Power - Karma

[susie123]

Originally Posted by jaysay

My post wasn't a slight on you susie, believe me, but older members on here would be quite aware of my thoughts on the matter and the person I refered too

Didn't think it was Jaysay but thanks for that.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by susie123

How does reputation power relate to karma? Is there an idiot's guide to all this? You see I'm a scientist, I like to find things out.

Again, don't worry about it. It, really not being of any great importance.

There are threads about it, if you really want to know all the ins, and outs.

Basically it goes up the longer you're here, and if people give you karma...I think.

Who cares?

Like Cashy said, until you can spend it, who really gives a flying fox?

[claytonx]

Originally Posted by garinda

Again, don't worry about it. It, really not being of any great importance.

There are threads about it, if you really want to know all the ins, and outs.

Basically it goes up the longer you're here, and if people give you karma...I think.

Who cares?

Like Cashy said, until you can spend it, who really gives a flying fox?

Just switched on can't believe all the fuss

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by claytonx

Just switched on can't believe all the fuss

What fuss

[Less]

Originally Posted by susie123

Think I'll stick to the nostalgia threads in future, it's safer.

Thanks again all.

Perhaps you could start a thread entitled:-

"Remember when science threw off the reputation of being witchcraft and how come some people are so keen to take us back to the dark ages"?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Less

Perhaps you could start a thread entitled:-

"Remember when science threw off the reputation of being witchcraft and how come some people are so keen to take us back to the dark ages"?

No names no pack drill Less

[susie123]

Originally Posted by Less

Perhaps you could start a thread entitled:-

"Remember when science threw off the reputation of being witchcraft and how come some people are so keen to take us back to the dark ages"?

Good idea Less. Have just started reading a book called Superstition: belief in the age of of science by Robert L Park which deals with that very topic. Perhaps when I've finished it I'll be back with some more ideas.

By the way I've just read your first blog from way back when so have a good idea of where you're coming from.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Less

A person with scientific knowledge is often one of the first to say "I don't know", a conspiratist is someone much like a person newly converted to religion, they will grasp at the tiniest straw of what they consider to be true and will then go on a mission in the hopes of converting others to their ridiculous and unfounded theories.
as you say everyone can express their opinion, which also gives everyone else an equal right to express their contempt that a grown up, so called intelligent person should not only believe such rubbish but also want to spread such guff and expect no criticism.
I join you in welcoming Susie to the site, perhaps we can look forward to some interesting posts that will blow our technophobe out of the water?

I am in agreement with you Less. No-one will force you to believe any theory....but if you do not have the information, then it follows that you cannot make a choice as to whether to believe what has been theorised about.
Scientists also publish theories which at a later date turn out ot be unfounded and maybe even ridiculous, but because they are propounded by a scientist the general population believe what they are being told.

There has to be some kind of balance......and whatever susie123 thinks, it does not advance her argument/discussion to call another member a nutter.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am in agreement with you Less. No-one will force you to believe any theory....but if you do not have the information, then it follows that you cannot make a choice as to whether to believe what has been theorised about.
Scientists also publish theories which at a later date turn out ot be unfounded and maybe even ridiculous, but because they are propounded by a scientist the general population believe what they are being told.

There has to be some kind of balance......and whatever susie123 thinks, it does not advance her argument/discussion to call another member a nutter.

Just depends who she was calling, I've been called worse

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am in agreement with you Less. No-one will force you to believe any theory....but if you do not have the information, then it follows that you cannot make a choice as to whether to believe what has been theorised about.
Scientists also publish theories which at a later date turn out ot be unfounded and maybe even ridiculous, but because they are propounded by a scientist the general population believe what they are being told.

There has to be some kind of balance......and whatever susie123 thinks, it does not advance her argument/discussion to call another member a nutter.

No Margaret you are not agreeing with me, you are defending the right for someone to spread bullshine, there are plenty of nutters out there on the www, that post with no thought of consquence, when we have a homegrown one posting such carp on site they need to be put firmly in their place.
As for your comment about scientists and their theories you are wrong, when a scientist puts forward an unsupported theory they usually state it as such or face ridicule from their peers.
A theory until it becomes proven fact is just that, a theory. It only becomes accepted once it is proven.

By the way would anyone care to contribute towards my personal gas mantel? It is at the moment only in the theory stage as I can't quite get around the diet of brussel sprouts only and I can't yet produce a universal fitting that will allow people to take advantage of the gasses and still manage to talk out of their backsides, (one thing though, it will be EMF compatable).

[Margaret Pilkington]

Well, Less you are entitled to your own opinion...and entitled to post that opinion.
Scientists do publish theories(I never mentioned whether they were supported or not - they have to have some kind of support to do the research)which later turn out to be wrong....that isn't my opinion, it is fact.

We see reported weekly that such and such a scientist, at such and such a University has evidence that Broccoli makes your nose grow bigger....the following week we have yet another academic who goes on to prove that it doesn't. Both of these academics must have had support...but their research gives conflicting information....but you have the choice of which bit to believe. I know I have used a ridiculous analogy......it is only there to illustrate my point.

What you consider to be bullshine, may not be so to other people...they are able to
make their own decisions and choices....and even if the majority believe it is bullshine, again, at some point in the future it may turn out to have some truth in it...like the 'old wives tales'.
On a lighter note, I am sorry you are having so much difficulty in getting your research into a universal fitting to allow you to make use of all that gas....this is because like people anus's(or should that be ani?....I'm not sure, but I think some clever clogs out there will tell me) come in so many different sizes!

[susie123]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

whatever susie123 thinks, it does not advance her argument/discussion to call another member a nutter.

Margaret I did not call another member a nutter. If you read the original thread the exchange went like this:

Originally Posted by MargaretR:
Was your degree from Sussex Uni in psychiatry?
If not, how do you qualify to say who and who isn't sane/normal?

My reply: Doesn't take a degree in psychiatry to recognise a nutter when you meet one.

What I said was meant to be a general remark about nutters, not aimed at anyone in particular. If anyone chooses to take it personally that's their problem.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Susie, it may not have been your intention to call a member a nutter...and no you didn't actually call MargaretR a nutter, but the inference was there.

The internet is not a good medium to get the subtle nuances across. I know that if you had said the same about me that is how I would have interpreted it....and telling someone that if they take a comment personally 'it is their problem' is not conducive to good forum relations...but then maybe you don't care very much about that.

[mobertol]

I also gave my first ever dose of red karma to someone last week - with explanation, username and real name -never expected to ever send any to be honest but was pretty angry about something I read and it was an instant reaction.
Lo and behold a short time later that day I received some back for the first time too - i don't know how many points I got deducted and haven't worked out how you can verify who sent it, despite G's explanation to Susie on this thread...no nasty words but no signature which I think is pretty cowardly. Wrote to Neil about it as the person said i had broken forum rules so was a tad anxious about reprisals but he told me just to ignore whoever it was -which i did...(Thanks again Neil!) I wasn't bothered about receiving the red stuff -just the fact that it was done in a snide way. If you think someone deserves it then at least have the strenghth of your own conviction to sign it when you send it...

[mobertol]

Originally Posted by garinda

N.L.T.B.G.Y.D.

Never Let Tony Blair Give You Dysentry.

Never Let The Beastly Garinda Ye Dupe!

I suggest that Michael write a PM to Cashy as I did a while back to ask him what it means - it is just SO.... Cashy!!