[Moderator Note]
This thread is on the subject of trolling, not whatever previous beef you may have with Marley23. Let’s refrain from personal remarks of this kind in this thread. Marley23 has been posting throughout this thread. He didn’t just turn up in response to your remark.
lol, sure thing. Whatever you say.
I don’t know what this means, but I agree with it.
More seriously, I agree with gfactor in that trolling usually isn’t a matter of a single post, but of a pattern of behavior, and with Lynn in that while a single trolling post isn’t a particularly big deal, allowing that sort of behavior without restrictions ultimately lowers the value of this board for everyone. Rand has spent a good bit of time mapping out the border between being controversial, and being a troll. From this thread, it’s apparent that he’s finally figured out the geography of the issue, and is now arguing that the border should be moved. I don’t think that’s going to happen: this is hardly the first time someone has made this argument, and it’s never carried the day before, so I doubt this go-round will be any different. But he’s welcome to make the attempt if he wants to. Just so long as, until he changes our minds about what defines trolling, he abides by our current definition.
Here’s a free reality check for you-see posts #19, 25, 26, 47, 61, 67, 80, 86, 91, and 97. While you’re at it, why don’t you claim credit for the sun rising in the morning.
So sad.
Oh seriously, get over it. You don’t have to come in and play White Knight for them, they’re big boys, right?
I didn’t claim that he came in here BECAUSE OF ME. If this is the logic you used when modding then it’s probably ideal that you’re not anymore. Also, personal insults aren’t allowed here and you should know that, right? Right! Also, didn’t a mod say to move along on this topic? Why yes, I think they did. Good of you to bring it up again, though. Keep on keepin on.
Please cool it, both of you. This is off-topic and it isn’t helpful.
Will do.
This as good an example as any.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12593672&postcount=218
I have not linked to anecdotes, I have linked to good solid research on near death experiences. This subject has everything to do with the ghost thread. If there is good research showing consciousness lives after death, and there is, then ghosts could be very real. Now you believe in only a material world, while my world is larger with many dimensions one of which is the spiritual
The fact that you insult me by calling my beliefs crap is ok it seems, or telling me that Dr. Bruce Grayson, relating his research to the United Nations is crap. Well that is only a reflection of your prejudges and not reality. So the favor shown by mods is clearly in favor of their beliefs and not part of what a real moderator does on the average message board. The information showing life after death is very important to the well-being of us humans. I see no where on the board that it say one must believe in science and materialism to post here.
Here is Dr. Jeffery Long, MD relating his research and offering a book with all the research in it. A best-selling book I might add.
Wouldn’t it only be important to the well-being of dead people? Then again, why would they need this information? If you’re alive after death it should be pretty obvious - you start shambling around hungering for braaaains.
I was not saying your beliefs were crap, although for the record that’s what I think. I was saying that your comment that “the mods would never allow [valid research on near death experiences] to go here” was crap. You’ve posted in dozens of threads about NDEs over the years, and never posted any serious research. And whenever this is pointed out to you, you’ve resorted to the same comments about all science is personal experience, so anecdotes are research and various other mistakes and evasions. This happens no matter how often people explain to you that it is not true, and one person telling a story is not the same as running an experiment under controlled conditions.
The mods, and tomndebb in particular, have told you exactly what would be considered valid research. They have taken the time to explain that to you because you have gone into so many threads and posted the same anecdotes about NDEs and basic errors about science and sidetracked so many discussions over the years. If your participation in threads did not inevitably lead to that kind of breakdown, I wouldn’t have bothered with that instruction. But I wasn’t interested in seeing a pretty good discussion of ghosts and other issues turn into lekatt vs. the world on NDEs, round 874.
I’m not sure I would have described your behavior as trolling or borderline trolling, but it looks to me like you were announcing that regardless of what theory actually means in science, you were going to continue to misuse the word intentionally because you felt your version better supports your viewpoint. Which is kind of stupid at best, and at worst deliberately ignorant and disruptive.
That’s not an insult as far as the rules of this board are concerned. Direct insults of people aren’t allowed except in the Pit, but comments about beliefs under discussion have always been allowed.
This is also allowed here. And it’s not like the UN is some kind of crap-free zone.
OK, now I am stupid, I will leave you alone. I have seen dozens of people run off this board because they were stupid as I.
I didn’t say you were stupid. I said the tactic you discussed - refusing to acknowledge what a scientific theory means - was stupid.
A collection of anecdotes IS NOT research. A blog that allows random strangers to post to it is even more not research, as many or most of the strangers can’t even be contacted afterwards.
Research has a pretty strict scientific definition. “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” You keep linking to experiences that are not observable, empirical, or measurable, and try to claim that they are valid scientific studies, when they don’t meet the definition. They might be INTERESTING, but they aren’t science.
lekatt, for once, can’t you just talk about something OTHER than the supernatural or whatever? Why must you hijack every. single. thread. you come into so you can talk about your pet subject? If you can’t, then why not just, I don’t know, NOT POST? This thread ISN’T ABOUT NDE!!!
:rolleyes:
(mods, can I hit him? Pretty please?)
Can we not make this one all about lekatt, too? Pretty please?
[Moderator Note]
Please don’t indulge in personal attacks on other posters in ATMB. Don’t do this again.
You have to read the book. I think he knows what reseach is.
[Moderating]
This is becoming a hijack into a discussion of other subjects. Let’s stick to the original discussion, on the subject of trolling.
I do understand your definition of trolling, and I do disagree and think it’s unreasonable. But you can engage in hair-splitting and angel-counting and discriminate against minority viewpoints if you want to. If that’s where you want to be when Jesus returns, it don’t make me no never mind.
See… that’s trolling.