Are your ideas rational?

[Profpat]

Profpat;
It would appear that SB_UK wants us to play her ADD game. I think it’s time to pull this weed!

ADD I thought she had Tourette's Syndrome David

[JAK]

Profpat;
It would appear that SB_UK wants us to play her ADD game. I think it’s time to pull this weed!

I know you're right, David, but she had something really interesting underneath her bizarre façade.
Dang, you're right David. I gotta go along with you on this one.

[analog]

If you can't put together a simple coherent sentence, what difference does it make if you even know the ToE. You'll never be able to share it with anyone.

[JAK]

...
I'm not sure what to do about this yet, but I think some weeding is in order. But this leads to another problem. Who decides which pieces fit and which pieces are too warped to fit. Fortunately, there are some objective guidelines we can use that are reference in the Forum Rules page. The reference is to a page that describes a number of argument fallacies. This is an excellent reference that we can use to, not only identify flaws in other's arguments, but to bring more discipline and a better presentation to our own.
--Robert

Getting back on topic, Robert, the precision of knowing fallacies of logic can be critical. However, there are quite a number of them, and they tend to be intimidating to many.

Perhaps a simpler process might be establishing a "criterion of truth" which could be used as a "touchstone" to test any postulated idea. The criterion known as "pragmatism" lies underneath the scientific method, but stronger still is the "coherence theory of truth" or my favorite, "negative pragmatism".

"What works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works." - William Earnest Hocking.

With negative pragmatism, forum participants need only find a flaw to bring question about any idea. If controversy persists, then referring to the Forum Rules and the argument fallacies page would be the next stop.
Thoughts?

[Profpat]

I hope you don't mind Robert but I thought I would post the rules again right here. They are specific and easy to follow:
The Rules

Please respect the following rules so we can advance in our Quest.

1. Keep your posts professional and respectful. Rudeness, vulgarity, personal attacks, and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated.
2. Stay on topic. Read the starting post of a thread for any ground rules and respond within the confines of the thread prefix.
3. Refrain from short meaningless posts, or posts that are not very well thought out.
4. Please use send a PM or use the 'Thanks' button to express your appreciation for a well-thought out post.
5. Preview your post before submitting. Check your spelling and grammar as much as possible. Avoid using all uppercase and use a blank line between paragraphs. This gives your posts a more professional look and helps to convey your ideas to the reader.
6. Avoid posting the same post to multiple forums.
7. Do not cut and past your posts from a word document or any other document that might have embedded html or control characters. This generally results in an ugly post that few will read.
8. Advertising, spamming and trolling is not allowed. This includes using the forum email and private messages.
9. Each member is allowed one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. If you have other accounts due to registration problems, e.g., please let me know and I will remove or merge your other accounts.
10. Keep your postings conversational; they should not be article length. Excessively long posts disturb the flow of a thread and turn people off. The TOE Articles section of the forums are reserved for article length posts and may be referred to from your forum post.
11. Political discussions are not allowed. This is a big community breaker and not related to the Theory of Everything.
12. Please do not preach. This applies to religion and personal agenda's.

#1,2,6.and 12, I believe are the ones most violated

[dleviwing]

#1,2,6.and 12, I believe are the ones most violated

I think you should add #3 to the most violated also; you don’t want to leave Mkirkpatrick out do you? Unfortunately some feel that truth can be viewed as rude. (#1) I will reserve the right to violate #1 whenever gross fallacies are presented in the science forums; those who do that are consciously aware of what they are doing and that's rude.

[Profpat]

Two rudes do not make for professionalism or respectfulness, It only makes for too rude and further rudeness to follow.

[dleviwing]

You would make a good moderator Profpat; care to volunteer?

[Profpat]

No thank you David I wouldn't be able to moderate, you and Neutralino are good moderators. To bad that Neutralino resigned. But you seem to be a good gardener getting rid of some of the weeds. Weeding is good, rudeness is not.

P.S. I've been censored before but not banned yet.

[JAK]

...
P.S. I've been censored before but not banned yet.

Yeah, but this place ain't the same without the naked truth and Monkey Woman.