For the discussion of the improvement of the forums

  • 102 Replies
  • 1780 Views
*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2020, 11:34:42 AM »
Hrm. These conversations around who really believes are useless and detract from the task at hand. Behave yourselves, or you will be removed from believers and thus this conversation. I had hoped we got rid of those that wish to divide our cause further with the whole tfes shit.

Now, that said:



How about we create a second board this weekend called Believers Debate or some such that has what you say as its rules; post moderation namely.

If it turns out that it improves the level of debate, we merge the two and keep the moderation. If not, we merge and don't.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4897
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2020, 12:45:17 PM »
How about we create a second board this weekend called Believers Debate or some such that has what you say as its rules; post moderation namely.

We need to apply the post approval feature to the messages posted by jb and r. This much is clear.

No, I am not an RE adherent. You, on the other hand, are a noted troll and shitposter.

That's no way to talk to a fellow FEB.

What else other than shitposting have both jb and r been accomplishing here for the past four years? With no one to tell them so.

Three of the admin are RE: the other two are Jack and Lord Wilmore.



*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2020, 01:03:30 PM »
How about we create a second board this weekend called Believers Debate or some such that has what you say as its rules; post moderation namely.

We need to apply the post approval feature to the messages posted by jb and r. This much is clear.

No, I am not an RE adherent. You, on the other hand, are a noted troll and shitposter.

That's no way to talk to a fellow FEB.

What else other than shitposting have both jb and r been accomplishing here for the past four years? With no one to tell them so.

Three of the admin are RE: the other two are Jack and Lord Wilmore.
Excuse me?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4897
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2020, 01:21:30 PM »
Lord Wilmore is RE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1079;area=showposts;start=10200

And so is Jack:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=12242;area=showposts;start=3810

Now, if you think that the proposed post approval feature is too much, there isn't much else that we the FE can do for the forum. There is no way that I am going to waste my time anymore, trying to debate the RE while they are being allowed to bend the rules (fisking/trolling) in order to create confusion through contentless posting.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2020, 01:25:34 PM »
I don't think post approval is too much; hence why I laid out a reasonable plan to test it out.

I thought you were calling me a round earther. Apologies for my response that I deleted to wait on clarification.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #95 on: February 28, 2020, 01:27:23 PM »
I'm not really clear on what I'm looking for here with Wilmore's posts. Either way:

Quote
These conversations around who really believes are useless and detract from the task at hand.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40739
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2020, 02:00:21 PM »
We can't just have rab and jackblack the only ones who have to have posts approved in a forum. Might as well just block them from that forum altogether.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #97 on: February 28, 2020, 02:09:12 PM »
Which leads me to my point; let's give their idea a try. It's almost no effort on our part if I'm reading the docs correctly. To ensure fairness to jb rab and other globs we can simply also play a small part as we read threads in approving those we should.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4897
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #98 on: February 28, 2020, 02:16:40 PM »
We can't just have rab and jackblack the only ones who have to have posts approved in a forum.

We sure can. They should have been banned from the very first instances of shitposting, now five years later, we no longer have functioning upper forums sections because of these two.

Might as well just block them from that forum altogether.

They need to be educated, they must learn to give up the fisking and the constant trolling.

If you disagree, then fine, let us follow the same path we have been following for the past five years here.


*

boydster

  • Planar Moderator
  • 13560
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #99 on: February 28, 2020, 03:32:30 PM »
[redacted]

I think we should prioritize issues including keeping our forum software up to date and stopping spam attacks. And I don't believe the links provided to post histories indicate either of the accused are RE, so I fail to see the relevance.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 03:39:47 PM by boydster »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #100 on: February 28, 2020, 04:25:09 PM »
You are right about that, and I'm sorry for inaction there.

I'll prepare some aws credentials for you guys to ssh into the new server so we can start setting this up. Obviously, I can't handle the task alone with my current life load.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16143
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2020, 04:25:51 PM »
The task being keeping it up to date.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4897
Re: For the discussion of the improvement of the forums
« Reply #102 on: Today at 01:04:17 AM »
This is from today:

Nobody is banging on about alchemy and the occult but you.
So you didn't even to bother reading who I was writing about.
It is Sandokhan who brings up "occult chemistry" in his debates! How are we supposed to answer that sort of thing?

markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering the neutron in  1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult Chemistry appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old observations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that  Besant and Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

So all this information from occult chemistry and physics cones fro "ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation" - to each his own!

. . . . .
So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 
Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.



Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I'll just give a link to these recent ones:
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003 « Message by sandokhan on September 07, 2019, 05:04:17 AM »

Flat Earth General / Re: Strongest FE Evidence « Message by sandokhan on December 04, 2019, 11:29:35 PM »

Flat Earth General / Re: Strongest FE Evidence « Message by sandokhan on December 04, 2019, 11:31:17 PM »

And Sandokhan is the one accusing others of posting pseudoscientific rubbish - not his words, I won't stoop that low.


This is what has to stop.

This is what has been going on for the past five years, scg doing nothing about it, even worse she is now worried that these two worst repeat offenders might "suffer" if they are put on probation.