THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Dcopymope » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:09 am

bostonterrierowner wrote:
brianv wrote:"pagan religion"

Are you obsessed or what?
I am afraid he is . Big time :)

12 apostles , 12 knights of round table , 12 zodiac signs . Any bells ringing ?:)

Northern hemisphere , 22nd of December and Sun being in its lowest position in the year , staying like this for 3 days and later moving up again . Heard it before? :)

I hate to be a buzz killer but there is only one religion with the Sun being a universal deity . Bible is an allegory describing in a very veiled fashion movements of the Sun through the zodiac etc.

Let's rid our forum of religious fanaticism and related , infantile content . There is only one law and commandment in the Universe :

Do no harm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rest is bullshit!!! PsyOp!!!!

By the way I have just become a father for the first time ......

Regards
If you want to talk of "PsyOp!!!", then your statement about the Bible is a prime example. All of it came straight out of the long debunked film called "Zeitgeist", whose sources all came from Freemasonic/New Age material, not from any legitimate historical sources. I, like the 100 million others who watched it used to believe in this rubbish for years until I actually checked into the claims being made to find out that its all complete New Age baloney from top to bottom. Before you scream "PsyOp!!!!" on a particular subject, you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by lux » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:29 am

Please, can we try to keep this thread non-religious as stated in the title and OP?

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Dcopymope » Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:49 am

lux wrote:Please, can we try to keep this thread non-religious as stated in the title and OP?
I'm trying to keep it as "non-religious" as the subject allows me to be, just briefly setting the record straight on what should have been known as a long debunked accusation that was ripped straight out of Freemasonic/Theosophical/New Age material, especially from someone who spews out of his orifice the terms "PsyOp!!!!" and "bullshit!!!" with such undeserved authority.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:53 am

Dcopymope wrote: This is what can be observed and is what the Bible says, that everything was created after its kind, making nonhocapito's statement below null & void.
nonhocapito wrote:As to the Bible: I respect a belief but the way I see it the book provides no answer either, because real answers must be persuasive, and there is nothing persuasive in saying that it went that way because it went that way.
*
I do apologize to Lux, who specifically titled this thread "The (NON-RELIGIOUS) dinosaur hoax question", but I can't help myself from asking Dcopymope (and any Bible believer, in fact) what exactly this passage from the Genesis (2:21–22) means to say:

"And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man".

Does it really mean to say that the female was created out of the rib of a male? Really? :blink:

Let me boldly answer that question myself (although I do hope Dcopymope will respond to this question in articulate manner): of course not. The Bible is not a scientific scripture. It is more like a (most imaginative) work of art, and a truly fascinating one. But I frankly cannot see what sense there is in using it to make any point in any sort of rational debate.

nonhocapito
Administrator
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by nonhocapito » Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:06 am

Dcopymope wrote:The thing is, neither mutation nor natural selection act as creative forces as they do not add any new information to the genetic code, but the theory of evolution as taught in the textbooks will tell you otherwise. They call it Abiogenesis which in a nutshell attempts to explain the origin of life, from non-life, or organic compounds, much like Hinduism, also referred to as the Prebiotic soup. It is a mathematical impossibly as it suggests that zero plus zero can equal one and then produce further additions, which is absurd as it has never been observed when it comes down to it. Its basically like the movie 'The Princess and the Frog', that a frog can magically transform into a prince given enough time. In other words, macro-evolution has never been proven.

They claim natural selection is the cause of evolution when it is nothing more than a stabilizing process that removes any defective organisms to keep the species functional, much like an anti virus software for a computer. So its actually a loss of genetic information, not an addition. A mutation is just the rearranging of existing genetic information resulting in many different variations of a species as nonhocapito points out, but like natural selection it does not add any new genetic information as any real biologist will tell you. This is what can be observed and is what the Bible says, that everything was created after its kind, making nonhocapito's statement below null & void.
nonhocapito wrote:As to the Bible: I respect a belief but the way I see it the book provides no answer either, because real answers must be persuasive, and there is nothing persuasive in saying that it went that way because it went that way.
Sorry DCopymope, but all you write here is pure nonsense. You talk about genetic code, which becomes your criteria to measure whether evolution exists or not. But genetic code is a discovery of science. Doesn't that bother you? Wasn't all science bogus? Genetics were never mentioned in the Bible. The bible was written in a time when even the concept of "germs" was unknown to man, and it shows. Since then we have learned so much about nature that most of ancient books have become completely outdated in their description of life. Unless you want to find in the Bible a description of chemistry, of atoms, of physics.

Yet you do believe that plastics exist, do you? Does the computer you use exist? How did that come about?

As to the "adding of genetic information". There is no "adding". DNAs are all made of the same 5 elements.
Some scientists have tried to imagine or prove why there's life. But there is no consensus. Scientists are not a bunch of guys who meet up at night and decide what's the truth, it takes a long time for something to be demonstrated and it is normal to read everything and its contrary until we get there.
At the present time there is no explanation why DNAs exist. We have absolutely no idea how life came about. It might have been a God or Aliens, it is pure speculation and a bit useless at that.
But we know that DNAs change when creatures adapt and differentiate, because different species have different DNAs. It makes sense that something like this exists within cells, because otherwise we would have a hard time explaining heredity. Yet heredity exist. Cells know how to reproduce and into what.

I don't think any of this can be found in the Bible. Nor any notion of medicine, as I said. It would have been awfully nice of God to add that information to the Bible. It would have spared us thousands of years of struggles against illness, suffering and death. Even a little tip about brushing our teeth would have been something.

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Dcopymope » Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:37 am

simonshack wrote:
Dcopymope wrote: This is what can be observed and is what the Bible says, that everything was created after its kind, making nonhocapito's statement below null & void.
nonhocapito wrote:As to the Bible: I respect a belief but the way I see it the book provides no answer either, because real answers must be persuasive, and there is nothing persuasive in saying that it went that way because it went that way.
*
I do apologize to Lux, who specifically titled this thread "The (NON-RELIGIOUS) dinosaur hoax question", but I can't help myself from asking Dcopymope (and any Bible believer, in fact) what exactly this passage from the Genesis (2:21–22) means to say:

"And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man".

Does it really mean to say that the female was created out of the rib of a male? Really? :blink:

Let me boldly answer that question myself (although I do hope Dcopymope will respond to this question in articulate manner): of course not. The Bible is not a scientific scripture. It is more like a (most imaginative) work of art, and a truly fascinating one. But I frankly cannot see what sense there is in using it to make any point in any sort of rational debate.
This particular scripture is quite an interesting one. Its because of this scripture that some Christians that take it literally believe men have a missing rib. However, that doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny considering that human ribs can regenerate if the periosteum, the membrane surrounding the rib, is left intact as shown in the link below.
Split-rib cranioplasty
I.R. Munro; B. Guyuron (Profiled Author: Bahman Guyuron)
Annals of Plastic Surgery 1981;7(5):341-346.

ScopusAbstract
Cranioplasty using a synthetic material is less than ideal, especially if there is a history of infection at the defect site. Split-rib cranioplasty is a practical approach even in patients with a positive history of infection at or around the defect. We briefly review the historical backround of split-rib cranioplasty and report our experience with this procedure in 12 patients. Forty-two pieces of rib, with an average length of 13 cm, were used for reconstruction. We had only 1 complication - a pneumothorax following removal of the rib graft. The follow-up period ranged from three to thirty-six months. All patients had complete regeneration of the donor rib and solid protection of the brain.
Link: http://www.experts.scival.com/cwru/pubD ... 1&o_id=168

The Amazing Regenerating Rib

I guess you can say that the first surgery ever done was by God looking at how the scripture was written. Others believe its talking about taking information from Adams double helix based on the Hebrew root word for 'rib' which is "curve" as shown in the link below.

Adams Rib?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:09 am

Dcopymope wrote: I guess you can say that the first surgery ever done was by God looking at how the scripture was written. Others believe its talking about taking information from Adams double helix based on the Hebrew root word for 'rib' which is "curve" as shown in the link below.

Adams Rib?
Fantastic.

So that's the best answer you have, Dcopymope - linking to these two ridiculous articles?
The first of which containing this sort of bullcrap?
Some people have mistakenly thought that because God used a rib from Adam to make the woman that all men have one less rib than women. We know this is false because we can easily count the number of ribs in men and women and see they are the same. The number of ribs is determined by the code written in our DNA. God did not change Adam’s DNA; He simply removed one of his ribs to use for the creation of the woman.
The Amazing Regenerating Rib
And the second article - Adams Rib? - by this "debunking atheists" Dan guy? A "lost-in-translation"-type of explanation? Thanks, anyway - I had a good time reading the many sane comments to it, one of my favorites being:
FrodoSaves wrote:January 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Dan,

This is some of your most tenuous stuff yet. Good work. Pretty soon you'll be telling us the Bible contains an accurate prediction for the layout of the globe's continents, a description of the molecular structure of chlorofluorocarbons, and a workable recipe for hollandaise sauce.

I wait with baited breath.
"A workable recipe for hollandaise sauce!" Priceless. :lol:

*********

And this other comment - more pertinent to this dinosaur thread:
ExPatMatt wrote:February 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Dan,

"No need, since it would be impossible to convince you based on your intellect. Remember?"

What you're talking about is something you claim actually happened. For (approx.) 2,000 years of human history, dinosaurs (many, many millions of individual organisms) lived alongside mankind. Then a flood came and killed almost everything and afterward the last remaining dinosaurs died out (for some reason).

This is your claim, right? Let me know if I've got it wrong.

If this actually occurred then it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of finding the evidence.

This is very different from me asking you to provide evidence that, say, Jesus walked on water. I can understand how that - a miracle - is a matter of faith.

What you are talking about is real flesh & blood natural history.

If you have to resort to saying that it's a 'matter of faith' and only by believing in Jesus can I understand how dinosaurs co-existed with humans, you're basically admitting that you have no real evidence that this thing actually happened the way you say it did.

The thing is, I think you know that it didn't happen the way you believe it did. I think you know full well that evolution and an old Earth are both true. You just believe differently and you refuse to comprimise your beliefs for your intellect.

I'm sorry; I just can't put faith ahead of reason. I tried it before and got nothing.

Have a great weekend.
"I just can't put faith ahead of reason." I'll second that.

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Dcopymope » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:53 am

simonshack wrote: Fantastic.

So thats the best answer you have, Dcopymope - linking to this ridiculous article by this Dan guy?
A "lost-in-translation"-type of explanation? Thanks, anyway - I had a good time reading the many sane comments to it, one of my favorites being:
FrodoSaves wrote:January 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Dan,

This is some of your most tenuous stuff yet. Good work. Pretty soon you'll be telling us the Bible contains an accurate prediction for the layout of the globe's continents, a description of the molecular structure of chlorofluorocarbons, and a workable recipe for hollandaise sauce.

I wait with baited breath.
"A workable recipe for hollandaise sauce!" Priceless. :lol:
I take the Genesis account of history literally as it obviously makes the most sense of the two viewpoints I proposed, of which you conveniently have nothing to say about of course, as the evidence of the verse being possible is heavily in favor of it. :rolleyes:
simonshack wrote:*********

And this other comment - more pertinent to this dinosaur thread:
ExPatMatt wrote:February 6, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Dan,

"No need, since it would be impossible to convince you based on your intellect. Remember?"

What you're talking about is something you claim actually happened. For (approx.) 2,000 years of human history, dinosaurs (many, many millions of individual organisms) lived alongside mankind. Then a flood came and killed almost everything and afterward the last remaining dinosaurs died out (for some reason).

This is your claim, right? Let me know if I've got it wrong.

If this actually occurred then it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of finding the evidence.

This is very different from me asking you to provide evidence that, say, Jesus walked on water. I can understand how that - a miracle - is a matter of faith.

What you are talking about is real flesh & blood natural history.

If you have to resort to saying that it's a 'matter of faith' and only by believing in Jesus can I understand how dinosaurs co-existed with humans, you're basically admitting that you have no real evidence that this thing actually happened the way you say it did.

The thing is, I think you know that it didn't happen the way you believe it did. I think you know full well that evolution and an old Earth are both true. You just believe differently and you refuse to comprimise your beliefs for your intellect.

I'm sorry; I just can't put faith ahead of reason. I tried it before and got nothing.

Have a great weekend.
"I just can't put faith ahead of reason." I'll second that.
Worldwide Geologic Evidence of the Flood - Dr. Thomas Kindell:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVsSAC48TQ

The Hovind Theory on the Global Flood: [url]
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABdXZMs5SeA

pov603
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by pov603 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:43 am

With regard to the 'rib' thing, it makes you wonder what god did with the extra one on the other side of Adam's 'cage', unless of course he made a mess of the first one and had to have another go...
Some will probably say he used both to create the double helix :puke:

daozen
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by daozen » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:01 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Well, I don't think a deranged millionaire is running around stamping trilobite imagery into the rock. You can find real fossils. What do you mean by 'checking if it's real' exactly?
Do you mean touching it, looking at it, smelling it, licking it? What would help you determine it's real?

I think what we're discussing is the fact that living tissue cannot survive for millions of years; it breaks down and transforms into other things rather quickly. So the idea that we would find anything but petrified (i.e.; completely stone) remains seems strange. Add to that the sculptural pieced-together appearance of the skulls compared with the bones, which are indeed stone carved out of stone, and you have the makings of a very controlled and incestuously referenced science.

It almost looks as though, in some instances, some real creatures of various sizes have been comically stitched together as a single creature, forming an improbably long neck or tail by arranging diminishing instances of related bones. This is a postulation on my part in cases of things like Brontosaurus (now declared a fraud), but even the T-Rex does somewhat resemble a rearranged and modified elephant skeleton.
Oh I see, sorry I hadn't realized what was being discussed here, but yeah, stiched together bones from contemporary animals is definately a concievable possibility... The T-rex does have a weird look (and name to think about it) like the animal doesn't make sense... So doesnt anyone in this forum have acces to a paleontologists, maybe someone... wait I'm just watching a video... so of all the fossils ever dug up there has never been a skull found!? I didn't know that? so all the skulls we see are actually carved?! wtf!

Or else, if they genuinely are a sculptural phenomenon to begin with, the 'saurs could simply be concocted on paper, then chiseled out, just as a sculpture is. After all, we had the masterful works of classicists, Donatello, Michelangelo and a host of grottos long before any "dinosaurs" were uncovered. It must feel rather God-like to make something out of the Earth and claim you just discovered it after it lay there for millions upon millions of years.
Agreed, man... wtf! like... who comes up with this shit?! I mean I'm sure there's tons of money in it but what an elaborate hoax! it's sureal but everything's posible after going throught the other ones on this forum I guess... :wacko:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6GSdIr21JA

Questioning evolutionary theory is a fantastic practice of modern science. To this day, debates are held, conferences arranged and books are published yearly to argue the various impossibility of aspects of evolution or creationism such as timeframes, design flaws, problems with "mutation", and so on. It's no more "far out" to question Darwinism than it is to question Buddhism or any other ism.
For this one I would have to get into it and I'm still highly skeptical, what would be for instance a specific case where evolution seemingly breaks down?
Last edited by daozen on Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:18 am

daozen, do you have any critical thinking skills? Any original thoughts? I'm trying to inform you that the topic is highly debated in general.

You are not "skeptical" by asking me to give my opinion. You are the opposite of skeptical if you just take the mainstream word on things, then turn around and take my word on things when I say I disagree. Give it a moment's pause and try to figure out where you could start teaching yourself how the world works, through your own senses and investigations.

Evolution "break down"?! There is nothing to break down because there isn't anything holding it up. It's science, and when you say "evolution" you are referring to it as some sort of physical thing. It's not. It's a body of questions, counter-questions, and attempts at repeatable answers. How old is the Earth? How long does it take for UV light to cause useful mutations? What is carbon-dating and how useful is it, and in what cases?

Enough of your mindless pussyfooting on the topic. Get out of this thread, please! You are just taking up space.

daozen
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:12 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by daozen » Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:04 am

hoi.polloi wrote:daozen, do you have any critical thinking skills? Any original thoughts? I'm trying to inform you that the topic is highly debated in general.
What's wrong with you Hoi? I honestly don't understand your hating? :huh: In my above post I actually went from considering the dinosaur hoax, to now being almost certain it's a hoax. I'd never heard that there were no skulls ever found, that to me is a pretty good case to believe it's a hoax, and I found that out because you clarified the concept that they are just real animal bones that have been re-arranged, which I had never heard before. Yeah I read you say it's a highly debated topic, so what? why do you repeat yourself?

You are not "skeptical" by asking me to give my opinion. You are the opposite of skeptical if you just take the mainstream word on things, then turn around and take my word on things when I say I disagree. Give it a moment's pause and try to figure out where you could start teaching yourself how the world works, through your own senses and investigations.
In the same way, I'm asking you to point me towards a specific piece of evidence that could show me evolution is a hoax. "You are the opposite of skeptical if you just take the mainstream word on things," isn't this just a strawman argument?

I had honestly never heard evolution was a highly debated topic outside the silly religious arguments, ever! So I don't think it's crazy to ask!? I don't know what you mean with this at all "then turn around and take my word on things when I say I disagree." Take your word? when? how?

To quote myself "For this one I would have to get into it" As in, I would have to take some time to research it for myself! not everone can do that instantaneously as it seems you expect me to do!

Listen man, I probably would have never doubted the 9/11 planes if I hadn't seen september clues, why? beacause it goes over certain key facts about the event that clearly show it's a fake. So what's wrong with asking for those key points on evolution. Does it mean we just take it? no, but it certaintly helps to know what to look for.

Evolution "break down"?! There is nothing to break down because there isn't anything holding it up. It's science, and when you say "evolution" you are referring to it as some sort of physical thing. It's not. It's a body of questions, counter-questions, and attempts at repeatable answers. How old is the Earth? How long does it take for UV light to cause useful mutations? What is carbon-dating and how useful is it, and in what cases?
Ok I guess the burden of proof lies on who ever believes it does exist and I could try later maybe, I would need time to elaborate though. Off the top of my head Im thinking about how fetuses are so similar across many species, and how our bone structure is similar to many mammals, as if there is a common root to the overall structure...? I don't have trouble thinking of ways in which small gradual changes would have made us and chimpanzees a different species over a long period of time? We can also see that many animals and plants can be artifically bred to have certain characterisitcs, its logical to think these are natural characteristics of life that allow it to adapt to their environment.
Enough of your mindless pussyfooting on the topic. Get out of this thread, please! You are just taking up space.
You don't need to reply to my posts if you don't want to, but your insults and attitude is absolutely unnecesary and very rude.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:04 pm

daozen wrote:I don't know what you mean with this at all "then turn around and take my word on things when I say I disagree." Take your word? when? how?
In my above post I actually went from considering the dinosaur hoax, to now being almost certain it's a hoax.
Please, put your thoughts together a little more cohesively before posting long protests. I may be rude, but it's not because I hate you, it's because I am moderating this forum and I am trying to tell you what readers should not have to deal with: namely, hemming and hawing that clouds the salient points of the thread. I am shocked and confused when you expound your internal monologue without posting some insight. I am glad you are willing to look at the topic, but why post anything at all if you are just going to muse in long passages of extremely conventional thinking? You mentioned the onus is on you to prove anything, and that's true. I'm glad you've begun to do that by at least reminding us of the official story (even if it's one everyone coming here would be familiar with):
Off the top of my head I'm thinking about how fetuses are so similar across many species, and how our bone structure is similar to many mammals, as if there is a common root to the overall structure...? I don't have trouble thinking of ways in which small gradual changes would have made us and chimpanzees a different species over a long period of time? We can also see that many animals and plants can be artificially bred to have certain characteristics, it's logical to think these are natural characteristics of life that allow it to adapt to their environment.
I wish you wouldn't necessarily always post 'off the top of your head' since it took this long for you to post your thoughts on the matter, and with such sloppy spelling and punctuation, but you make the familiar points of evolutionary speculation.

Since we seem to be at a better understanding now, can you try to put a little more thought and effort into making your posts presentable content of interesting information (as you did above) instead of just narrating your thoughts? If I am making an errant assumption when thinking that everyone here is more than familiar with evolutionary theory and needn't be reminded of it, or if people are getting something useful out of daozen's posts that I'm not seeing, I heartily apologize. I would appreciate, if you have a response to this particular issue, that you would post it here in the DERAILING ROOM. Thank you.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:31 pm

By the way, as a cap to the massive amount of derailing topics going on in the Dinosaur thread that I've just moved here, please refrain from posting personal information that could be read as backstopping sympathy ploys -- such as collecting 'congratulations' about one's personal life here. I find it both annoying and disingenuous.

We've already had to deal with this kind of stupid thing when it was shown Brian S Stavely and Equinox were sims constantly injecting personal information about their supposed lives in random bits and pieces throughout various unrelated threads!

I find this to be a rather insidious form of anchoring one's user name - like a cobweb of personal anecdotes - to a forum that is not meant to be used like Facebook.

Sorry for the coldness but I can't afford to trust anyone with such atrocious use of their keyboard, and abuse of the forum's attempts to unravel bogus science. Thank you for your cooperation!

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:42 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:By the way, as a cap to the massive amount of derailing topics going on in the Dinosaur thread that I've just moved here, please refrain from posting personal information that could be read as backstopping sympathy ploys -- such as collecting 'congratulations' about one's personal life here. I find it both annoying and disingenuous.

We've already had to deal with this kind of stupid thing when it was shown Brian S Stavely and Equinox were sims constantly injecting personal information about their supposed lives in random bits and pieces throughout various unrelated threads!

I find this to be a rather insidious form of anchoring one's user name - like a cobweb of personal anecdotes - to a forum that is not meant to be used like Facebook.

Sorry for the coldness but I can't afford to trust anyone with such atrocious use of their keyboard, and abuse of the forum's attempts to unravel bogus science. Thank you for your cooperation!
Understood . Got carried away by the positive emotions :)
No hidden agenda here

Post Reply