Philica, how great is it?

This site Philica

apparantly kooks and idiots get declared 'proven accademics' and contribute there?

How great can it be, how reliable are the contributers?

According to philica this chap Q doesn't like is 'proven accademic'?

Is the site not that great Q?

Note: I did post this in the appropriate forum but Q deleted the thread and the poll and the post even though it's valid and not a flame?

I want to know if this site is useful or not?

Q has pm'd me with a threat to ban me for posting this exact message in his forum, saying it is a flame, how can it be a flame when I said the site was good and he contradicted me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As well as that deleting and locking threads palaver. All highly suspicious. What's he hiding?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He clearly was promoting the site, I said good site did I not?
But then he said on my thread, what you see in quotes above,
I thought I'd assist and move them along to the appropriate thread and ask if the site was valid or not?

He obviously felt a tad silly as he'd only seconds earlier promoted it, then seconds later trashed it?

I'm confused for sure?

But calling the post a flame? Deletion, lock and ban thread,bit over the top eh? Anyway should I be banned you know the reason why:

Mod Q doesn't like me, no other reason than that.

Have you used Philica?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I can't say I have. Never heard of it. I've just taken a quick look and it seems very wide-ranging - a Journal of Everything indeed. The obvious problem with it, though, as Q said, is that "anyone can submit an article, which means kooks can submit them also".

It's a fair enough point. Not sure what he's getting upset about.

 

nor I, but I guess I will find out. I'm not having him tell lies saying I spammed his thread? What did I spam it with? He origianlly said it was locked for 'flaming' he changed it to spam? He's the one who posted the spam link to philica not me? I copied relevant copies across as they were in wrong thread, no point chatting about Philica in evo thread when he has one specifically for that purpose. That's not spam.

 

Those are blatant lies which you posted in the Astronomy forum, hence they were deleted. You continued to spam the Astronomy forum with the same blatant lies after they were deleted, hence you were warned not to continue or you would be banned. The thread was also closed so you could not continue to spam the forum.

 

I have to say Q, given that these 'blatant lies' have been deleted and so are not visible to other members, I for one am left wondering what all the fuss is about. Based on a reading of this thread and the locked one I cannot see any justification for your actions.
Now that doesn't mean that there aren't some very good ones, but they are certainly not apparent. Free speech is not a right on this or any forum. There is no onus on moderators to be fair and impartial, but I imagine there is generally a desire to be so.
At present it does not appear as if this has been handled fairly.
It's no skin off my nose if this absence of the appearance of justice is inconsequential to you. I am merely advising you how things look to a reasonably objective third party, in case appearances are of any interest to you.

 

I agree with Ophiolite.
What's the fuss about kids?

:m:

 

There is no fuss, O. ToR had a childish emotional tantrum and deleted that post telling me to f*** off. No big woop as that's how she deals with adversity.

She claims I promoted the Philica site and then trashed it, a blatant lie.

She claims I called her posts flames, another blatant lie.

She started a thread and poll in the Astronomy section with a collection of lies.

I deleted her posts and the poll, however she continued to repost the same things over and over, a serious no-no, and I was forced to close the thread and send her a warning.

ToR isn't telling the whole story. The problem escalated not because she lied, but because she continued to repost the same posts that were already deleted.

 

May I see the site and get an objective view?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.philica.com

 

Is it against the rules to lie? To lie in the astronomy forum? To lie in a (Q) thread in the astronomy forum?

What, by the way, are the lies, exactly?

Which part is a lie? That you promoted Philica or that you were then caught up in a scenario where the site you had promoted 'published' a 'kook' so you then had to 'trash' it?

Did you or did you not call Robert J Hannon a kook?

And what to make of this statement?

"Anyone can submit an article, which means kooks can submit them also.

The difference is being able to discern such, "

Seems to me that there is absolutely no point to 'publishing' a paper with Philica as it means nothing. Personal discretion seems to be the order of the day?

And, you have the utmost in personal discretion, aye?

So. Such a thing deserves deletion and threat of banishment?
Why do you think this is proper punishment?

Two lies so far. Although you've not been too clear about them.
Is two a collection?

Interfering with a moderator's decision is against the rules. I'll agree to that. But so far your decision seems rather... stupid.

And you are?

Let me get this straight. She's telling the sequence out of order? She told lies first, yes?

These lies consisting of claiming that you first promoted then reneged on your promotion of Philica and then further claiming that you accused her of flaming when you didn't?

So. You deleted those posts because they were.... lies?

Then she complained about the deletions and reposted them and you then sent her a message threatening banishment for going against a moderator's decision?

Ok.

But why the hell did you even delete her 'lies' to begin with?

It really looks like you got caught in a situation where you got egg on your face about this 'kook' who was 'published' on this site you posted about. I don't know what to call it but a promotion. There certainly doesn't seem to be any grounds for discussion in the thread.

ToR got the best of you. And you got mad and used your mod powers to wipe the slate clean. Yes?

That's how it looks.

How petty of you. I'm not surprised though.

 

What, exactly, would be considered 'not spam' in the case of this thread? It is spam to discuss the site in question and those published on the site?

Why?

 

How can they be blatant lies? Anyone unless you deleted them can see your quotes in the Evolution thread, you are a liar Q, I am going to the physics forum and Philica if I leave here so don't jump for joy yet

James R thinks I spammed your thread, when all I did was copy YOUR own words about the site to the relevant thread. You were clearly shown to be a hypocrite hence you deleted them. Your own agenda rules apparrantly.

YOu never contribute to the topics of my threads, you just call me stupid, kook, idiot, woo woo dumbass to name a few. Despite these being ban offences moderator Q is allowed to behave this way. I can 'ignore' others who are rude and I do. They simply cease to exist but you Q, mod Q flouter of site rules, always in my eyeline. Like a little parasite.

look out for words banned 'permanently' shortly.

 

you never said why the posts were deleted Q which is the norm, there was NO flame, no spam only copies of YOUR OWN WORDS

I never told you to **** off in the 'astronomy thread' you liar

are you aware that if anyone really gave a toss and no one does that every word I said is stored permanently and is never deleted and could be retrieved, I am happy for that to take place, are you? But don't worry Q, it's not worth any ones bother.

 

Just fuck off.

 

Thanks to those who can see what the score is here, lest I think I am going insane!

Invert and Ophiolite your clear observance of the obvious is much appreciated.

Thank you

I'll see you on other forums most likely, if injustice rules I don't want a part of it.

 

It seems more like a mod did his work.

 

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56570

Trolling by ToR of a mod in his own forum.

crystal clear.

Maybe she got under the impression that the lack of moderation in most subforums means you can do whatever you want. Apparently she has gotten a warning.

That should have been enough.

When goofy PMs me i STOP. No questions asked.

 

I had a look at the article. And the first thing I noticed it was not peer reviewed. The abstracts were general and sparse.

Anyone with deductive powers could at this point reason that it is not confirmed or reliable data.

Especially if you would then search the internet for the current state of this topic as a comparison.

Instead ToR chose to harrass the mod to press her agenda across.