Just some more or less pointless remarks about the recent transition

  • Thread starter GCT
  • Start date
In summary, the forum was about to shut down, and it touches upon the point of just how long a community such as this could last and grow at the same time. Just how are all the other forums, which support multiples of members and posts more than physicsforums surviving?
  • #1
GCT
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,748
0
I find it pretty interesting that the forum was about to shut down, it touches upon the point of just how long a community such as this could last and grow at the same time. Just how are all the other forums, which support multiples of members and posts more than physicsforums surviving?

Physicsforums, though, represents a pure cause, if anyone has done any research on the current forums at this time which support a very large membership, most of them are either fan based (Gaia?) and religious (Christianforums) which, I suppose have more devotion in relevance to the financial aspects. Forgive me for my naivety

I enjoy interacting through physicsforums for its purity, it somewhat in a class of its own. Although the "cause" is less explicit and stirs up less emotion than the incentive to earn a status in the videogaming world for instance, and all of the preoccupations associated with the decrease of IQ points. Let's admit, physicsforums is not that addictive. And superior intelligence fosters shame and isolation at times. Science thrives through individual pursuit, the geniuses that fostered it.

One can ask the question of, just why aren't the major scientific establishments promoting such a project as physicsforums or even setting up their own? What the hell are they doing to contribute to the scientific education among the youths. I believe that a project such as this (physicsforums) would do wonders in promoting some excitement among the youths, whether they're motivated by ambition or pure scientific inquiry, especially if more effort was made to popularize forums such as this. Unfortunately, I don't see any trends, but perhaps this will be the first step in such a popularization of public scientific communities such as physicsforums. A pretty nice move by the scientology administration: become the first to support and finance such enthusiasm, not the Royal Society or any other science foundations, in a society with continually declining interest in science; become the first to popularize world web science and to make a direct attempt in popularizing science, while all of the high class,polished, establishments stand aloof and disinterested (besides forming isolated groups of their own)..."hey science is fun!" "Hmm, scientology is fun!" ZAP, now you're a scientologist without knowing it ;)

I have to admit, forums such as this has greatly improved my science and math savvy; even more, my enthusiasm and efficacy in communicating about matters of science.

I have to admit...feel a bit awkward "representing" scientology in a sense. Looks like, they'll be no more banning for "unscientific" arguments;) If things turn strange, I'm outta here.

What do you all think is their motivation for buying physicsforums? And just how will they exploit it for the growth of scientology? Who will be managing the forums, will Greg still be involved?

Just making my mark on this moment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
GCT look at the bottom right of the cnn page :smile: The part about the "YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS". Right under there :smile:
 
  • #3
I, for one, welcome our Scientology overlords.
 
  • #4
Mr. Bernhardt, you are horrible.
-sCoTt
 
  • #5
Oh good god, I nearly pissed myself laughing! Since it's officially April 2 where I am, allow me to be the first to say to GCT and the rest of the Forum:

APRIL FOOL!

:smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #6
HAIL XENU ! :biggrin:
 
  • #7
I meant to say that you are horribly funny.

:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
 
  • #8
This was a good one, though I thought the CNN article was pretty transparent:

"The details of the deal remain private with the exception of the promise for previous owner Greg to have three lunch dates with Tom Cruise."

Oh well. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, the people are all fools. :biggrin:

Now where did I put my pants?
 
  • #9
bloody hell...I'm so gulllible, well it was really late when I read this (4:00 a.m., back from my night out)

all of that writing for nothing, I really poured my heart out there didn't I; but I meant everything that I said . Now all of you know my feelings about issues...well, should they come up in the near future.:wink: I still think that the National Science Foundation should buy physicsforums.:biggrin: if that makes any sense

well here's to the the most embarrsing moment in the history of PF, I'm sure that my sincerest contribution here made this project all worthwhile.:blushing:
 
  • #10
Thanks GCT! April Fools jokes aren't nearly as much fun if we don't get to say, GOTCHA! to someone. :smile: :biggrin:

And, it's always good to see how much people really care about this site too, so we'll take your heartfelt message as an indication of that as well. :smile:
 
  • #11
GCT said:
I still think that the National Science Foundation should buy physicsforums.:biggrin:
National Science Foundation owend and adimstided by the Cruch of Scientology.
 
  • #12
GCT said:
bloody hell...I'm so gulllible, well it was really late when I read this (4:00 a.m., back from my night out)

haha, I'd glad it really got some people, because I started working on it about 3am on the 31st after hard night of bartending for 10 hours. Even my family got freaked out, my mom told me she saw it and ran out of the house where my dad was working and was yelling franticly for him to come inside and see something. My dad who is extremely tech savvy and overally bright sat down at the computer read it and only muttered "oh my god" to my mom. They called my up and were really pissed off that I didn't tell them and talk to them about it. Then I told them to examine the url, the bottom right of the page and what day it is and they busted out laughing.

btw, it was originally dduardo's great idea he brought up to me.
For people who want to see it again or new ppl I'll keep it at physicsforums.com/cnn/cnn.htm for a few more days, but no more or I'll be expecting some lawyers at my door lol
 
  • #13
Good one, Greg, I enjoyed it even if I wasn't taken in by it. :smile:

I'd suggest starting things a little earlier next time, doing things right at the turn of the month gets a bit obvious. Of course, it can't be later than 1st April, but the lead up can begin even before March. Less people will be wary of that sort of thing.

On another board I frequent, an April Fool's joke was initiated in February. Believe me, I fell for that one too, even though I don't consider myself that gullible.

Hmm, I think I'll PM you when I have ideas (may I ?) for the next time around. I generally love this sort of thing. :biggrin:
 
  • #14
GCT said:
bloody hell...I'm so gulllible, well it was really late when I read this (4:00 a.m., back from my night out)

all of that writing for nothing, I really poured my heart out there didn't I; but I meant everything that I said . Now all of you know my feelings about issues...well, should they come up in the near future.:wink: I still think that the National Science Foundation should buy physicsforums.:biggrin: if that makes any sense

well here's to the the most embarrsing moment in the history of PF, I'm sure that my sincerest contribution here made this project all worthwhile.:blushing:
You were too serios that I thought no 1 would dare tell you that was a prank! :smile:
 
  • #15
Naked mole rats once ambushed and devoured an Antarctic explorer - he was a midget whose winter wardrobe of choice was a tuxedo. Discover magazine, circa 1990.
 

Related to Just some more or less pointless remarks about the recent transition

1. What is the purpose of "Just some more or less pointless remarks about the recent transition"?

The purpose of this article is to provide some insights and observations on the recent transition, without any specific agenda or goal. It is simply a collection of thoughts and reflections on the topic.

2. Who is the target audience for this article?

The target audience for this article is anyone who is interested in learning more about the recent transition and wants to gain a different perspective on the topic.

3. Are the remarks in this article backed by scientific evidence?

No, the remarks in this article are not based on scientific evidence. They are simply the author's personal opinions and observations.

4. Can this article be used as a reliable source of information on the recent transition?

No, this article should not be used as a reliable source of information on the recent transition. It is meant to be a casual and informal commentary, rather than a comprehensive and factual analysis.

5. Will reading this article provide a clear understanding of the recent transition?

No, this article will not provide a clear understanding of the recent transition. It is meant to be a lighthearted and subjective perspective, rather than a comprehensive and objective explanation of the topic.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
914
Replies
1
Views
877
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
920
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
720
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
10K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
33
Views
870
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top