The Neurology of Critical Thinking
Introductory lab courses are ubiquitous in science education, but there has been little evidence of how or whether they contribute to learning. They are often seen as primarily "cookbook" exercises in which students simply follow instructions to confirm results given in their textbooks, while learning little..
Test Poll
This is just a test of the poll functionality.
In a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , scientists from Stanford and the University of British Columbia show that guiding students to autonomous, iterative decision-making while carrying out common physics lab course experiments can significantly improve students' critical thinking skills.
In the multi-year, ongoing study, the researchers followed first-year students in co-author Douglas Bonn's introductory physics lab course at the University of British Columbia. They first established what students were, and were not, learning following the conventional instructional approach, and then systematically modified the instructions of some lab experiments to change how students think about data and their implications.
One of the first experiments the researchers tackled involved swinging a pendulum and using a stopwatch to time the period between two angles of amplitude. Students conducting the traditional experiment would collect the data, compare them to the equation in the textbook, chalk up any discrepancies to mistakes and move along.
In the modified course, the students were instructed to make decisions based on the comparison. First, what should they do to improve the quality of their data, and then, how could they better test or explain the comparison between data and the textbook result? These are basic steps in all scientific research.
Students chose improvements such as conducting more trials to reduce standard error, marking the floor to be more precise in measuring the angle, or simply putting the team member with the best trigger finger in charge of the stopwatch.
As their data improved, so did their understanding of the processes at work, as well as their confidence in their information and its ability to test predicted results.
"By actually taking good data, they can reveal that there's this approximation in the equation that they learn in the text book, and they learn new physics by this process," said Natasha Holmes, the lead author on the study, who began the research as a doctoral candidate at UBC and is building upon it as a postdoctoral research fellow at Stanford.
"By iterating, making changes and learning about experimental design in a more deliberate way, they come out with a richer experience."
Researchers found that students taking an iterative decision-making approach to the experiment were 12 times more likely to think of and employ ways to improve their data than the students with the traditional instruction. Similarly, the experimental group was four times more likely to identify and explain the limits of their predictive model based on their data.
Even more encouraging, these students were still applying these same critical thinking skills a year later in another physics course.
"This is sort of a radical way to think about teaching, having students practice the thinking skills you want them to develop, but in another way it's obvious common sense," said co-author Carl Wieman , a professor of physics and of education at Stanford. "Natasha has shown here how powerful that approach can be."
The ability to make decisions based on data is becoming increasingly important in public policy decisions, Wieman said, and understanding that any real data have a degree of uncertainty, and knowing how to arrive at meaningful conclusions in the face of that uncertainty, is essential. The iterative teaching method better prepares students for that reality.
"Students leave this class with fundamentally different ideas about interpretation of data and testing against model predictions, whether it's about climate change or vaccine safety or swinging pendulums," Wieman said.
At Stanford, Holmes is expanding her research, applying these lessons to a range of undergraduate courses at different levels and subjects.
If iterative design can get first-year students to employ expert-like behaviors, the gains could be greater in advanced courses, she said. When students embark on an independent project, for instance, they'll be much better prepared to face and clear any hurdles.
"Students tell me that it helped them learn what it means to do science, and helped to see themselves as scientists and critical thinkers," Holmes said. "I think it's done a whole lot for their motivation and attitudes and beliefs about what they're capable of. So at least from that perspective, I think experiment design that encourages iterative thinking will have huge benefits for students in the long run."
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Here is the seed content.
"Students leave this class with fundamentally different ideas about interpretation of data and testing against model predictions, whether it's about climate change or vaccine safety or swinging pendulums," Wieman said.
At Stanford, Holmes is expanding her research, applying these lessons to a range of undergraduate courses at different levels and subjects.
If iterative design can get first-year students to employ expert-like behaviors, the gains could be greater in advanced courses, she said. When students embark on an independent project, for instance, they'll be much better prepared to face and clear any hurdles.
"Students tell me that it helped them learn what it means to do science, and helped to see themselves as scientists and critical thinkers," Holmes said. "I think it's done a whole lot for their motivation and attitudes and beliefs about what they're capable of. So at least from that perspective, I think experiment design that encourages iterative thinking will have huge benefits for students in the long run."
Should have no effect..
Testing Youtube
Testing image
Testing
t
t
Tracking
Track
More tracking [This is mod text now]
Adding to comment count
Yeah!!!
Under 1.3
Under 1.3.2
commenter update.
(deleted)
(would be deleted)
ddd
(would be deleted)
xxx
(would be deleted)
new
(would be deleted)
Here we go.
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
Comment for tracking
Tracking
[Deleted] the [comment and added this new one] to [see what happens when a lengthy moderator comment is effectively merged with a lengthy original comment that has been deleted. Cannot have words interspersed in an odd way even if it is technically correct.]
bbb
Seems to work
Yes it does
This is good
Agreed
Test
Replying to 3.1
new one
xx
yy
Test
test
⛬ test
look ☞ nutcase
A new comment
3.1.13
3.1.11 should be marked
marking test
Now should work
@3.1.12 should not be marked
One more just to include complicated HTML as part of the test.
Plenty of opportunities to mess things up. ....
Conveniently adding my comment with the original in context.
xxxx
Wally is one handsome dude
Plenty of opportunities to mess things up.
In a thread that TiG has not commented
In a sub-thread in which TiG has not commented
New one
New
new
new
new
text within an iframe
One more just to include complicated HTML as part of the test.
One more just to include complicated HTML as part of the test.
xxxxx
xxxxx
one more just to include complicated HTML as part of the test.
China is ranked as one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to persecution of Christians on Open Doors USA’s World Watch List. In addition to Christians, the communist government continues to persecute and monitor members of various religious minorities, including the detention of over 1 million Uighur and other Muslims in western China over the last three years. In 2018, the government banned the online sale of Bibles.
Recently, Fu warned that over the last two years, Xi’s “war on religion” has reached its “worst” in 40 years. He accused the president of turning faith into a “tool for the indoctrination of Communist ideology.”
For example, all religious leaders must pledge to obey the Communist Party’s ideology in their pulpit before they can be allowed to practice their religion, Fu said. Additionally, millions of Chinese Christian children have been forced to renounce their faith by signing a Communist Party prepared document.
“Clearly the aim is to exterminate any independent faiths,” he said, referencing not only the Christian faith, but the faith of Muslims, Buddhists, and others.
“This is a very, very serious signal,” he said.
Fu encouraged the international community to “pay attention to the truth” and “spread true information about faith communities and persecution” on social media....
I love Groucho. He makes me laugh
New
Testing
[deleted]
Mod One more just to include complicated mod HTML as part of the mod test.
Final mod comment.
xxx
yyy
new
xx
Mod One more just to include complicated mod HTML as part of the mod test.
Final mod comment.p>
(deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
yyyy
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
new
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
new
(would be deleted)
Timely
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(deleted)
(would be deleted)
There is no way that is true. Show me your sources.
(deleted)
xxx
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
(would be deleted)
Posting new comment
10.1
10.1.1
10.2
New
New
t
t 11.1.1
11.1.1
Flag not deleted
Posting new comment
Yup
xxxx
yyy
zzz
Posting
Just a post now
xxx
Transgender inmate charged with raping a woman sexually assaulted four fellow prisoners days after being remanded to an all-female jail
By CHRIS BROOKE FOR THE DAILY MAIL
Stolen "Wizard of Oz" ruby slippers found after 13 years
The iconic ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the film "The Wizard of Oz" have been recovered. Thirteen years after they were stolen, Grand Rapids Police Department in Minnesota and the FBI announced Tuesday the slippers – one of at least three existing pairs used while shooting the film – have been found and recovered.
The slippers were stolen from the Judy Garland Museum in Grand Rapids, Minnesota. At the time they were stolen, the slippers were on loan to the museum by private collector Michael Shaw as part of a special tour. Garland played Dorothy in the 1939 film. Grand Rapids is the town where the actress was born.
In August 2005, a burglar broke a window in the museum's back door and entered. The burglar then smashed a Plexiglass case where the slippers were and got away with them. The alarm did not sound to a central dispatch system and no fingerprints were left behind – only a single red sequin.
Grand Rapids Police Detective Brian Mattson received information about the stolen slippers last summer that led the department to team up with the FBI, as the tip involved investigating outside the state.
According to The Associated Press, the FBI said a man approached the insurer in summer 2017 and said he could help get them back. The slippers were then recovered in July during a sting operation in Minneapolis.
Dorothy's ruby slippers from "The Wizard of Oz" were recovered 13 years after they were stolen from the Judy Garland Museum in in Grand Rapids, Minnesota.
The FBI said no one has yet been arrested or charged in the case, but they have "multiple suspects" and continue to investigate. As they unveiled the recovered slippers at a news conference Tuesday, they asked anyone with information about the theft to contact them.
Investigators said they worked with experts at the Smithsonian's Museum of American History in Washington, which also has a pair of ruby slippers from the movie, to verify that the pair was authentic.
Grand Rapids Police Sergeant Robert Stein said that his department stayed quiet about rumors regarding the slippers over the years, hoping the truth would emerge one day.
"The police department really had no evidence and no clues to work with," he said. "The investigator assigned to the case was fearful that the thief might destroy the slippers if he believed the police were on his trail. Therefore, when rumors developed that local wayward youth were most likely responsible for the theft and had tossed the slippers into the Mississippi River or in one of the many water filled iron ore pits that dot the landscape, we did little to dispel it. We believed that information would eventually surface and knew we were in this for the long haul." Stein added that officers investigated tips over the years, but many led to reproductions of the slippers, not the real thing.
Police are not releasing more information about the investigation, as it remains active, they said.
Grand Rapids Police Chief Scott Johnson said in a statement, "When the slippers were snatched in that early morning burglary, the thief not only took the slippers but also a piece of history that will be forever connected to Grand Rapids and one of our city's most famous children. We knew this day would eventually come and we are grateful to the FBI and all those that worked so hard to bring this piece of cinematic treasure out of the shadows and into the light. After all, 'There's no place like home!"
In 2015, an anonymous donor offered a $1 million reward for credible information leading to the recovery of the ruby slippers. The slippers were insured for $1 million, but in 2015, John Kelsch, executive director of the Judy Garland Museum said they could be worth $2 million to $3 million.
Why Can't I Criticize My Religion?
by Majid Rafizadeh , Gatestone Institute, September 16, 2018
Majid Rafizadeh speaking at the United States Congress, on December 7, 2017. (Image source: Valter Schleder/Wikimedia Commons)
When I received a letter from a Shiite religious preacher from the United Kingdom, it did not surprise me. I receive many similar letters from extremist Muslims all over the world, as well as Western liberals, socialists, and others. Each time, opening these letters, I prepare for criticism of my careful scrutiny of my religion. As expected, the letter began with a familiar suggestion: "Stop criticizing your own religion."
The letter went on to support this instruction with promises of the media and Western progressives favoring me and becoming far more supportive of me, if I were to align my views with their preferred talking points:
What is it that I say that rankles the left so much? I refuse to be apologetic for radical Islam in the West. I refuse to gloss over the darkest consequences to which rampant extremism has led. I do not waffle beneath the idea of multiculturalism or tolerance; some things are not meant to be tolerated. The message of the apologists is clear: Get in line. Send out the same messages that others are: about all aspects of Islam being a loving and benevolent religion. Focus on this and sweep the crimes against humanity under the carpet.
I truly wish I could.
Clearly, it is not hard to see why so many of my colleagues have succumbed to this pressure. My path would indeed have been much easier if I had picked up the politicized view and marched forward with the others who have chosen expediency over truth. But I found it impossible to fit in and merge with the mainstream Islamic apologists in the West. The memories of what I have seen, and the atrocities that I know are still being committed, haunt me, and drive me to speak for the voiceless. My purpose has never been to make the West like me or to receive personal benefits from sharing my experiences. My purpose has always been only to stop the torment that my people have endured at the hands of merciless tyrannical Islamist regimes and groups.
I was born and raised in majority-Muslim societies, in the two dominant sects of Islam, Sunni and Shiism, in both the Arab and Persian worlds. The experiences that my family and the people around us went through shaped me in a way that it is inconceivable not to realize how dangerous sharia and Islamist rule can be. As a result, my mission has been to address these underlying problems, explained in my books , in the hope that it might help to usher some reforms from within the religion. Muslims such as Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser and Salim Mansur, to name just a few, have also been advocating reinterpretation.
What the Islamic apologists have to understand is that I, and others like me, are not going to strike a Faustian bargain in order to benefit and fit in with the mainstream. There are some values, such as raising awareness and helping subjugated women who are often effectively enslaved and tortured in many ways under Islamist rule, that are far more important than solely serving one's personal interests.
Another purpose behind these messages is to analyze the words "the West". It seems when people such as the Islamic preacher say that the West will like you and you will benefit more if you do not criticize Islamism, the "West" does not represent all Westerners, but seems mostly to refer to institutions and figures of the political far left. These extremist Muslims may also be referring to organizations or social media outlets that do not report facts but ideology. They appear to address matters as they wish they would be, rather than by looking at evidence. Unfortunately, many of these universities, institutions and outlets happen to be the giant and the dominant ones in the West.
When I first came to the U.S. to teach on a Fulbright scholarship during the Obama administration, it was intriguing to see how many institutions and figures did not like to hear or report any criticism of Islam. This flight seemed to represent a total double standard. While these Westerners appeared totally fine with strongly criticizing religions such as Christianity and Judaism, they did not treat Islam the same. It was a shock to discover, quite quickly, that it was acceptable for them to criticize their own religions, but not all right for me to criticize mine. It was not possible to make sense of it.
In Iran and Syria, where I grew up, one can get arrested, jailed, tortured and even executed for saying anything that may not be positive about the dominant religion of the land, Islam. On the surface, for those who wanted to reform Islam, the only place to do so appeared to be the West. After all, so many political leaders consistently boast about the value of freedom of speech and freedom of press. Where else could a reform of a highly restricted religion occur?
If something like this were attempted in a country where sharia law is enforced, one would face severe consequences for even attempting to criticize the religion. We all assumed that here in the West, it would be safe to question and criticize anything. Instead, so many institutions utilize a far more subtle method of silencing criticism. Some of these methods include labeling anyone who says anything remotely negative about Islam -- even those who offer constructive criticism and the opportunity for reform -- as promoting "Islamophobia."
Please just accept a simple message: If you think criticizing Christianity and Judaism is constructive, and a way to modernize and create reform, then please apply the same rule to Islam.
The more you conceal or disregard constructive criticism of Islam, the harder you are making it for reforms to occur and the easier you are making it for Muslim radicals to prevail. There are currently, around the world, atrocities being committed every moment of every day in the name of Islam; your goal should not be to be politically correct or fiercely protect this religion, but to heal its wounded and offer support to those that want to eliminate the abuses. Glossing over the often unspeakable acts to which sharia can lead will only empower those individuals who have malevolent intentions, while subjugating the most vulnerable to their cruelty.
If, as you claim, your core values are upholding freedom of speech, freedom of press and open discussions about Christianity and Judaism, these values should apply to Islam as well. Support the voices of those who have experienced sharia law first-hand, and call for reform.
The reason I criticize the radical elements of my religion is not because I have hatred in my heart, but because I desire to protect those who have been abused and abandoned by their leaders. With open eyes, I am not willing to hide from the truth, no matter how great the benefit or profit.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated scholar, businessman, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy.
Testing
Testing
Test
Test
Test
test
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
17.1
Some text
Another test
Test @9.5.1 test @10.4 @ 2 @12.3.3
Testing
Adding to TiG's tracker
Test
Grey on 23.1
Hello
New Comment
New reply
marking 25.1
Killing the flag
Marking @25
Killing only the Chico flag
Marking 25
Marking 25
Marking @25
A comment for Feb 25th
Marking @26
Adding a comment for the 26th. But adding more text to see how the truncation operates.
A reply on the 26th
Test reply
New for the 27th
[Moderator Comment]
Interpersonal testing
Interpersonal Testing
Last one
Interpersonal Testing
to 28.2
Interpersonal Testing
New
Interpersonal Testing
Test reply
Another one
Interpersonal
Prevents me from impassing groucho
TiG can now IMPASSE me
Interpersonal Testing
New
This be new
A comment [removed testing.]
A comment for flagging
A comment for flagging
t
Hello
t
Let's be clear: (I am going to use 'FTAD' to stand for the only argument I have addressed in this topic: the fine-tuning argument for design)
You were objecting to enumerating the possible N universes and assigning a default probability of 1 ⁄ N . Outside of any additional information, 1 ⁄ N is the probability. This is basic math. Thus:
Here ⇧ you portray the lack of assuming a sentient entity to be the assumption of no sentient entity. That binary thinking is faulty. There are three options, not two:
Indeed it correlates with the classical concept of knowledge with respect to the existence of a god:
Not making an assumption one way or the other on the presence of a sentient entity is option 3.
That established, there is no assumption of a sentient entity and no assumption that there is no sentient entity; no assumptions period. The argument is based on what we know. Assuming a sentient entity exists or that no sentient entity exists is assuming that for which we cannot assign a truth value. Including that as a premise makes any argument unsound.
In short, as I noted, you insist that I must make an assumption that there is no sentient entity to be able to deliver the default probability of 1 ⁄ N . That is faulty reasoning. The default probability is based on what is known — no assumptions necessary and none made.
My analysis of the FTAD has nothing to do with the multiverse concept and does not seek to explain fine-tuning. The FTAD itself has nothing to do with the multiverse concept and seeks to conclude a sentient entity , it uses fine-tuning as part of the argument and is not trying to explain fine-tuning.
That is correct. The FTAD seeks to conclude a sentient designer. Including God as a premise would make the FTAD a begging-the-question fallacy. I have noted this several times.
You seek to differentiate the argument I was critiquing (FTAD) from an ' argument of the multiverse '? Why? I made no mention of such an argument and was not describing the multiverse concept. (Multiverse is not the same as alternate possible universes.) Your differentiation was unnecessary.
In short, in full text, what I stated is exactly what the text shows: you insist that I must make an assumption that there is no sentient entity to be able to deliver the default probability of 1 ⁄ N . Just as I stated.
Again, given you are talking about ' argument from the multiverse ', an argument that I have not even mentioned, there is no point on my weighing in on this. (Multiverse is not the same as alternate possible universes.)
Having spent time breaking this down for you I am not going to waste any more effort on your attempts at semantic nit-picking.
That is not my argument. You took the first two premises verbatim in my description of the FTAD and then fabricated a bizarre conclusion and attributed same to me.
The FTAD (the argument I am critiquing) does not conclude that it is inevitable our universe is a result of chance (it concludes the opposite). Further, I have made no argument ever that concludes it is inevitable that our universe is a result of chance. So there is no other ' my' argument. The above is not an argument I have made nor is it an argument I would make. It is a ridiculous argument. How you got this in your head is beyond me.
The FTAD, as I described it to you @ 1.2.118 , is this (omitting my lengthy commentaries on each premise):
Premise 1 ☞ Our universe can be defined in terms of many factors, each of which must be within a very tight range for our universe to exist. If any of these factors violate the range, then the universe as we know it would not exist; a different universe would exist .
Premise 2 ☞ There are N possible alternative universes. N counts the enumeration of all the variations of the fine-tuning factors. N is an incredibly large number.
Premise 3 ☞ It is extremely unlikely that our universe is a result of chance
Conclusion ☞ A sentient entity designed and built our universe.
Note that the conclusion is: " A sentient entity designed and built our universe .".
This is an argument from incredulity (a fallacy) because it rejects the possibility ( incredulity : ' just cannot be so ' ) that our universe emerged by chance and concludes instead that it must be the act of a sentient designer. Fallacious arguments are unsound. The conclusion of a fallacious argument is unjustified.
Make up your mind Drakk. You made a big deal that the fine-tuning of the universe (scientific observation) is not an argument and I immediately agreed. You then pointed out that there are multiple arguments that include the fine-tuning of the universe as a premise. I immediately agreed. And then I noted that I am specifically talking about the FTAD. Now, here, you seem to be pretending that there is only one fine-tuning argument.
Figure out what point you wish to make.
Given I am the one who selected the FTAD I certainly know what the actual argument is (actual=the one in context). Given you recognize that there are plenty of arguments that fall under the category of fine-tuning arguments you clearly know that there is no single ' the actual argument '. The actual argument is the one that I introduced. Any other argument is out of context and you either are confused or are introducing other arguments as a distraction. Either way, I am not going to chase your tangent.
If you had read what I wrote you would know the problem since I described it. No point in my repeating myself here since my words of explanation are still visible.
( link ) I am aware that you disagree. Given you think I am talking about the multiverse concept, among other misconceptions, I am not going to lose sleep over this.
But I will say this in closing. If an argument were made which concluded that our universe must be a result of chance ( based on what we know today ) then that would also very likely be an argument from incredulity. I cannot weigh in on it specifically unless I see the actual argument.
xxx
xxx
yyy
zzz
x
xxx
xxx
Apparently it does not matter what I write; you just keep repeating your claims. The practice is obnoxious.
Since you give credence to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the following might not be so easily dismissed:
There are plenty of ways to express this argument (i.e. many ways to formulate the argument) but they all ultimately argue for a sentient designer of the universe (and that is the conclusion ) due to the extremely low probability that our universe (or, less restrictive, a universe that can support life) would be the one that just happens to exist (established in the premises ). To wit, it is inconceivable † that —out of all the potential alternative universes that could arise by different fine-tuning factors— our universe (or any of the likely many universes that could host life of any form) would be the one that just happened to win the universe lottery. That, Drakk, is incredulity † .
How funny. Clearly you have no clue what the multiverse is and have ignored my suggestion to do some research on it. Multiverse deals with many simultaneous universes. I have been talking about 1 of N universes (the 1 is ours) and the many alternative possible universes (the N-1 that did not come to be). This confusion of yours is why you think that my illustrating the probability of alternatives to our universe is the same as multiverse. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of multiverse so get that thought out of your head. Many simultaneous (multiverse) is profoundly different from one of many possible alternatives (1 of N) .
( There is no such thing as a conclusion in a premise. )
The way I expressed the argument implicitly deals with life as we know it ; I referred to the existence of our particular universe . That is even rarer than a universe that could contain life. There are likely many configurations of universes that would sustain life of some form. Some universes might enable silicon life, some would allow carbon life but not as we know it. Imagine how many universes could support life but not intelligent life. The possible alternative universes that could hold life of any form are almost certainly greater than 1 (our universe). So if you want to loosen things to any form of life you just make it more likely for a universe to happen by chance. Instead of 1 ⁄ N (my more restrictive formulation) we have L ⁄ N where L=number of possible universes that can sustain any form of life (including just the most primitive forms).
Think about that. Either way, makes no difference to me or my rebuttal to FTAD. Same rebuttal.
( see my opening comment )
t
t
This is a comment
Another one with HTML and a link .
Test
new
new
Test
new
@@32.1
Now more text
Old comment for flagging plus this.
A sub comment for testing
Ditto
New one
new
t
And a second one
Testing
t
t
t
t
New comment
Test
You were objecting to enumerating the possible N universes and assigning a default probability of 1⁄N. Outside of any additional information, 1⁄N is the probability.
t
Reply to 44
Some examples:
3.1. Using Python as a Calculator
Let’s try some simple Python commands. Start the interpreter and wait for the primary prompt,
>>>. (It shouldn’t take long.)3.1.1. Numbers
The interpreter acts as a simple calculator: you can type an expression at it and it will write the value. Expression syntax is straightforward: the operators
+,-,*and/work just like in most other languages (for example, Pascal or C); parentheses (()) can be used for grouping. For example:The integer numbers (e.g.
2,4,20) have typeint, the ones with a fractional part (e.g.5.0,1.6) have typefloat. We will see more about numeric types later in the tutorial.Getting the tracker going again
t
t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxx
A new comment
Another one
x
Test
new
x
x
Hello
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
testing
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Test
Test
y
t
Comment for flagging
New comment
Testing
No grace period available (edit within 10 minutes)
[[][Edited comment] ... Harpo should still be the mod Third attempt]
[✘]
Test [with comment changes]
Testing
Testing
Test
Harpo
Test
What is up?
Now what?
Nutty
Testing again
Test with file that does not exist
This be moderated
Big time moderation
[✘]
A new comment with nochange in effect.
[✘]
Killing this
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Reply comment text
This is a new comment
New comment
here you go
Where is the alert?
Here is my content
Here is my new content that is more than the maximum allowed string length.
This content is too long.
This content is too long
This content is too long if I repeat this sentence multiple times. But that would be boring so I will simply type mindlessly until I pass the size_constraint limit for the number of allowed characters in a comment. This really should be sufficient at this point.
Just a normal comment
Should not be allowed to post
Should be no problem with this post.
Testing this
Testing this
Testing this
Testing
Testing
Let's see if this comment fails now because it will be made to be longer than the 200 character constraint that is imposed on comments now. Hopefully this bullshit will suffice to push me past the 200 character limit otherwise I have wasted my time.
This content is too long if I repeat this sentence multiple times. But that would be boring so I will simply type mindlessly until I pass the size_constraint limit for the number of allowed characters in a comment. This really should be sufficient at this point.
This content is too long if I repeat this sentence multiple times. But that would be boring so I will simply type mindlessly until I pass the size_constraint limit for the number of allowed characters in a comment. This really should be sufficient at this point.
Testing this
More testing
How can this possibly be empty??
More testing
yet again
again again
yet again
again again
continuing this nonsense
again and again
and again and again
a bit more
Even more testing
Checking on reference to @11.1
Comment
Click this link to go to the poll ->
Just testing
I just got through telling you I wasn't going to quibble over words.
Whatever you doubt and suspect is your problem, not mine. I read the posts here, I know what I read.
Unsolicited advice is still unsolicited.