actually delete the content (or even ban offending posters) as that would fall to a full moderator to do, it should help prevent any abuses of power - something that recently happened to another forum a couple of months back - and if any of the spam-hiders were found to be playing games they could easily have their privileges revoked. But as the forum software doesn't have the capacity for that level of customisation it's a moot point.
  9. This is not a problem. Multiple reports of the same post are automatically merged by the software. We only have to close 1 report. As iNow said — we don't want legitimate contributors to have to wait to begin participating. That's a higher priority than the minor annoyance of spam. And as Klaynos said — the staff wants to be efficient about this. A lot of the spam is pretty obvious. It shouldn't be a big deal to not click on it for the short time it takes before a mod can delete it.
  10. I often run across posts where someone has written "Cancel" or "Oooops" or "Nevermind". I soft-delete them, which removes them from the sight of everyone but the staff. We never fully delete anything. I'll reinforce what swansont said about abuse as well. When we had greater editing capabilities available, we had members who got angry at something someone said and went back and deleted all their posts. It left many threads completely incomprehensible, except where they were actually quoted.
  11. I know I am not supposed to say this in threads (for some reason) but that points to a sock puppet of an older banned account or something then does it not? If they already know a lot about you before you have disclosed that info then maybe they are remembering conversations as other avatars or something. I could be wrong - maybe he found your gender from reading other posts of yours or talking to someone else. I quite like talking to him as it goes.... apart from the departure from reason when he looses a point in the discussion and it just slips back to 'thus sayeth the lord'. I am not sure how to get through to him that you can't just quote the bible in an argument and expect people to take it as fact. I guess that's how he has been trained and conditioned to argue from years of churching... I used to be like it myself.
  12. Yes, clamp down when needed, absolutely. But I see little need on this forum to clamp down except on lewdness, vulgarity, accusation of lying and fabrication of evidence. The fabrication can be simple error, possibly as in the case of the sailor swallowed by the whale near the Falkland Islands and recovered alive, which because it was Smithsonian I accepted as fact without close examination, and when accused of fabrication (NOT by a moderator at least in a moderator ID) I examined closer and saw the the case is not closed whether true or false. Yes, clamp down on accusation especially those which can be interpreted in law as libel and slander. Absolutely. We're not drunken teenagers. Maybe I make too much of this, but character assassination is not pleasant to the character being assassinated, and turning the other cheek too often without rebuke can cause an image of the smacked one as being a masochist. But a wandering statement which is a matter of interpretation as to whether it's off topic or not, whether it is intended to divert from the topic or or merely enlarge the scope of the topic? Being so new to the forum I'm still not sure that if OT statements split off into a hijack thread can be commented on? I seem to have run into a case where I can't comment, but I participate too often when tired, so can't right now point to the example. Even with tickets for parking and speeding there is grace, quiet warnings issued sometimes, and of course you will say you do that here too. Why did I jump to thinking about felonies? I guess that shows my deepest thoughts about some of the behaviour here. You are aware of the cases of bullying that lead to suicide. Of course this forum won't lead to that kind of thing, but it CAN lead to depression, a hopelessness that yet one more source of pleasure and information has been turned into mayhem. A reason to take a drink at least. Open wide. And of course my acknowledgement of my doubt in BB, and my belief in the KJV bible not only sets me up as a target for those who think BB is the only answer, and the KJV is a terrible translation, it sets me up for attack by denominations who view the KJV as Protestant, which it is not, while I am a lamb (God make that a true statement please) without a defined flock, but not lost. And it sets me up for attack by those who vehemently deny God and Bible of any translation. Those prejudices WILL OFTEN affect mod interpretation of my words, intents and actions unfavorably, and in my opinion account for most or many mod criticisms of my time here, along with a dark view of those who find reason to doubt BB. I avoid membership in religious denomination and even regular affiliation because of their many prejudices. I don't join astronomical clubs for the same reason, 'oh, you don't believe BB is true? Poor mentally challenged infant' their attitude will be. 'Ever hear of Pasucal Jordan?' the infant asks. 'Who?' the learned one responds. I already see I was in error about the mod boxes always being big black and bold. I saw a pastel coloured one today. It was pleasant, except for the big exclamation point.
  13. I'm not trying to become another target for the mods to attack here, but could you "moderators" & some long-term members take it a bit easier on some of the not so scientifically minded individuals that probably just come to these forums to post questions about something... Considering they probably got confused with the term "speculation" and thought it meant you can come into this section to post things that don't have any theories or studies backing them up. I believe they are more so just wanting to post their own "theory" or curious thoughts to the more educated & informed people residing in the forums for their feedback on the particular question... Instead of receiving a subtle (passive-aggressive?) response which they all seem to get whenever they speak without citing or referencing anything............................... What I'm getting at is this: Stop being self-righteous pricks towards newcomers who just want someone smarter than they are on the particular issue to give them some feedback. I'm sure many others reading this feel the same way. Some of you do come across as excessively harsh. Feel free to click the negative button or delete my post, you usually do.
  14. I acknowledge how strong the urge to respond can feel and how compulsive it can sometimes become, but let's be honest here... There is nothing stopping you. It's entirely possible with a bit of determination. It's a choice, and one entirely in your power to make. I do acknowledge its not always easy, though. If you must, consider writing it as a draft, but delete it instead of posting it. That can be very cathartic, and frankly mature. All the same... Very glad to hear it.
  15. There is no option to delete your profile. You can change the your username yourself in the settings, if I remember correctly. Other entries about you in your profile you can also delete yourself. If you cannot change your username send a PM to Cap'n Refsmmat, he can change it in "the guy who is afraid of his Google past" or whatever you prefer.
  16. If you are thinking of the recent set of posts on rockets (and similar posts in the past by the same person under multiple names) then I assume they are deliberately trolling. (I did wonder about the "very young" option that DrP suggests, but I would expect more engagement in that case. Maybe very young and autistic? But it doesn't "feel" like the right explanation - we have plenty of members on the autistic spectrum who engage well in discussions.) If people are serious but ask a question that is too brief, then the only solution is to ask for more details or clarification. That usually works, although some people don't find it easy to organise their thoughts well to ask good questions, so it can take some iterations to get to what they are really asking (a background in customer support helps!) People who post too much are often a bigger problem. Trying to get them to précis or even identify the key point can just lead to another equally long screed. Related: I used to be a member of Stack Exchange and answered lots of questions there. But I got fed up with the non-stop snobbery about "the wrong sort of question" or "questions that attract the wrong sort of answer" and so I deleted my account. If you think down-votes are a problem here, they are like a disease on Stack Exchange!
  17. Some people don't care and want to troll. Some are kids that just want a quick answer as a short cut for their HW. Look at this RBVFRTY guy and his many incarnations - he asks questions so broad you can write a book in reply. There is no interaction or response beyond further similar styled questions in reply to any answer or request to be more specific. I can't work out if he is genuinely wanting help and is a young person at school or a disgruntled past member trying to troll/time waste.... then he starts a new thread with a closely related question that could have addressed in his first one..... after 4 or 5 questions he opens a new account and starts again... it's like troll spam. Maybe I am being too harsh on him - maybe he is just very young and wants to ask random questions about rockets. Then there are those that just want to lecture/rant about their opinions on science and reality and to tell us all how things are from their own deluded perceptions. I think that the serious threads and the serious questioners probably get it right or are helped and tolerated if they are trying to learn. You are a lot more active (and helpful) here than me so maybe you see more of it or it effects you more as you are a regular helper of people. mods- sorry - I know we aren't supposed to talk about sock puppeteers in threads - but it seemed relevant to the conversation.
  18. In the science forums, I agree but in the politics section, which is more opinion-based, I give more lattitude. In subjects like politics we use evidence to support our personal view or agenda but that evidence is usually not so unequivocal and can be interpreted with a bit of confirmation bias thrown in as well. Politics is more street-level and so we have a certain lack of formality; this should be taken into account.
  19. Phi did not make a legal pronouncement. Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'. What Phi was suggesting (and I agree with) was that your continued attack of Ford was indecent. e.g. "Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar." "In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth..." "This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about." Considering how much you seem to abhor bias, you seem to be showing a bit of it yourself.
  20. Speculation along the same line; what if another account online is a sock puppet of one @studiot have noted?
  21. May just check IPs. Might be an idea to ban a dummy account to test.
  22. Maybe I'm not 'with it' but I think he is airing his unfiltered view in his own way. I would call it ''sharp' rather than offensive... but maybe that's just me. Yes, it's true that there will be outsiders looking in and passing judgement; I've not really taken that into account. I do think though, by and large, we are keeping it around the bounds of civility...just. Some peoples views might be seen as offensive but I'm seeing them as having a different but sincerely held view. Because it diverges so much from the 'popular' view (of women) it's seen as "offensive".
  23. Then no, we can't delete them. All ur posts r belong to us.
  24. Yeah, that's weird. They definitely come up as being banned, and yet the last visited time is more recent. It's possible they can still access their account and read messages but can't post. (to see that they have been banned, for instance, and perhaps they can only do this once — I don't know)
  25. Well I think the Lone Ranger (AKA Swans) got on top of it pretty smartly when he arrived. What worries me is that there were several new starters around the time with unusual and a bit controversial posts, some a bit similar to the troll's provocations. And I wondered it he had slipped in another puppet amongst them for later use? He must have realised the eventual outcome of his unacceptable actions. Subsequent to the original bans I also saw both the original account and subsequent puppets listed simultaneously in the members list as online on several occasions.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.