Proposal to Ban MacM

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.

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.

Specific rules MacM has broken
Large amount of verbatim extracts - Link
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
Not backing his opinions up with evidence (Part 1 C) - Link
Consecutive Posting, was up to 10 at one point (Part 1 F) - Link
Repeating posts and topics (Part 9) - Link
Spamming (Part 10) - Link
Complaining about mods (Part 12) - Link
Not following forum rulles (Part 14) - Link
Using anothers lack of posting against them (Part 14) - Link
Creating visibile poll in SFOG - Link

Spamming
Felt the need to post the same link 7 times in 6 threads:
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Different link, same thing:
Link
Link

Spamming links to his 'selective banning' thread:
Link

Spamming the fact that he is ignoring people:
Link
Link
Link
Link

Hypocricy
Complaining about mods deleting his spam/offtopic, then complaining that others are assaulting him.
Link

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)
Link

Arguing that people should read his links, when he didn't do so himself
Link (His claim of 'no f-ing requirement for compressibility' was on the first page of his link)
Link

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

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

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

Stalking
Link
Link

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

Claimed that I changed his post in my quote, but he changed it after the reply (which the editted timestamp shows)
Link
Link (the post he edited and then lied about)

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

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

Continued use of the forum as his own platform
Link (Not responding to anybody, just posting to to himself...)
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
... hundreds of these ... I'll leave it at 3.


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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

BTW: The feeling is mutual.

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.

Oh but it does as you shall see.

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.

 

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.

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.

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

Again no supporting referance given. Only an unsupported charge.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Duplicate complaint. Covered and is false.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I don't use profanity beacuse of that fact.

My posts are (have been) "In Kind"

 

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

The references speak for themselves.

Did you miss the link I provided?

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

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.

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

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

" 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."

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

You've been posting in it continuously.... you posted in it yesterday
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31781&page=40&pp=20

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

 

this isn't helping you, y'know

 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Hilarious.

 

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

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).

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.

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?

You haven't been here a full two years, so please explain how it was from over two years ago.

It wasn't JamesR. It was someone else.

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.

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:

My response was that you've been constantly posting in it. I didn't make a claim on your referencing it in the last week...

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.

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.

Hate to tell you, but not everybody gets the SciForum emails.

Once again you are lying. You edited it after the fact... and never did explain what your quote supposedly meant.

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

Um, you DID do that. See the list of your'ignore' spams in the first post.

And that's your problem... whenever someone disagrees with you, you either ignore them or lie.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.