Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Happened To The (Other) Scienceforums Site?

site science

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#18 argananana

argananana

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 18 October 2019 - 10:45 PM

  • Read the rules, conveniently linked in the bottom right of every single page on this site. You're breaking a few here. Friendly warning.
  • Highschool teaches a lot of..."lies" would be the best word I think. Close enough for the unwashed masses who only need to push a mop or change a tire, but not the most accurate information and often information that's very out of date. You'll note one of our rules here is "don't assume it's obvious" and another is "backup your claims with links" This is because of how downright wrong most of what common knowledge people have learned is.
  • Text books that don't come from research papers are firewood.

And don't worry. I don't want to use this forum regularly. I'm against online communication for the most part (partially because I'm too busy to waste the time and partially because the majority of people online are toxic, really unhealthy and online communication is incredibly unhealthy in my opinion). But I only really wanted information on one thing which I asked in the biology section (about stimulating cd8 t-cells, toxoplasma cysts and such). That's all I want. On this guy's site (the site which is the subject of this topic) I tried to ask the questions, the mods and admins didn't know anything and didn't attempt to answer them but they did all start crying about me saying humans accumulate pathogens (which we do) and they derailed the thread then locked it. They said I was so arrogant for saying this fact when a mod said humans don't accumulate pathogens. Lol. The same mod who is an antivaxer too apparently as he also said stimulating the immune system is a very bad idea and shouldn't be done. Moderating the immunology section. They're crazy really. This guy is a mod on that site and now followed (staked?) me to this site to continue trying to argue his wrong ideas. But I think he's been corrected enough here I gave him a lot of information and some examples of pathogens humans accumulate. So now I just want to wait to see if anyone knows something about the question I actually asked in the biology section that's all. As long as this guy stops now trying to follow me around all over the internet and trying to argue with me that humans don't accumulate pathogens, because we do.

#19 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2837 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 03:20 AM

Ok sure. I'm not arguing with you but I want to share some of my opinions ok? The first thing I think is, shouldn't people have some background knowledge on a topic rather than keep saying "give link" for the basic info? For example if I went into maths forums and said "what 5+5=10? Can you prove that give link citation needed!" Is that acceptable for me to do or is it acceptable for someone to actually tell me to go and learn maths before using the forum?

You can say highschool teaches a lot of things which aren't true. Yeah I know this I know I was taught many things I later discovered weren't true. But also I know what basic facts are true such as how humans come into contact with microorganisms which can live on or inside us. Don't you accept this is a very basic known fact which isn't in dispute by anyone serious at all?

Second I don't think you can back up a claim with a few links. You can link anything. What if there are 2 research papers with 2 different results and I link 1 showing the results I like, then will that end the argument because the almighty link has been given? A link doesn't really mean anything. A research paper doesn't mean anything. 1000 research papers which have all replicated the results mean something a little more. So I don't see the merit in 1 link tbh. People are obsessed saying give link and I actually think it's anti science anti knowledge and shows a lack of understanding. It treats a link to any research paper like it's a god. It's the opposite of how we actually learn to critically analyse research papers in academia. And in fact the quality of research papers we have today is incredibly poor. The standards are very low. Many variable not accounted for. Manipulated methods and results in order to show the desired end results. The amount of idiotic research papers we come across is appalling. Its difficult to find a solid really good research paper. Most are bad currently, that's the reality.

If someone is claiming gravity doesn't exist and telling me I must give proof that gravity exists, I think in fact they must back up their claim that gravity doesn't exist and I don't need to back up anything I've said (since it's already a widely established fact). This guy is claiming humans don't accumulate parasites. It's the same like claiming gravity doesn't exist because he's making claims against what all the literature says. So I think he's to provide the links not me?

But I agree I'm not talking that nicely to him. But that's because he also didn't talk nicely to me. Both in here and on another forum. He tried to mock and belittle me simply because I stated a fact which was opposite to what a moderator said. He couldn't comprehend his clique isn't actually that smart or knowledgeable on the topic then they all got mad at being corrected. It's not really my fault. Even here if you say I'm not speaking as nice as I could be, true, but you must also see he isn't too. Who says things like "my crank detector" in a civilised discussion? He's being arrogant and he's also wrong on a basic fact too. So I didn't like this. That's why I spoke the way I did. If people speak nicely to me I'll always speak nicely to them.

I have never encountered you on any other forum, to the best of my knowledge.

 

But if, as you say, I have, you need to support your claim by posting a link that confirms it or, if it is forum you have been banned from, give me the pseudonym you used, so I can find it and post it here myself. OK?. 

 

Meanwhile, I await your supporting evidence for your claim that the human body "accumulates pathogens". You have delivered yourself of several wordy rants now, but without actually providing the requested support. 

 

Over to you. 

 

P.S. I myself have never posted anywhere on the internet other than under the name "exchemist". That's because I have nothing to hide from. 


Edited by exchemist, 19 October 2019 - 03:22 AM.

  • GAHD likes this

#20 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1529 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 11:39 PM

Apparently the site was down due to them failing to renew their site certificate by the due date.


  • exchemist likes this

#21 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1565 posts

Posted 20 October 2019 - 12:19 AM

Apparently the site was down due to them failing to renew their site certificate by the due date.

 

So, it was down due to their forum getting cancer?



#22 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2837 posts

Posted 20 October 2019 - 04:31 AM

Just to satisfy anyone's lingering curiosity, now that the other site is back up, I looked for the discussion argananana is complaining about and found it here: https://www.sciencef...comment-1120695

 

It seems this poster is indeed a crank, with a fixed idea that the body accumulates pathogens over its lifetime. This notion was dismissed as nonsense by the people on that forum with expertise in biology. This would account for argananana's failure to support his or her claim here, in response to my repeated requests.

 

The poster goes by the name Adamkins IV over there, by the way.  However the much-criticised Strange, like me, uses the same handle on the various forums where he is a member. So some of us are willing to let our on-line reputations speak for themselves, whereas others feel the need to resort to disguises. :)


Edited by exchemist, 20 October 2019 - 04:32 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: site, science