Proposal to Ban MacM - SciForums.com

View Full Version : Proposal to Ban MacM

Post Reply

Create New Thread

Persol

11-18-04, 06:41 PM

ElectricFetus

11-18-04, 07:25 PM

This has got to be the most thoroughly referenced reasoning for banishing a member I have ever seen!, thank you Persol :)

Persol

11-18-04, 07:58 PM

The scary thing is, it could have been even more thorough... that is only a limited sampling.

§outh§tar

11-18-04, 08:47 PM

Bring some ad hominem comments, I have noticed his vulgarity when things don't go his way. That ought to do him in unfortunately.

James R

11-18-04, 10:03 PM

Persol

11-18-04, 10:09 PM

It is rather clear that I don't like the man, but it should also be made clear that the personal attacks only begin after he stops listening to reason and decides to bury his head in the sand. However, none of this changes what was said above.

If you feel I should be banned for calling a liar out when I see one, then start a thread.

MacM

11-18-04, 11:17 PM

For balance, it should be made clear that Persol has repeatedly attacked MacM, and has personal reasons for wanting him banned, in addition to the reasons given above.

Maybe we should have a "Ban Persol" thread as well.

Thanks James. I am working on a polite rebuttal of the many fabricated complaints and also to show the great amount of distortion in this thread.

Mind you I am not claiming total innocence.

MacM

11-18-04, 11:26 PM

It is rather clear that I don't like the man,

Congratulations, this is the first amount of truth I have seen you post in two years.

BTW: The feeling is mutual.

but it should also be made clear that the personal attacks only begin after he stops listening to reason and decides to bury his head in the sand.

A more concise statement is that it starts when you see your off topic or ill considered explanations do not answer the root question or resolve the problem being discussed. If people don't come to your view or allow you to distract them from the issue then they are sticking their head in the sand since you know you and only you are right.

However, none of this changes what was said above.

Oh but it does as you shall see.

If you feel I should be banned for calling a liar out when I see one, then start a thread.

See you continue to deserve the vulgar names I have called you in the past because you wrongfully continue to call me a liar. I don't like being called a liar. That is because I do not and have not lied.

I have however caught you in a lie and posted comparative threads and proved it.

PS: I will be proving just how big a liar and fabricator, distorter, etc., you are in my response to this thread.

Thanks for that opportunity.

MacM

11-19-04, 02:00 AM

MacM has become more and more of a spammer and liar in his two years here. I'd like to put forth this evidence in an effort to have him banned, so we can once again have a discussion on relativity, math, or anything having to do with physics without the lies and spams of this dillusional man.

I'll not waste a lot of time responding to what is a lot of BS and distortion. However, I do find it necessary to point out just how distorted this is.

1 - I do not lie and have not lied. That is a repeated lie by Persol.

2 - This is the work a desperate person, that wants to claim superiority but hasn't once produced evidence or made a logical arguement on any topic I have participated in.. His entire posts are off topic, distortions but mostly vile and sensless, meaningless personal attacks. Which is why I have responded using responses in kind.

Specific rules MacM has broken
Large amount of verbatim extracts - Link

James himself has many times complained he is not going to go searching through lengthy papers looking for something, others have missed key issues in papers (assuming they actually read them). I know Persol doesn't. He has admitted in print that his entire purpose of posting is to distract and drag posts off topic, trashing me and my threads and posts. He should have been banned long ago.

Posting an extract of a key element of the arguement and its link to verify its source is the most efficient method of having a discussion. If that has been in violation of this forum James has not informed me I was violating anything.

It would seem counter productive as long as such extracts are kept reasonably short and on point, to not do so; which would require persons to actually go to the link and search for the specific comment being referenced.

Not backing his opinions up with evidence (Part 1 C) - Link

This posting in of itself is a violation of that rule. There is no "backup", no bonafide example given for this charge.

Consecutive Posting, was up to 10 at one point (Part 1 F) - Link

Again no supporting referance given. Only an unsupported charge.

Repeating posts and topics (Part 9) - Link

No example given, however, I admit to having done that in UniKEF Analysis thread when after many months and dozens of attachments vanished. I posted multiple referances back to links which could allow readers to see the attachments. That was done to facilitate restoring lost data.

Complaining about mods (Part 12) - Link

No example given. To the best of my recollection I complained about James R only once since I came here when he deleted a post I had made at chroot in jest. When I questioned his action James R apoligized in that he had taken my post in a manner other than how it had been intended. No harm done.

Not following forum rulles (Part 14) - Link

Now that is a coverall complaint. While we are at it perhaps we should ask why you don't follow the rules and remain on topic and not continuously make personal attacks? Or maybe I should go dig up your post admitting you post with the deliberate intent to wreck threads.

Using anothers lack of posting against them (Part 14) - Link

Guilty. Once and only once in over two years when just this week, Yuriy had become just as obnoxious and unresponsive to the issue as you always are. I had posted information which showed he was in left field. I caught him reading my post while in "Who's on line" and noticed he had not responded to my correcting data to his position some period of time later. I did note that as a means of getting him proded to respond. James also pointed out I shouldn't do that.

Creating visibile poll in SFOG - Link

Guilty. This is a very benign charge. The Rule begins with the word "Preferably" and has to do with vote secrecy. The votes where I have done that were as to i.e. - the validity of a theory or conclusion about a theory. Not in a thread of this sort which is personal. If this is not true it was not realizing I was doing something generally looked down on.

This would not be actionable in that it is in the form of a recommendation.

Introducing Psuedoscience to attempted scientific threads - Link
Posting threads based on ideas which are unfalsafiable (in Physics) - Link
Posting threads on topic previously rebutted - Link

Several things wrong here. These all had links to the same following thread.

1 - The title of that thread is "Alternative Theories Policy". How is that a scientific thread?.

2 - By who's judgement is what I posted pseudoscience?

3 - In what manner is posting examples of alternative thinking and questioning its applicablility within the policy about such concepts, some violation?.

4 - UniKEF is falsafiable. The UniKEF Analysis thread started by James was for that purpose. The results however, supported my claims in the portion being contested.

5 - Being rebutted is not the same as having had Persol disagree.

This is outright nonsense.

My theory was not being promoted or argued there. It was referenced in terms of its positon to the policy. This is simply stupid and typical of Persol ethics distortions and whinning..

6 - MOST IMPORTANTLY: Is to note Persol's statement that this diatribe he has amassed is from "less than a week" of my posts.

Gentlemen My last passing referance to UniKEF in that thread was 3/20/03. OVER 20 months ago

With one exception where on 10/23/03 "apolo" requested I post some information to link it, which I did.

Here are the reason, with evidence/support following. If anyone has anything to add, PM me and I'll add it to this post. Mind you, this initial set of reasons to ban MacM is from less than one week of his posts. One week.

So as you can see Persol is a distorter and a liar. I do not intend to respond directly to each of these outrageous fabrications listed by links. I will only respond to those I find the most outrageous. So the fact that I have not responded to any one particular charge in no manner lends credence to his charge.

Spamming (Part 10) - Link
Felt the need to post the same link 7 times in 6 threads:

Placing posts to advertise for a site, placing personal information below every post and/or posting information for your own benefit that has no relevance to the thread is called “spamming” or “spam”. Spam is not acceptable here and will be edited or deleted out. Repeated spaming may result in immediate banning.

This was not spamming. Each post was in direct response to the topic and challenges made by Persol to me in that thread. What would you think he would claim had I not responded? He would claim that he had prevailed in the debate wouldn't he. Seems he would like to shut me up but that doesn't make me wrong or a spammer. To the contrary. That is his problem he can't answer my questions. He is frustrated.

James R and I have discussed this very issue this past week. He too was concerned. It is not something done routinely. However in this particular case, I had participated in each of these threads. Persol (mostly) had called me a liar, and simply distorted and made false claims regarding my posts in each of those threads. Each of these threads happen to have been about the same subject matter "Time Dilation". What I posted was a bonafide response to the discussion being made in each of those threads.

I generally used links to make it efficient to allow readers to see the falicy of what Persol had claimed and did not excessively "Cut and Paste" text responses in those cases.

Once James realized what I was saying was true, he offered to consolidate all of those threads. I suggested he leave them as they were, I was done in them in any case.

Different link, same thing:

A worthless complaint. Unless he can be more specific the only duplication I see is one paragraph giving a man's qualifications to have made certain claims which were part of the discussion. To not overtly give such qualifications has in the past resulted in Persol making assinine comments about the cited persons qualifications.

Spamming links to his 'selective banning' thread:

First this is not under the definition of spamming. Learn to read.

Second you have linked the UniKEF Analysis thread, which is a thread started by James R just for my theory. I had made a post there and you and Yuriy come on and began to divert and slander and trash the thread. That is what prompted me to open the "Suggestion" of selective banning by thread starters, was to protect the integrity of threads from abuser such as yourself. It was most appropriate to link readers from that diatribe by you to the thread on how we might control such abuse.

Spamming the fact that he is ignoring people:

I would have to see a ruling on this one. It might indeed be considered for my personal benefit. If so then I will not do that in the future. But it is BS to have to use the "Ignore" and then have others think what the abusers are posting therefore must have merit since you don't respond.

Hypocricy

Complaining about mods deleting his spam/offtopic, then complaining that others are assaulting him.[/quote]

Odd complaint indeed. It is posted in my thread regarding selective banning possibilities. It was suggested that that power would get abused by people just blocking opinions that they didn't agree with. I "quibbed" referring to "TWO" occasions in as many years where James R had deleted my post because I made a challenge that he thought was off topic. The post was closed with a smiley face.

There was no complaint. It was in good taste with a laugh. You are sick.

Making a big deal about ignore, and then responding (ignore lasted less than a day, even after the numerous times he thought it neccessary to tell us)

No hyprocrisy here. I did indeed for the first time employ the "Ignore" function but within two days and after discussion with James R, determined that doesn't work. It left you and Yuriy to post whatever distortions and lies you choose but I also continued to get your posts via e-mail anyhow. My solution, I lifted the "Ignore" and I will not allow you to get off topic and I will respond at a level well above your childish nonsense. No you are going to be stuck with answering my questions after all. I may not resond directly to you if you continue to post in your normal manner and tone but I will post the correct information so that others will see the truth.

Arguing that people should read his links, when he didn't do so himself
Link (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=715758#post715758) (His claim of 'no f-ing requirement for compressibility' was on the first page of his link)

Have a look for yourselves gentlemen. I have gone back and looked at this link. The header on the first page has 21 sub-sections to pick from. "Compressability" is not mentioned on that 1st page. Nor is it mentioned on the first page of the first sub-section. Since I only made referance to a particular area of this paper I don't know yet if such reference is ever made. I suppose it must be but that really isn't the point is it. One could when responding give referance to any flaw found and it could be discussed. I don't plan on taking Persol's word for it that is for sure and search all 21 sections to see if I can find what he says is true.

A discusion is a two way street. Responding that "You are a fuc__ng idot, they don't include compressability", is not a response with any actual meaning or value. If you were actually interested in a discussion you would say "No. this is incorrect, their formula you reference are incomplete and do not include their requirement for compressability which can be found in section XXX, page 3, paragh 4" etc.

Complaing that people don't read his links, yet he can't read people's posts before replying:

False. Innuendo. I see no such conduct in the link you provided.

Commenting about others writing habits, when the man mispelled 'relativity' for his first year here

False. Innuendo. I did suggest you improve your writting habits but as that link shows it was as to your habit of mis-stating facts. Not with respect to spelling, puncuation, grammer etc.

Also I was guilty of mis-spelling "Relativists". Not Relativity. I was spelling it Relavist". BFD. After you began picking on my typo's, how many miss spellings and typos's of yours did I point out before you stopped that crap?

Complaining about integration, which he himself admits he doesn't understand

False. Innuendo. I see no complaint. Further I have stated that since I have not done calculus in over 40 years I don't pretend to do it. But that is not the same thing as not understanding it. I damn well know its general functions and how it is used, etc. You claim to be an engineer. I would be willing to bet considerble money that there are things you learned in school you haven't used and that you could not do them if challenged to do so. Would you then consider yourself uneducated,incompetent, which you have falsely alleged about me. I think not. You seem to have a different standard for yourself than others in that regard.

Stalking

This is a duplication of a complaint. This goes to my mention of Yuriy having read my post and not responded after I had posted information showing him in error. One should note that the proded response I got from him was a cry to James R to delete my thread and posts. He didn't answer the post. It is just like you, you can't stand being put in your place. Especially by old MaM.

Lies
Stated that something supported his theory, but backed out when he realized he didn't know what it said.

Great. I'm really glad you have made this assinine charge. It is totally false, a fabrication and a LIE. I did not back out of anything. The claim still stands. I understood perfectly, that is why I qualified my statement of comparison. Yuriy, trunicated my statement removing my qualifications and then lied about what I had said. You jumped on the band wagon and made the same ludricrus assertions.

My statement read "This is what UniKEF says, "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" .

And followed a paragraph from a scientific paper which had said a simular but not acceptable version of that statement.

You guys via "Cut & Paste" then editing, wrote "This is what UniKEF says.".

Leaving that linked to the preceeding paragraph which totally changed my post and its meaning.

Now just who the hell is the liar here? And who has shown a willingness to alter another persons post and then call them names for having posted the altered statement?

Claimed that I changed his post in my quote, but he changed it after the reply (which the editted timestamp shows)

This is most fortunate that you make this charge immediately under the above one. For it is true, although I cannot prove it, my charge is that you did indeed alter another of my posts and make the same derogatory assualts.

In this case my mathematical computation were all correct. I posted in the morning just before work and did not have time to review the final post. That afternoon at 4:42Pm when I logged in I saw a minor typo and made an edit change.

I was called away on business and when I came back I scrolled to find my post "Cut and Pasted" and full of typos and derogatory remarks in your post.

I scrolled back to the top to see how I could have missed so much and those errors were not there.

Now I will admit here. It is theoretically possible that I made those changes in the morning while I was editing and reposting but I do not recall those errors in the first instance. It may be theoretically possible that you recieved posts via e-mail and you may have gotten the post before I did any editing.

But I do not recall editing the errors that are shown in your version of my post. I do believe you may have atered my post.

Especially since this happened just days after the prior incident of the very same thing having been done.

Claiming that his link did not call for compressability, when in fact it did:

Duplicate complaint. Covered and is false.

Claiming that 1100f changed his position, when he didn't

Phoney complaint. This was a short discussion about clarifying a comment which we did without any hostility.

Statements did change. They clarified his position. My post simply said "your statement has changed". Nothing here to complain about what-so-ever.

Continued use of the forum as his own platform

I only looked at the first three. All three were posts made in the UniKEF Analysis thread James R opened just for my theory. I posted new information to the general readership. Absolutely no bases for complaint by Persol. If he doesn't like my theory then he shouldn't be reading that thread and what I post in its support.

For these reason, and others that people may add below, I think that MacM has demonstrated disregard for SciForums as anything besides a place to advertise his theory. MacM's continuing effort to start new threads on old topics over and over has turned the Physics forum into his own personal dump.

Please, vote to have MacM removed.

Unfortunately I am confident that very few if any will actually read all this and give a shit. However, I have made it available just in case. Just as I am sure most will not bother to read your links and simply assume you are telling an important story. WHICH YOU ARE NOT.

The bottom line is I am likely the most hated member here. That almost has become a badge of honor in that it is now starting to show that this is so because I am not as easily mislead or pushed around as some when it comes to accepting other peoples word about what is or is not.

I ask hard questions and I reject off topic reponses as being an answer.. I don't get dupped that easily. So it goes.

A perfect examle of this fact is the current thread "GPS and Gravity" where Persol makes a complete ass out of himself with his perveted excuses of replies.

He seems to think his word or that of some general statement which is off point, somehow over turns my postings of the official calibration process according to NASA and the Government Operating manual for the system. What a joke.

If anybody's conduct merits banning it would indeed be Persol. He has made good on his stated purpose which is to trash threads. That is deplorable and unacceptable. He is a liar, a distorter, a fabricator and frankly a bit of a horses ass that rearely if ever actually knows the subject matter.

MacM

11-19-04, 02:07 AM

Bring some ad hominem comments, I have noticed his vulgarity when things don't go his way. That ought to do him in unfortunately.

Yes I have in the past (will no longer) use vulgarity. However, it is important to not that it is after vile attacks by Persol and his attempt to do what he openly stted is his intent and purpose of osting in my threads which is to trash them and me.

It has nothing to do with me getting my way or not. Frankly I have not gotten my way nearly enough here. :D But I don't use profanity beacuse of that fact.

My posts are (have been) "In Kind"

Persol

11-19-04, 05:44 AM

I'll answer your man concerns and cut out the flak....

1 - I do not lie and have not lied. That is a repeated lie by Persol.The references speak for themselves.

This posting in of itself is a violation of that rule. There is no "backup", no bonafide example given for this charge.Did you miss the link I provided?

Again no supporting referance given. Only an unsupported charge.Please, read through my post before you continue to accuse me of things. Consective posting is in the UniKEF thread, and is linked.

No example given, however, I admit to having done that in UniKEF Analysis thread when after many months and dozens of attachments vanished.Look at the spamming section... it details clearly posts you have repeated across multiple threads in the last week. If you wish, I can detail the multiple threads you have started on the same topic.

No example given.Please read the first link under 'hypocricy' which mentions 'complainging about mods'.

Guilty. Once and only once in over two years when just this weekIf you wish I can show you where you previously used a lack of immediate posting against chroot as well...

2 - By who's judgement is what I posted pseudoscience? " Posters putting forward alternative theories" and "Threads which contain alternative ideas which have previously been effectively rebutted on this forum in replies to the particular poster concerned will be moved to the Pseudoscience forum."

4 - UniKEF is falsafiable.A member previously showed you that your equations do no predict gravities change with size. You ignored it. It is unfalsafiable to you.

6 - [color=red]MOST IMPORTANTLY: Is to note Persol's statement that this diatribe he has amassed is from "less than a week" of my posts.You've been posting in it continuously.... you posted in it yesterday
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31781&page=40&pp=20

First this is not under the definition of spamming. Learn to read.Actually, yes it is. "posting information for your own benefit that has no relevance to the thread is called “spamming” or “spam”"

I did indeed for the first time employ the "Ignore" function but within two days and after discussion with James R, determined that doesn't work.Try half an hour. The references and time stamps are there for you to look at yourself.

"Compressability" is not mentioned on that 1st page. Nor is it mentioned on the first page of the first sub-section.The very first page contains the reference to density, as I've quoted for you in that thread. One calls for the other.

False. Innuendo. I see no such conduct in the link you provided.You tell us to 'read the fucking paper', and then refuse to do so yourself.

Great. I'm really glad you have made this assinine charge. It is totally false, a fabrication and a LIE.Anybody that wants can go back and look... although it's been editted.

But I do not recall editing the errors that are shown in your version of my post. I do believe you may have atered my post.I am unable to edit your posts. My editting of the quote would have been stupid, as the original was sitting right above it. The fact is that you made a mistake, and then lied to say I created it.

I posted new information to the general readership. Absolutely no bases for complaint by Persol. If he doesn't like my theory then he shouldn't be reading that thread and what I post in its support.Hence the "Continued use of the forum as his own platform" complaint.

I'd like to point out that the majority of your issues were addressed and referenced in the first post... but you didn't seem to bother and actually look.

Nuttyfish

11-19-04, 06:06 AM

this isn't helping you, y'know

MacM

11-19-04, 10:02 AM

I'll answer your man concerns and cut out the flak....

This is his way of saying I'll repeat or enhance my lies.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
1 - I do not lie and have not lied. That is a repeated lie by Persol. ”

The references speak for themselves.

This I take it refers to the second of posts which I believe involved tampering and editing. The first is perfectly recorded and available for all to see. The second is more subtle and difficult to understand and already qualified as to the possibility that you didn't tamper but states my opinion that it is within you already displaced range of conduct and believed by me to have occured. that opinion is therefore ot a lie. To say it is is to lie.

MacM:“ This posting in of itself is a violation of that rule. There is no "backup", no bonafide example given for this charge. ”

Did you miss the link I provided?

No I went to the post and there was no evidence of such conduct there.

MacM:“ Again no supporting referance given. Only an unsupported charge. ”

Please, read through my post before you continue to accuse me of things. Consective posting is in the UniKEF thread, and is linked.

I did and the link was to the rule. Later under a differnt title I responded to the issue in UniKEF but did not make the connection to the link because you switched complaint titles. I don't read minds.

MacM:“ No example given, however, I admit to having done that in UniKEF Analysis thread when after many months and dozens of attachments vanished. ”

Look at the spamming section... it details clearly posts you have repeated across multiple threads in the last week. If you wish, I can detail the multiple threads you have started on the same topic.

Already responded to, including the general discussion with James R and I did not start all those topics. They covered the same technical issue, etc. Bogus complaint. My response was appropriate to each of your comments in those threads. It was not spamming by definition.

MacM:“ No example given. ”

Please read the first link under 'hypocricy' which mentions 'complainging about mods'.

“ Guilty. Once and only once in over two years when just this week ”

If you wish I can show you where you previously used a lack of immediate posting against chroot as well...

On this one. I have to say you are correct. I do recall that incident now. that however was over two years ago and when I first came here. The more important point here would be two cases in over two years compared to your lie that all this has been in less than one week.. You are a gross liar and exagerator. It makes all your complaints (which are all marginal in the first place), even less valuable.

MacM:“ 2 - By who's judgement is what I posted pseudoscience? ”

" Posters putting forward alternative theories" and "Threads which contain alternative ideas which have previously been effectively rebutted on this forum in replies to the particular poster concerned will be moved to the Pseudoscience forum."

“ 4 - UniKEF is falsafiable. ”

A member previously showed you that your equations do no predict gravities change with size. You ignored it. It is unfalsafiable to you.

Yes I recall. It was James R, in the UniKEF thread. Indeed I had posted a shortened version of my concept and it would not work. I acknowledge that and thanked him. Made the corrections and moved on. You have never made an error.? The fact is the correct version of the gravity formula, which is radically different from the standard formula, works and is still posted in that thread. This is shear nonsense on your part to suggest anyone that ever makes a mistake some how is violating rules. You would have an even longer list to complain about.

MacM:“ 6 - [color=red]MOST IMPORTANTLY: Is to note Persol's statement that this diatribe he has amassed is from "less than a week" of my posts. ”

You've been posting in it continuously.... you posted in it yesterday
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...1&page=40&pp=20

Issues as shown here that have happened once or twice as much as two years ago is not a list of violations having joccured within the last week. Your post does not say "Here are violations since he has been here and continues violating even now". It says here is a list of violation in less than a week. You either dilberately lied or you don't know english.

MacM:“ First this is not under the definition of spamming. Learn to read. ”

Actually, yes it is. "posting information for your own benefit that has no relevance to the thread is called “spamming” or “spam”"

I believe I acknowledged that may have been a violation. That infact would be the only violation that has happened within a week out of this entire diatribe.

[quote]MacM:“ I did indeed for the first time employ the "Ignore" function but within two days and after discussion with James R, determined that doesn't work. ”

Try half an hour. The references and time stamps are there for you to look at yourself.

Not sure of your purpose here but I also post from my e-mmail. I may have responded to one other minor point you had asserted. I am not sure and really give a crap anyway.

MAcM:“ "Compressability" is not mentioned on that 1st page. Nor is it mentioned on the first page of the first sub-section. ”

The very first page contains the reference to density, as I've quoted for you in that thread. One calls for the other.

Without saying what I would normally say about YOUR intelligence, let me just point out that the terms "Compressabiity" and "Density" are not interchangeable. This is utter nonsense on your part. Something can have density and not be compressible. Something compressable has density which varies. Learn basic highschool physics please before trying to pretend you are up to snuff on anything of more depth.

MacM:“ False. Innuendo. I see no such conduct in the link you provided. ”

You tell us to 'read the fucking paper', and then refuse to do so yourself.

I have not refused to read the paper. You refused to be explicit on your complaint about the paper. If you had specific knowledge about a point in the paper you are obligated to identify it specifically and not expect me or anyone to go fishing to see if they can find any such flaw. Nothing to complain about herer other than I will not let you keep me chasing wild geese and demand more than your word on an issue.

MacM:“ Great. I'm really glad you have made this assinine charge. It is totally false, a fabrication and a LIE. ”

Anybody that wants can go back and look... although it's been editted.

I have already made that notation and also have given you the maximum credit for me being possibly in error. It is however, still my recollection that those errors were never found in my previous morning session of posting and jproof reading and editing. And I did not edit them that evening at 4:42PM but you are corect I unknowingly erassed any evidence that I can now claim with any force and prove my point. In any case. I stand firmly by the fact that those typo's were not in the post which was left during the day, except the one that I acknowledge I edited at that juncture.

But beyond that would be the fact that none of those typo's affected the resulting computations which showed I did the math correctly and your assertion attacked my intelligence and ability to do simple math. A completely false allegation. MOre of your distorted BS.

MacM:“ But I do not recall editing the errors that are shown in your version of my post. I do believe you may have altered my post. ”

I am unable to edit your posts. My editting of the quote would have been stupid, as the original was sitting right above it. The fact is that you made a mistake, and then lied to say I created it.

I simply do not buy that. If you deny having received a copyu of my post from morning e-mail then I do not have an answer other than those made above. I agree it woud be stuipid but you have already shown you are that stupid by pursueing haing done that very thing the day before by assaulting me for havng said something I did not say. My post was "Copy & Pasted" then altered . My post was deliberatly trunicated removing a "quote" and then attacked me for making it appear I had said something I had not said.

You and Yuriy continued to repeat the same lie and argue about it multiple times. Yuriy, is the one that made the alteration but you joined in and rode the horse several times while he infact repeated the same exact post by "Cut and Paste" (5) times in a row. I don't see you complaing about that multiple consectuive postings. Why not. Oh, I forgot you and he share the same view technically. Now I understand. It is OK to alter a person post and make multiple consectutive posting of the same lie 5 times within the half hour if you are in agreement with the poster that does that. I'll try to remember that exception to the rule you have complained about.

I had posted (This is what UniKEF says, "XXXXXXXXX") and it was reposted as "This is what UnIKEF says". Leaving the abbreviated ALTERED post to take on a completely different meaning. The spending time repeating that lie and at the same time calling me a liar and reposting the altered post. It is absolutely outrageous conduct.

MacM:“ I posted new information to the general readership. Absolutely no bases for complaint by Persol. If he doesn't like my theory then he shouldn't be reading that thread and what I post in its support. ”

Hence the "Continued use of the forum as his own platform" complaint.

Complain away that is utter nonsense. You want to claim I am not allowed to post new information to a thread started to discuss my own theory. Sure I know you have made several attempts to have that thread closed and have indeed trashed much of the thread. But your complaint is out right and shear lunacy.

Persol:"I'd like to point out that the majority of your issues were addressed and referenced in the first post... but you didn't seem to bother and actually look.

I have no idea what this means. Further I really don't care what Persol thinks. I do care about your habit of trying to trash threads.

I'm done here folks. Anythingelse this P-brain chooses to say will be disregarded. I hope I at least have shown just how exagerated all this is.

MacM

11-19-04, 10:29 AM

this isn't helping you, y'know

If this is posted to me let me only say I am not here to help myself. I am here to hopefully demonstarte just how assinine, distorter, exaggerator and liar, and whinner this person is.

Nothing I have done ever compares to making multiple off topic consecutive posts calling a person a liar using a clearly demonstrated altered "Cut and Paste" post.

Facial

11-19-04, 04:43 PM

Hilarious.

Persol

11-19-04, 05:58 PM

Well, hope you find the reply just as entertaining.... or at the very least more accurate than MacM's replies and lies.

I did and the link was to the rule. Later under a differnt title I responded to the issue in UniKEF but did not make the connection to the link because you switched complaint titles. I don't read minds.My exact words just now were "Consective posting is in the UniKEF thread, and is linked." Under "Continued use of the forum as his own platform" the first link is to the UniKEF thread. On that page (page 37 if you can't find it) you made a consecutive post on 11-13-04. Consecutive means 'posting one after the other'... saying "I responded to the issue in UniKEF" only supports the claim. It is your 'hold all' thread for anything you want to show off, regardless of anybody else actually posting.

If you don't like that reference, have at look at the "Transforms in reverse part 2" thread, where you felt the need to respond to me and QQ twice (not an accidental double post, completely different content).

Already responded to, including the general discussion with James R and I did not start all those topics.No, you didn't start them all... but you did inject your pseduoscience into each one... making the same mathematical/theoretical mistakes that had already been corrected numerous times.

The more important point here would be two cases in over two years compared to your lie that all this has been in less than one week.You seem to be having problems reading again. My original statement was "this initial set of reasons to ban MacM is from less than one week of his posts". Yes, now I'm talking about posts from before the one week period. Do you have a problem with that?

I do recall that incident now. that however was over two years ago and when I first came hereYou haven't been here a full two years, so please explain how it was from over two years ago.

Yes I recall. It was James R, in the UniKEF thread.It wasn't JamesR. It was someone else.

The fact is the correct version of the gravity formula, which is radically different from the standard formula, works and is still posted in that thread.Did you miss the point? He told you that changes in distance followed the right curve, but changes in size or mass did not. It does not work... and you never made the corrections needed.

Your post does not say "Here are violations since he has been here and continues violating even now".And it didn't need to. I was pointing out things from the last week. You've posted in UniKEF in the last week in the manner that I reference it. I'm not going to not reference your comments in a thread simply because the thread started before this week... and I never said differently. Regardless, my comment was to the following:
Gentlemen My last passing referance to UniKEF in that thread was 3/20/03. OVER 20 months agoMy response was that you've been constantly posting in it. I didn't make a claim on your referencing it in the last week...

Without saying what I would normally say about YOUR intelligence, let me just point out that the terms "Compressabiity" and "Density" are not interchangeable.No, they aren't... but I was pointing out that you didn't answer the compressability or density question (or any of the other allegeded undefined attributes) with regards to the ether theory, and that the paper didn't either. Also, it's important to ask why (in this case) density is even mentioned.... seeing as how you don't think it would change.

But beyond that would be the fact that none of those typo's affected the resulting computations which showed I did the math correctly and your assertion attacked my intelligence and ability to do simple math.I'd be interested to see your proof of that. I attacked your ability to read before you posted. Yuriy attacked your ability to do math. Very simply, you are once again making false claims.

If you deny having received a copyu of my post from morning e-mail then I do not have an answer other than those made above.Hate to tell you, but not everybody gets the SciForum emails.

I had posted (This is what UniKEF says, "XXXXXXXXX")Once again you are lying. You edited it after the fact... and never did explain what your quote supposedly meant.

You want to claim I am not allowed to post new information to a thread started to discuss my own theory.The thread is not for you to post new information on your theory. It is for your theory to be discussed. That said, most of your recent posts in the thread have nothing to do with your theory except for the fact that they attack Relativity.

The thread was created by a mod specfically for the purpose of "examin[ing] the current state of the theory." It was specifically not created "for new things MacM might like to explore."
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31781

Nothing I have done ever compares to making multiple off topic consecutive posts calling a person a liar using a clearly demonstrated altered "Cut and Paste" post.Um, you DID do that. See the list of your'ignore' spams in the first post.

Anythingelse this P-brain chooses to say will be disregarded.And that's your problem... whenever someone disagrees with you, you either ignore them or lie.

guthrie

11-19-04, 06:05 PM

If you'll excuse the interruption, I vote that Persol and MacM should meet for pistols at dawn. Or sabres. Whichever weapon suits them. Failing that, just ban them both for 3 days. No point in banning them completely.

§outh§tar

11-19-04, 06:16 PM

Yes I have in the past (will no longer) use vulgarity. However, it is important to not that it is after vile attacks by Persol and his attempt to do what he openly stted is his intent and purpose of osting in my threads which is to trash them and me.

It has nothing to do with me getting my way or not. Frankly I have not gotten my way nearly enough here. :D But I don't use profanity beacuse of that fact.

My posts are (have been) "In Kind"

Well I wasn't talking about profanity in itself but rather personal attacks. But I suppose they went either way in your 'discussions'.

Persol

11-19-04, 06:20 PM

Guthrie,

If that's the solution you want to run with then start a poll, but it won't solve the problem. I'm not the only one who has a problem with MacM, just the most vocal.

He has caused several of our more intelligent members to leave (although they pop back in once in awhile) because they were tired of arguing with a liar who would completely deny any logic that was supplied to him. Even if I was to stop posting here today, MacM would still be a problem. Banning both of us just delays the posting of his lies and garbage by three days... it doesn't actually solve anything.

Even JamesR, who has been the most patient person I know with MacM (barring those who just don't respond), is unable to converse with him without being called forgetful and a liar. (JamesR also called MacM a liar, but that is simply because he is.) http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42491&page=4&pp=20#post718356

So I hope this explains to you why your solution would at the very best delay the issue. MacM simply wants to think the universe works his way, and he'll lie when you show him through logic that he is wrong.

This level of his misbehaviour shouldn't be allowed, and we shouldn't have to just keep quiet when he posts his lies.

guthrie

11-20-04, 09:47 AM

MacM

11-20-04, 08:16 PM

MacM

11-20-04, 08:39 PM

You argue well. I've only popped into the physics form occaisionaly because I am not a physcicist and have only a word based understanding of the issues, hence when it gets into the maths I get confused, and thus have a hard time seeing who is arguing what.

The problem here is not nearly as superficial as Persol would have you believe.

He has complained most about the UniKEF Analysis thread; which he has called for and attempted to have closed several times and has dedicated considerable time and effort to trash it by shifting arguements and topics.

Anytime he gets cornered and can't respond to corrections of his objections he moves to a new arguement. Most of the time his contributions are absolutely worthless.

Most of his complaints here have been about me "Using that thread as a personal platform." Well when it comes to UniKEF I guess it is in a way but its function is limited.

As of 11/17/04 Moderator and thread starter James R said this to this latest effort to shut down that thread:

Post

MacM:

As long as posts in this thread are somehow relevant to UniKEF, they are on topic. However, general discussion of flaws in relativity is off topic. You can certainly compare and contrast relativity with UniKEF if you wish.

That covers a lot of ground. While many issues about Relativity did get presented by myself as well as by others, the original post he now complains about contained material which was relevant and in support of UniKEF views.

I am however, going to have to shut down the efforts of those like Persol to interject but "Relativity says this or that" which causes posting there to become pro-con Relativity posts.

UniKEF agrees with much of Relativity but there are aspects of it which do not. But that doesn't either prove nor disprove UniKEF or Relativity. Relativity is not the only physics view currently in science. Most differ from Relativity. QM and Relativity are incompatiable.

So while he may not like UniKEF (even though he has no idea how it works and has never studied it) that doesn't make it pseudoscience as he likes to assert. Infact James started that thread in an effort to disprove one of my claims but the utimate results became support for that claim.

It is more than just wild or idealistic thoughts. It had made many priori predictions which have become accepted as fact. It has had limited testing which inspite of being a "Pasta Pot" test (Persol's term) it showed results incompatiable with Newton and GR.

So while I certainly have a long way to go mathematically and emperically to advance the concept, it definately doesn't need to be buried by innuendo, bias and false arguements against it.

Persol

11-20-04, 08:40 PM

Persol should be permanent.Yes. I should be permanent. I can not say the same for you.

MacM

11-20-04, 08:50 PM

Yes. I should be permanent. I can not say the same for you.

I think you mis-interpreted my post. :D

Persol

11-20-04, 08:59 PM

I don't think I did.... but thanks for supporting my continued stay at SciForums.

Yuriy

11-21-04, 03:18 AM

I did not want to vote “Yes” until I read that even here MacM continue to lie. There are unavoidable evidences.
My citation of his statement was:

“/////The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. /////**************************************************

******Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states.”

Immediately after that MacM denied it as a false citation:

Evidence #1

“My full statement was:

**********************************************
"This is what UniKEF states. "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass."
**********************************************
No where in there do you see a referance to "c".

That shows a generic equivelent, not a verbatum agreement. You really should learn more english.
Last edited by MacM : 11-13-04 at 11:17 PM. “

Of course, MacM very soon recognized that this is very poor response, and he started line with "comma instead of the period" in his famous “This states what UniKEF states”.

But the problem is that server shows the following MacM’s post:

Evidence #2

“///// The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. /////
**************************************************

*********Emphasis Added by MacM:
This states what UniKEF states, "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass*************”

and the server shows the following notice:

“[Added by MacM:] UniKEF is a dynamic ether concept.
Last edited by MacM : 11-14-04 at 06:47 PM. Reason: Changed "." to a "," to appease assholes.”

Therefore, Evidence #1 and Evidence #2 clearly shown that
1. MacM indeed said that UniKEF states what is written in read.
2. He change of the period on the comma and this was happened 11.14.04, one day later as I have posted his words.
3. All following accusations that I falsified his words are lie, based upon falsification of the initial text by himself.
4. All this together with his lies in this thread again about these events one more time proves that he is capable to do anything. Such type falcifications he did on Physlinks, the same he does here. We cann't change him, but we have to prevent young people....

MacM

11-21-04, 09:06 AM

Gentlement:

This is precisely the kind of typical horseshit I am talking about.

1 - You are damn right my statment did not include referance to "c" that was in fact the point of heavy isolation between the paragraph in the paper and my statement.

2 - The paragraph was highlighted in color bracketed by ///************\\\\

My statment was seperated by ***************xxxxxxx************.

3 - My statement was a complete thought sentance and clearly means what IT says and not what the referanced paragraph says. The only correlation between the two was general principle.

4 - Anybody that sees it differently is either demented or deliberately trying to distort the record.

5 - After several pages of BS from Persol and Yuriy, I changed the "." to "," and specifically made note of having done that to EVEN further isolate the two.

6 - This stupid jackass thinks he is cute. He is just a jackass. That should be most evident to all.

7 - More importantly is the fact that they choose to concentrate on this type of arguement rather that the physical principle which are the basis of the Math & Physics forum.

8 - They do this since they have no factual grounds to offset my position. It is a sign of a losing arguement on their position. Their defense is a off-topic offsense.

That should be clear to all.

9 - What I said is most clear. It isn't even a case of borderline meaning. Yet Yuriy thinks he can restructure my sentance so as to make it say something entirely different and then proceed to call me a lair. It is outrageous.

10 - If anybody should be banned it certainly should be Yuriy.

11 - The fact is inspite of Yuriy's implication as stated above (lie) that I added text to my post, the cited article paragraph and my full statement with the period rather than a comma were posted simultaneously in the initial post.

**********************************************
"This is what UniKEF states. "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass."
**********************************************

This issue is becoming quite important I think. The practice or altering members statements and then argueing about it is unacceptable. Anybody that had read my post before Yuriy started this crap please come forward and state the facts as you saw them.

Thanks.

We unfortunately do seem to have liar members here but I am not one of them.

Persol

11-21-04, 10:22 AM

MacM, people who don't speak English might have an exuse for writing "(unsupportable claim). This is what I think. The sky is blue"... and meaning the second, not the first. Even writing "This is what I think, the sky is blue" is just a poor fix. The word 'this' refers to something you talked about before hand.... not the second half of your sentence.
We unfaortunately do seem to have liar members here but I am not one of themI once again refer you to the first post in the thread. See the section titled 'Lies'.

MacM

11-21-04, 09:07 PM

Nobody of sound mind would make that arguement. Sorry to see you have this problem.

wesmorris

11-30-04, 12:09 AM

So is there a minimum for the number of total votes for an action like this to be taken? I've never seen one of these succeed that I remember. This looks like it could be a first as far as I know.

MacM

11-30-04, 12:49 AM

So is there a minimum for the number of total votes for an action like this to be taken? I've never seen one of these succeed that I remember. This looks like it could be a first as far as I know.

You would miss the challenge. :D

James R

11-30-04, 01:19 AM

The present quorum is 50 votes.

Persol

11-30-04, 05:21 PM

MacM

11-30-04, 05:54 PM

Several of the members pointed out by Ban --- threads have been banned. Glancing through them, none have reached the quorum.

Basically it's up to Porf... but this is the best way of showing why he should be banned and what others think about it.

Since you seem determined to try and persist on this issue I think it only appropriate to point out that the overwhelming majority of your compliants have been fabrications, exagerations and only a few actual minor violations.

My contributions on the other hand has been to shake the foundations around here causing you and others to scramble to try and support your otherwise self congratulatory posts about how much you know about Relativity.

In comparison the level of deceit you have employed and, openly admitting to the deliberate distructions of threads, it is you that deserve banning, not I. The function I believe of this forum is to educate and learn. That does not mean such learning must come from only between existing book covers but includes new experiments and data and the implications that invokes.

Shown I have made an error I admit it and move on. But I do not roll over for the likes of you that want to CLAIM superority where there simply is none.

Saying "I am right because I am smarter than you and you are ignorant", is self-serving, egotistical, arrogant, worthless BS.

If you can't address the issues I raise with actual proveable facts then back off and perhaps you might actually learn something.

Persol

11-30-04, 06:15 PM

Since you seem determined to try and persist on this issue I think it only appropriate to point out that the overwhelming majority of your compliants have been fabrications, exagerations and only a few actual minor violations.Yet your response on the first page that claimed this was full of lies and half truths, which I corrected. Now, as always, you are going to make a vague statement about how you are right... even though you've already been corrected.

My contributions on the other hand has been to shake the foundations around here causing you and others to scramble to try and support your otherwise self congratulatory posts about how much you know about Relativity.No... your contribution has been to spam and persist to the point were the most intelligent and patient people on this forum have started to simply not respond to your lies. Look at the Physics & Math Forum lately. 90% of the conversation is between you, QQ, and 2inquisitive... none of which involves real math or physics. Hell, even JamesR has stopped responding to your repeated false assertions.

If you can't address the issues I raise with actual proveable facts then back off and perhaps you might actually learn something.It doesn't matter. Any facts we show you simply say are either false or 'can be explained by other methods'. You still have problems with the twin paradox (which has been explained to you atleast half a dozen times) and still claim that it proves relativity wrong.

In comparison the level of deceit you have employed and, openly admitting to the deliberate distructions of threads, it is you that deserve banning, not I.Yet again, if you believe this and have any logic behind the claim... then by all means show it. We are all tired of your assertions of 'X is wrong and I proved it'... when your 'proof' has been throughly explained away with no valid response from you.

I've said before that a fool can help educate others by making the intelligent person explain the problems in the fool's thought. Yet when you complain about THE SAME EXACT THING a few dozen times... your input become worthless. That's the reason you don't see ban polls for all the other people who try and discredit realtivity... they at least move onto a new topic/angle when proven wrong. You just bury your head in the sand and claim you were proven right.

MacM

11-30-04, 08:39 PM

Yet your response on the first page that claimed this was full of lies and half truths, which I corrected. Now, as always, you are going to make a vague statement about how you are right... even though you've already been corrected.

You sir have never corrected me on any technical issue. You have commented on typo's etc but your posts contain those as well. Your post here is so extremely exagerated it is hard to even put into perspective.

No... your contribution has been to spam and persist to the point were the most intelligent and patient people on this forum have started to simply not respond to your lies. Look at the Physics & Math Forum lately. 90% of the conversation is between you, QQ, and 2inquisitive... none of which involves real math or physics. Hell, even JamesR has stopped responding to your repeated false assertions.

Many have indeed stopped trying to peddle their conterfiet wares but only because they got tiered of having their false statements shoved back at them. I cannot be held liable for those that choose to run rather than admit their errors.

It doesn't matter. Any facts we show you simply say are either false or 'can be explained by other methods'.

Where that is appropriate I most certainly do. I cannot help it if most here would rather simply take some bodyelse's word for something and claim "That is just the way it is".

If it doesn't fit, it isn't correct, and I give a damn who says otherwise. Others failure to actually address these issues head on with straight answers and only trying to hide behind the authority of citing theory doesn't make the physical points I raise any less valid.

You still have problems with the twin paradox (which has been explained to you atleast half a dozen times) and still claim that it proves relativity wrong.

False. I don't have a problem. I understand what actually goes on. I have attempted to enlighten others but they choose to look straight ahead and not take the blinders off. That is not my jproblem, it is theirs. It in no manner alters the truth of the physical points I have raised.

Yet again, if you believe this and have any logic behind the claim... then by all means show it. We are all tired of your assertions of 'X is wrong and I proved it'... when your 'proof' has been throughly explained away with no valid response from you.[/qluote]

False. Absolutely false. The only thing ever done is to try and repeatedly cite theory, ignore alternatives and hide behind authority and personal attacks in an effort to deminish my posted information. It hasn't worked. My points still stand unrefuted by bonafide physical principles.

[quote]I've said before that a fool can help educate others by making the intelligent person explain the problems in the fool's thought. Yet when you complain about THE SAME EXACT THING a few dozen times... your input become worthless.

When you continue to advocate the same foolishness while ignoring the physical implications of your claims your posts are worthless. Unless you begin to actually address the physical points I have raised you have lost.

Why would you suppose that you should be permitted to make even more repeated posts of claims which have been shown to be physically impossible and not have those claims challenged.? If you don't want your view challenged either answer the physical point raised with a valid and verifiable response or stop advocating BS theories as being valid.

That's the reason you don't see ban polls for all the other people who try and discredit realtivity... they at least move onto a new topic/angle when proven wrong. You just bury your head in the sand and claim you were proven right.

I cannot speak for others but I know in my case you (in particular along with a few others) try to wrongfully assert I lack knowledge or understanding of the subject. Since that is simply false I don't cut and run because you throw some stones or temper tantrums.

Either address the issues forth rightly or admit defeat. Stop being a cry baby pussy and trying to have me gagged rather than face your loss.

Persol

11-30-04, 09:05 PM

MacM

12-01-04, 12:43 AM

Um, you do realize that there is no technical/scientific content in this thread... right? You can continue to make your vague, unrelated and unsupported claims all you want... but you aren't really doing anything other than supporting my point.

Not to mention that the statement is yet another lie... or you've forgotten about the chiral condensate, integrals, time dilation equation, and several other topics.
So now you're back in conspiracy theory mode?

Just think about this for a second, and then go back and read your posts.... perhaps:
you haven't actually presented anything on this forum which would make someone supporting relativity 'lose'
your idea of 'winning' is silly, and the cause for your spamming
this thread isn't because you've 'come close to revealing the truth'... but that your repeated lies and distortions of physics have made you the boy who cries wolf
... just perhaps something you'll consider before going to another forum and starting all over.

Otherwise, I'm done responding to you here. I could continue to respond to you, but you are simply claiming you are right, while not even addressing the claims made. I'm not going to continue to circle around you as you bury your head in the sand.

You are a pathetic joke.

Where are you and James R when you are needed?

Yuriy has just posted a "Cut and Paste" text into (5) threads tonight.

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

And an equivelent text but longer version

Here

Shouldn't we be complaining about that too?

geodesic

12-01-04, 04:59 AM

I cannot be held liable for those that choose to run rather than admit their errors As opposed to those who stay and repeat the same arguments time after time instead of admitting their errors?

spuriousmonkey

12-01-04, 07:04 AM

does a quorum of 50 mean the total count of voters?

If so, nobody should ever vote no.

Post Reply

Create New Thread