Inconsistent ban policy?

I told the public. I don't care if a few people caught on. My point was that James promised me it would be different, that I would be treated as a new person, which was clearly not the motivation mods wanted to take.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, so when want to share some knowledge I have learned on a specific topic, it's closed down, cut off with red moderator writing that I am infractioned for plaigarism.

Or how about when I posted an honest question in the physics subforum whether consciousness should have a place or not, it is banished to the rubbish pile, before being necromanced by James?

Yeah, my behaviour, because I am right nasty sod aren't I?

 

And what have I wrote recently that is so terrible?

I make productive threads on your command. I went out my way to stay away from the SF gov. I start threads on serious, yet entertaining problems concerning for instance, the energy and time problem I created concerning the vanishing time derivative of the WDW equation which gives rise to timelessness. That wasn't a bad thread by no means, that was until alphanumeric shredded down a post of mine which had some maths in it. I would have settled with those one or two corrections, but it was the manner he did it. In that same thread, I wrote an equation down which I had scribbed on paper the night before I went off and got drunk. I told you, specifically not to worry about that equation, but alphanumeric took his opportunity to say I was being dishonest, in a way, that the equation was gibberish. I even said to you, the equation means very little, only an attempt by me to make an equation describe a mass flux rate; the dimensions were right, but some consistency problems.

Or how about posting the chapters to the book I am writing. I would say they were of pretty good standard. That was before alphanumeric disected the clifford algebra part and found an error in the beta matrix, but not clearly specifying this, but rather posting a huge mathematical proof to why it did not work, which took me a bit of time to get through, but I did.

Or... What about any of my threads recently, are they really so bad?

 

You were treated like a new person, given plenty of chances and opportunities to act differently but you fell back into your old habits. Habits which got you banned. Habits which made many people think you were dishonest about your level of understanding and knowledge. Habits which made people think you're not as mature as your age might imply. And so carrying on those habits with a new account meant people reached similar conclusions to those they had previously reached. Why is that a surprise? You're posting pretty much the same stuff you used to post. Hell, in the case of that neutrino stuff some of it literally is stuff you've posted (and been corrected on) before!

James didn't promise you'd be untouchable, that no one could say "You're wrong" or "Stop doing that". James said you'd get the same chances new members got. You had them. You used them up. Now you're here complaining, in a rather immature way, that your behaviour has been tolerated as far as it's going to be tolerated.

Just look at how your behaviour has spiralled down in the last page. People, such as myself, have given lengthy explanations for actions and views and you have become more and more belligerent. You've begun swearing frequently, including directly at people, yet at the same time you demand civility?! If you're going to swear like that and act like that then no matter what we say, even if it's to do exactly as you want us to do, it's impossible to have a civil discussion with you. But again, the responsibility is yours, not ours.

Your style of posting is quite obvious. Everyone suspected Mister was you very early on and some said it directly to you. None of us told non-moderator members, they spotted you all by themselves. Partly what gives you away is you keep using the same notation. An example is \(\int_{\Omega}|\psi|^{2}\). It's a notation I used to use a lot and which I used when I corrected your mistaken belief the normalisation condition was \(|\psi|^{2} =1\). You use it a lot and even now you get it wrong. You recently said \(\Omega\) is the boundary, it isn't, it's the whole domain over which the wave function has support.

Anyway, my point (and other people's point) is that you're being treated like you used to be because you're acting like you used to act. That's your fault. Some people learn to act within the rules and to develop as posters over time. It would seem you haven't managed that and you still can't take responsibility for your actions.

 

Actually, around 4 maybe 5 years ago, you told me it was the boundary. It wasn't something back then I used in my vocabulary, for some reason, it stuck in my head.

You are more influential than you think. Nor have I said that was the normalized condition for over four years.

 

No. For the frikken seventh time.

It is his attutude. Say the dots explain the mistake, the slashes represent alphanumeric being condescending, picking on old things long gone and basically being an arsehole

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It's the slashes I don't appreciate.

 

Citation needed, because it isn't. And if I did then I was mistaken. The fact you haven't realised that would then be evidence for how little you've read in that time because you'd have realised the mistake by now if you were really doing all that quantum mechanics you claim to be.

Obviously not, given you still repeat errors I've told you time and time again are wrong.

I didn't said you had, I said you use that notation a lot.

One or two? Sorry but that's just plain dishonest of you. Your mistake count was higher than that. Remember, James has been reading these threads, he's even been in the occasional one. Anyone who has seen me 'shred' a post of yours will know I usually shred it into many more than 2 pieces.

You defended it for several posts! I listed numerous errors with it, ranging from the conceptual of simply having valid units doesn't make it viable, through to the mathematical such as failing to take limits, not discretising properly and not applying a differential operator onto something on the right hand side (and this isn't an exhaustive list!). If you knew it was nonsense why post it? Why defend it? Why bother at all? It seems to be the "Put on a white coat and play physicist" thing you have.

And what is it with you and saying "I got drunk". You used to say it a lot too. No one cares nor is it an excuse. What relevance does you getting drunk after writing the equation down have to anything?

Well you'd be wrong because you, frankly, don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I dissected it into many pieces.

Again, you're being utterly dishonest! James has commented on this too, as I have multiple times. You try to dismiss one error you made, ignoring the many many many others you made. Anyone who has read the threads in question will see you made much more than one error. You had numerous things, both conceptual and quantitative, wrong in your 'chapter'.

You've had your errors listed in lengthy detail. Many errors in each thread, many threads. Yet you ask "Are they really so bad?" and say "I thought it was pretty good". You're either trolling or you're delusional. There isn't much else it could be. You've had your problems explained at length, again and again, by many people yet you just turn around and ask again "So what's the problem?" as if no one has explained it to you.

I'm wondering if you're just pretending to be extremely dense and doing this again and again to see how many times you can ask the same answered question before you're banned again, like some kind of forum social experiment. I wonder that because the alternative says extremely bad things about you, both about your personality and your cognitive faculties.

Anyway, some of us work, I'm off to bed. I don't imagine this thread will be open by the time I get up....

 

He just did it a moment ago concerning the normalized wave function. I haven't said anything like that in years.

 

Damn right I defended it for several posts because I could not understand were the error was. I spent hours writing that up, put a lot of concentration into it, I calculated all the matrices before I typed it up here.

The best bit is, my beta matrix was an error because I carried the entries from the alpha matrix to beta matrix, initially to save time but did not change it.

THAT IS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE TO SAYING I AM INCAPABLE OF THE WORK.

Not only that, I even corrected the beta matrix after you cryptically mentioned there was a mistake, showing I was doing the math!!!!!!!

 

Consciousness being questioned by physics, is now a society issue??? How odd.

And no, I was accused of plaigarism because someone found my work on another site and before I had a proper look at it, it was too late.

I wrote tachyon covariant fields in the style of a Tsao Mass term because I had never seen Tsao write them out in this fashion. I posted it elsewhere, someone else linked it, I think Captain Kremmin, then I got infractioned. Then after I proved myself to a few people here, I asked alphanumeric to take down his accusations and he refused!

 

''You did not appreciate his pointing out a clear mistake in a book you are writing? Or was your issue more with the fact that he did not give you the answer straight off the bat and expected you to work to actually find the mistake and correct it.''

No BELLS. I did the work. And no, it isn't about being corrected. Again.

 

What part of, it wasn't blindingly obvious, from my previous responses so far, are you not getting?

 

Bells

''Would you prefer they lie and have you possibly publish a book with so many mistakes in it and result in your being made a laughing stock? Or would you prefer that your mistakes stand uncorrected because it hurts your feelings to be told you are wrong and where you could end up misleading someone who comes here to find some information?''

Again, for something like the ninth time, I have no problem being corrected. It is his method. If he had not figured out for himself i carried the entires from the alpha to the beta matrix is irrelevant for now. It is saying straight away that I am incapable of the work. He did not correct me, leave it at that (leaving the accusations to the side first) to see if I WAS capable of correcting it, which I did. Instead, he wrote a massive lengthly proof which was... really not needed. Then accusations blazed left right and center.

 

What ''loads'' of mistakes did I make AN?

The dirac equation chapter, I remember you pointed out two mistakes, one actually turned out to be an error on your part!!!!

You mixed up your scalar and vector quantities then tried to pass it off as my error. Good thing I noticed it too!

Yeah James, that's your PhD for you. Totally amazing aren't they? PhD's don't know everything, he may know more than me, but I've never denied this. I don't appreciate James how you say, he's the real deal with a PhD because quite clearly, I qouted Fred Alan Wolf not long ago, who has a PhD to which you responded ''isn't he a crank?''