57 replies to this topic

[goddess]

Nootropi frequently attacks people rather than the ideas raised at this forum. Nootropi also makes irrelevant comments that do not address the questions asked, e.g. see the topic on "Increasing ACh". I feel that Nootropi is making this forum unpleasant for many people and is hindering the ability of members to develop constructive arguments.

[stellar]

Please delete this worthless thread from an individual who created a new account merely to troll.

Hmm, I wonder...could "goddess" be "Todd Lee"?

Also, isn't this thread in opposition to what the title states?
You say "Attack ideas and not people".
This thread certainly doesn't attack ANY ideas, it attacks Nootropi.

Nootropi cannot hinder your ability to develop constructive arguments, because you never had the ability to do so in the first place.

[scottl]

Goddess,

As you can imagine, I sympathize.

Recently he has tried repeatedly to stop people from posting legitimate comments on smi2le, he has accused 1fast400 of posting under a different name, he has accused AORsupport of posting misleading comments to increase AOR sales, and he has accused me of lying about my credentials. There were others.

On the other hand he knows a ton about nootropics, far more then I ever will, and can make valuable contributions to the forum. Perhaps he will get the message after seeing this and tone things down.

[goddess]

Perhaps he will get the message after seeing this and tone things down.

I hope so too.

[Bruce Klein]

This poll looks to be have skewed by an number of recent bogus sign-ups.. likely 7 or more.

[Bruce Klein]

A better place to conduct polls more accurate is in the Full Member forum.

[stellar]

This poll looks to be have skewed by an number of recent bogus sign-ups.. likely 7 or more.

BJKlein,
Can you tell us the originating IP? Can you tell us if the originating IP matches that of "goddess"?

Thanks.

[stellar]

Also, I did a "Member List" lookup, and sorted by "Join Date"......can you tell us about these users and whether they were used to vote in this poll:

r1000 Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
r1001 Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
r1003 Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
r1004 Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
r1005 Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
roster Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
rickkez Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0
raymond Basic Member Nov 26, 2004 0


PS:

In this Thread, "goddess" admits he's a troll.

[goddess]

That's pretty funny!

And I'm a "he" now?

[geigertube]

goddess: Nootropi frequently attacks people rather than the ideas raised at this forum.  Nootropi also makes irrelevant comments that do not address the questions asked, e.g. see the topic on "Increasing ACh".  I feel that Nootropi is making this forum unpleasant for many people and is hindering the ability of members to develop constructive arguments.

While I don't want to see the man banned, I do find his flaming to be inappropriate, unwarranted, and distracting to the point where it diminishes my enjoyment of the forum.


Steven

[goddess]

Stellar, am I geigertube too? [lol]

[goddess]

I do find his flaming to be inappropriate, unwarranted, and distracting to the point where it diminishes my enjoyment of the forum.

Very true.

[unipolar_mania]

Even if you take off those 'r-' characters, that still leaves quite a few that want him banned. I voted "no".

[unipolar_mania]

Strangely, there appears to be a match between stellar and nootropi.

[scottl]

Uni,

I don't think so if you check out stellar's first few posts.

Point is, this is a lot of energy being expent on things other then discussing nootropics and suppliers thereof and it is unfortunate.

[stellar]

unipolar_mania: Strangely, there appears to be a match between stellar and nootropi.

You need to be more specific. Please name that which is a "match" between myself and Nootropi?

[magr]

While I don't want to see the man banned, I do find his flaming to be inappropriate, unwarranted,  and distracting to the point where it diminishes my enjoyment of the forum.


Steven

I fully agree.

I don't know what has happened to him.

[Lazarus Long]

goddess it is true that you are attacking the individual in contrast to the ideas by this very thread but I decided to follow up on the implication as I am want to do.

Is this the supposed flaming?

I like smi2le because smi2le is the best supplier of nootropics on the planet, which is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

You guys should learn how to form your own opinions for yourself every once in a while. It shows you have the propensity to think for yourselves.

http://www.imminst.o...657

I must say he is not attacking or flaming anyone in particular IMO but offering his product preference and a standard to live by. Make up your own minds but I do find it strange to see this claimed as a *flaming.*

Is there any more substantive example of personal or ad hominem attacks, insult or disparaging remark?

Or is this getting exaggerated?

BTW, I do not take nootropes and have no affiliation with any producers one way or another. My only interest is forum conduct. It is serious to want to ban a member that has been contributing as much as nootropi has in general and I do not treat such allegations lightly but I look into them. I read the thread and find little that merits this attempt IMO.

[scottl]

Since you Asked Lazarus:

1. A new poster complains about smi2le:

http://www.imminst.o...594

nootropi

Mats: I am sorry, but with post count = 1, you are not a credible contributor to this forum; thus we cannot take your claim seriously.

The reason why you are not credible is because your only post thus far in this forum is outright a discreditation of a well respected vendor here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. He accuses AORsupport of confusing things to increase sales:

http://www.imminst.o...t=0

Nootropi:
AORsupport not only said 40%, but three other numbers which implied that 600 mg KRALA is not equivalent to 200 mg RALA He did this on purpose; in my opinion, he did this so some readers might become so confused with his number inequivalencies that they would feel the need to click his banner and buy the exact same product from him for ten times the price that you can get from Geronova yourself; or Rizzer (Geronova only sells this product by the kilogram).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. If you read through this long and painful thread, all will be clear:

Another SMI2LE.BIZ horror story

you will find him trying to stop people from voicing their complaints on smi2le as well as ttacks on the credibility of another nootropic supplier 1fast400. He also accuses 1fast400 of posting under a false...name...I forget the details of his acusations.:

"Magr: please, stop whining"
-------------------------------
"I do not want to come to this forum and discuss customer service issues. They can be handled by the appropriate individuals; I do not want to see this kind of continual babble."
------------------------------
"Yes, I certainly can say SHUT UP. You are discussing this topic in a community that I care about."
------------------------------
"I do not believe half of the crap you say about being in all of these lawsuits. "
------------------------------
"Mr. 1fast400: the way I see things, you are as false as the products you sell. I would say your business is infamous rather than famous, but that is just me.

You are just jealous of Rizzer. It shows. Get over it, please. "
------------------------------
"Nootropic, or should I say 1fast400 trying to fool us? I can't be sure...

But one thing is for sure, all you have tried to do here, nootropic is SELL us 1fast400! That IS NOT DISCUSSING NOOTROPICS!

Get some self respect and get out of here with your desperate sales technique
------------------------------

"What are you talking about? If you are not going to discuss smart drugs, then get out of here, please. "





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. I said that I didn't think Nootropi was exactly unbiased regarding smi2le and he attacks me

http://www.imminst.o...619

nootropi
Posted: Nov 21, 2004

Scottl, while you may claim to have an MD, I must say that whereever you attended medical school must not have provided you with a very good education whatsover.

To be 100% honest with you and the rest of the community, I do not believe that you are an MD. Yes, so I am calling you a liar. No MD would come here with such a poor understanding of his own field. Judging from the content of your posts, comments, and questions, you hardly understand anything about medicine."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can find other examples if you'd like.

Again I'd prefer not to see him banned, but I really wish there was some way to get this to stop.

[Lazarus Long]

Well imminst is not promoting or attacking smi2le but in the interest of fairness if someone recommends it and others have contrasting views they are certainly entitled to voice them without fear of personal responses.

These other examples are more clear and do suggest that he could perhaps respond in a more temperate manner.

I would really like to hear his side of this.

I also do not think he should be banned but some of the responses you have highlighted are questionable.

[susmariosep]

First, if BJKlein, owner, is around, may I suggest:

1. that every message should be inscribed with its number counting from the very first message of this board, and then its number counting from the start of the thread it is located in;

2. that every message should be inscribed with its date of arrival including the time up to the seconds if possible.

Then also if not already being done:

1. If any deletion or editing is done by the powers that be in this board, the original texts should be sent to a special section with proper references so that people can still view what was exactly written in the original.

2. If the powers that be delete or edit any portion of any message, there should always be an annotation to the effect that editing and/or pruning was done by the powers that be;


3. Posters cannot delete or revise his own posts after one hour from posting or lesser time. For the purpose he wants to achieve, he can always write another message to relate to the one he wants to delete or revise.

4. If the powers that be issue warning with the threat to suspend or to ban a poster, then that threat should be very clearly and absolutely stated.

5. If there is an ongoing process where a complaint from a poster is being considered, unless and until the process is completed and the adjudicating official states so, no suspension and much less banning should be issued, and then only upon non-desistance from the complainant poster.


Dear BJKlein, I have been suspended from IIDB, and before that banned without notice from the Straightdope forum, both I believe on pique of moderators and administrators and owners, and also more recently suspended once and had my posts deleted or edited without ceremonies in Comparative Religion forum, and I had left other forums owing to very depressing experiences in them, and human as I am but not unwilling to have non-partisan people review my posts and my manners of posting, I feel I have been unfairly dealt with.

I don't know Nootropi, whether it's a poster or a thread. But my own idea is that posters complaining against a fellow poster can only be justified on grounds of uncivil language, and nothing else.

Moderators and administrators and owners can do everything they deem necessary for their forums to be a civil arena for the exchange of ideas in a free thought setting and free but not licentious speech mode.

And very important, moderators, administrators, and owners should always annotate in a message where they do any erasures or editings that such action was taken for what reason, and that the original texts can be found in that section where such writings are collected for even everyone to examine.

Otherwise there will always be people like yours truly who will feel great offense at being invited and welcomed to join and then to be arbitrarily with neither rime nor reason suspended or outright banned.

About people who are obviously and conspicuously in bad faith, they should be allowed to continue with their postings but in a separate section where they can eventually get tired and come to their senses, or leave of their own accord.

No, I have not read the thread of Nootropi or his posts, and I will now proceed to read them.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

[nootropi]

I think the fact that some of you have taken such a devout interest in discrediting me is quite flattering, in fact. What is particularly hilarious is that this thread is entitled: "Attack ideas and not people," right? That really gets me knee slapping.

Proof:

This forum has barely anybody contributing ideas, and those who do (and provide documentation of the substantiation that validates our arguments) are few and far between.

Obviously some people have more of an interest in discrediting me that instead of discrediting my ideas, they are discrediting the fact that I am discrediting other people BASED on their ideas! Don't you get it? Take, for example, scottl. A perfect example. Why? Simple. He claims to be a doctor, yet instead of presenting evidence to defend his medical judgement he presents evidence of me discrediting other people based on what I believe to be a lack of good judgement. I have every right to call what I see wrong if I see it that way; and I present the readers here with the rationale I use to form my opinion, with all due respect. So does anybody else in this forum.

But what I find to be the single most compelling piece of evidence that proves scottl has impaired medical judgement is that he is not able to argue that he is a competent physician. A competent physician knows why a double blind placebo controlled study is relevant and why case reports (and really with n=1) are not.
Q.E.D.

Case reports - are not considered research (scottl, you might want to read this)

[scottl]

That case report that you are trying to ignore is not an unexpected side effect, but a predictable and totally expected potential result based on the physiology of vasodilators. Ignoring it because you do not undertand the physiology and n=1 can result in someone getting an MI.

I'm done with this thread--feel free to attack me some more.

Res ipsa loquitur

[nootropi]

That case report that you are trying to ignore is not an unexpected side effect, but a predictable and totally expected potential result based on the physiology of vasodilators.  Ignoring it because you do not undertand the physiology and n=1 can result in someone getting an MI.

I'm done with this thread--feel free to attack me some more.

My goal is not to attack you.

My goal is to disbuse you of your false perceptions, meanwhile stating my agreement with the rest of the medical profession that ONLY double blind placebo controlled studies are credible sources for drawing conclusions which then are appropriate basis for medical recommendations.

My goal is to ensure the safety of the members of this forum; not to satisfy the members who have registered ten times today to vote for your cause. If you feel that I am attacking you in the name of safety, so be it. I am proud that I do not agree with your medical reasoning.

[Lazarus Long]

As a point of reference I will try and other leaders can contribute as they desire, to emphasize that we do not edit another persons' posts except under extreme duress and as an option of last resort.

If any of you attempt to edit your own posts it will create a highlighted date/time stamp but we do not have the one hour rule available in our software but have examined this proposal and will reconsider it as we go forward.

We do have a system of administrators and moderators. Our moderators are known as Navigators here and they can patrol any area they desire to. All leaders have moderator privileges bu those you call *owners* are more specific to forums topics and are called advisor's for the particular subject and conduct in their areas but we all communicate as leaders to discuss serious issues of conduct between our leadership group that is headed by the Board of Directors, of which there are seven and I am one just to explain my status in the matter. Nobody is summarily banned here by the decision of a single leader. All such events are the result of a review process.

When I noticed this thread it caught my attention but I generally do not frequent this section of imminst all that much. However I should say that we also have an area called the Free Speech forum, which if you are insistent on making it personal all I can say is take it outside.

That area is really meant for topics that others are too afraid to address as we do not censor there at all and I do emphasize that in general we have had very little need to censor (that is the good news) at all when people respect honest debate protocol and refrain from any ad hominem attack.

I do not think it is appropriate to mix personal commentary and respect the concern of this topic starter but i also should add that we have pretty strict guidelines for what can get you banned or censored here and they are found in the User agreement that you signed to join.

If someone has been unjustly abusing their editing privilege and responsibilities the leadership wants to know. We are actually a democratically structured forum with an elected leadership and this too is subject to scheduled review by election and we take it seriously. Bruce can and does review the Admin logs to see *who has done what* in the event of serious allegations.

If you have a specific complaint about a member's (full or basic), navigator's, advisor's, or director's conduct you can PM other members of the leadership or post to that effect and we certainly will initiate a review and attempt to remedy the problem.

Moderators and administrators and owners can do everything they deem necessary for their forums to be a civil arena for the exchange of ideas in a free thought setting and free but not licentious speech mode.

And very important, moderators, administrators, and owners should always annotate in a message where they do any erasures or editing that such action was taken for what reason, and that the original texts can be found in that section where such writings are collected for even everyone to examine.

BTW, these are generally the rules that we operate under here. I certainly never alter anything without also stating this to be the case and why. I have only to date had to use this power twice that I can think of.

Alright I changed my mind I will answer these now:

1. that every message should be inscribed with its number counting from the very first message of this board, and then its number counting from the start of the thread it is located in;

2. that every message should be inscribed with its date of arrival including the time up to the seconds if possible.

Then also if not already being done:

1. If any deletion or editing is done by the powers that be in this board, the original texts should be sent to a special section with proper references so that people can still view what was exactly written in the original.

2. If the powers that be delete or edit any portion of any message, there should always be an annotation to the effect that editing and/or pruning was done by the powers that be;


3. Posters cannot delete or revise his own posts after one hour from posting or lesser time. For the purpose he wants to achieve, he can always write another message to relate to the one he wants to delete or revise.

4. If the powers that be issue warning with the threat to suspend or to ban a poster, then that threat should be very clearly and absolutely stated.

5. If there is an ongoing process where a complaint from a poster is being considered, unless and until the process is completed and the adjudicating official states so, no suspension and much less banning should be issued, and then only upon non-desistance from the complainant poster.

We do not thread by reply to specific post but all posts are chronologically sequenced as they are placed in a thread and that is why we encourage the use of the quote function so that the reference to a previous post can be made more certain. You will notice a date/time stamp above but an *Edited by* line below with its own date/time stamp if that occurs.

We have a special section called the Catcher where most obsolete or extraneous verbiage is generally sent unless it contains an offending remark. Most offending remarks are clear though a case was just reviewed in which one of our members uses a vulgar word with another edited originally by asterisk and later removed voluntarily by the Navigator in question before being asked to. I only mention it because it was an example of dancing the line. But there was a record of it and a review had informally begun when events resolved themselves.

There is the kind of record you are asking for in other words. It is not as perfect as I would like and we have examined and will return to the idea of a holding area for suspect posts rather than summary deletion when these software options are more available.

Numbers 3, as I said earlier is not yet available for our software version but is under consideration and full members get to edit their own post only unless they are nominated and elected to leadership positions when they get such powers.

We have a sort of representational democracy as the seven directors are elected by the full members and we nominate and vote on those that hold the rest of the positions. All of this is outlined in the Imminst Constitution. The user agreement and Constitution can be found as links on the homepage and BTW every post is also tagged with a link so it is also possible to reference any post by copy/pasting the post link into your subsequent comments.

Numbers 4, & 5 are already the case and this series of posts are the beginning of just such an investigative inquiry but as of yet no formal action has been called for or decided.

Well I hope this explains some of our procedures to everyone and has been helpful. We are always open to constructive suggestion and appreciate all your comments.

[geigertube]

Obviously some people have more of an interest in discrediting me that instead of discrediting my ideas,.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when it comes to ideas of yours that I disagree with, after viewing your discussion style here and on Avant, I decided that it's not worth my time or effort to try and change your mind.

Steven

[Lazarus Long]

God! I go away for a couple of minutes to try and address one posters concerns about forum procedure and you folks are at it again.

I wish the repartee were less personal but for the record I do not think scottl was exactly attacking you nootropi and he was not calling for your banning but expressed concerned about how you phrase your replies to people. Could you demonstrate perhaps a bit more compassion rather than just passion in your response please?

I agree that there is no small irony in the intial author's title and subsequent commentary but it might not hurt to stick to a more objective focus for the replies.

[Lazarus Long]

I think a review of Crocker's Rules might not hurt either.

[nootropi]

I would like to kindly remind the intelligent members of this forum that any full member here (and some select basic members) who wants to submit a sample of smi2le.biz's product for third party purity verification and is willing to work with me may. I will pay for the cost of the tests, because the owner of smi2le.biz will reimburse me with products.

The real issue here is the fact that smi2le.biz's owner, known around here as "Rizzer," has offered to work with the members of this community to take steps towards quality control for our life extension supplements. It seems some of smi2le.biz's competitiors have less to offer this community. This may anger such competitors, but I ask the admininstrators of this forum to consider the quality of the posts of the members who have recently decided to discredit me based on nothing other than the fact that I state my opinion in a straighforward manner.

Once again, any full member (and select basic members) who wants to participate in quality control procedures for products at smi2le.biz may, free of charge, provided they follow the protocol for chain of custody.

Be well. I am fighting for the safety of the members of this forum. Consider the record.