Ban the sociopaths

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by RealityCheck, Mar 18, 2012.

  1. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Moderator note: This thread has been split from the following thread, following the banning of Pincho Paxton:

    [thread=111586]Gravity never zero[/thread]


    Hi James R (and Pincho Paxton and everyone).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not sure if this is in any way analogous to the sort of concept Pincho Paxton was speculating about:

    "Electron Holes" are where the absence of an electron effectively represents a 'negative'-matter/mass (as distinct from 'anti'-matter/mass') which commonly arises when talking about and analysing/describing certain semiconductor properties/behaviour, as in the following link....

    It seems that the absence (whether in a space-field matrix/medium or in a material matrix/medium) is enough to effectively constitute a 'pseudo-particle/energy' effect/feature which effectively behaves as 'negative-particle/energy' effect/feature?

    I'm not sure how closely this would resemble the kind of feature/effect that Pincho Paxton is positing.

    So, James R, would it be possible to UN-ban him at least for as long as it would take for him to explain whether or not the Electron Hole (negative matter/mass feature/behaviour is in any way some example of what he is talking about?

    I for one would like to hear from Pincho Paxton on this, and I suspect everyone here who is a fair/curious person would also welcome the opportunity for Pincho Paxton to explain to the forum at least whether or not his perspective is in any way consistent with things like the Electron Hole effect/behaviour.

    It's your call, of course. Just thought It might at least clarify things one way or the other before he is banned for good again (if that is still what you decide afterwards).


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2012
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Pincho Paxton won't be unbanned. He obviously knows next to nothing about physics, except for some jargon words he has picked up here and there.

    If you read between his lines, you can possibly relate some of his nonsense to real science, but it's like seeing pictures in clouds or tea leaves. At best you're drawing on your own knowledge to try to make sense out of nonsense.

    Pincho has wasted everybody's time here for long enough. The fact that you consider it worth taking time to delve into his crap to try to extract meaning is one reason why he is gone.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RealityCheck Banned Banned


    I wouldn't normally intervene like this unless I DO consider it germaine TO the science.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The fact that the concept/behaviour of "Electron Holes" is so redolent of Pincho Paxton's central point regarding some sort of "negative energy/matter" region into/towards which energy/matter 'flows' makes me hesitate enough to give him a chance to answer that observation in his own words consistent with his own perspective BEFORE I dismiss his perspective.

    That is MY approach to scientific discourse; I ignore what is NOT relevant/germaine and I ignore the person and 'baggage' behind the perspective. That is the only way to ensure one keeps an pen mind to the final end of a discussion/perspective.

    Again, I (and I'm almost certain many others here) are fair and curious and open-minded enough to hear what he might have to say on this CRUCIAL "negative energy/matter' concept of his in the light of what is already KNOWN SCIENTIFICALLY about "Electron Holes'. I especially want to hear IF such a well-known phenomena sits consistent within his own perspective or not.

    Then and only then can I justify it to myself that I have given him a fair hearing (I am fully aware of the 'baggage' between him and certain others/yourself here, but I cannot allow my own search for scientific information/perspectives from others to be affected by purely 'historical' and 'personal' considerations; for that way lay possible missing of a piece of the discussion which may or may not rule in or out some possibly crucial piece of the puzzle which may help to make sense of my own/conventional perspective irrespective of whether PP's perspective is ruled out in full or in part).

    That is the only justification for giving him TEMPORARY reprieve solely for answering my post on a matter (Electron Holes) which MAY be 'scientifically' central to what he has been on about.

    I just want to give him the chance to make comment/correlation between what I understand and what he implies. That is all. Surely that is not unreasonable for scientifically open minded forums to allow on a one-off basis in his case?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I would appreciate it greatly, James R, and I would appreciate it greatly if you could find it in yourself to reconsider....for the sake of scientific discourse and irrespective of any 'history' between PP and others/yourself? Thanks, mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Back tomorrow. Cheers!
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member


    Hey mate! You should look back through the historical records. Though I do not like or encourage any banning, Pincho has been warned over and over, about posting in the Science Folders. He has been given a great deal of freedom in both Pseudo Science and Alternative Theories. This is a shoe that has been set to drop for some time.

    There are many of us that push the limits, myself included. Some just don't know when to resist the urge... Get my meaning, mate?

    This has been completely off topic, so I appologise in now. The job James and the other Moderators do is one, I would not want to have to deal with.
  8. RealityCheck Banned Banned


    Hi James R.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is this totally UNprovoked and unjustified and empty post from AlexG.....

    ...what you expect from him even after he has received a warning from prometheus for making intentionally provocating and science-empty posts to members who are going about their discussions here in good faith?

    Are you going to allow the juvenile/poisonous antics of AlexG to make chumps/wimps of you and your fellow mods/admin like this so obviously and openly?

    Make no mistake, the reputaton of you and your site is at stake more and more if you allow this tragic would-be-a-Trout character to treat you and your integrity/oversight with such open contempt and malice aforethought for all who want to discuss free of the continuous 'personal' stuff which such characters bring and which all too often seems to result in the victim, rather than the perpetrator, being unjustly treated/sanctioned as 'the bad guy'.

    Have we not learned anything from the Trout/Tach debacle.....where once these malicious nihilistic and sociopathic trolls are given free rein over the internet, they quickly and effectively make a mockery of what science discourse is supposed to be all about: Open and free; instead of being continually subject to such mindless trolling and bullying/intimidation from such poisonous and negative/empty posters who are STILL being allowed to call themselves 'members' of this site despite what we have learned is the tragic cost to scientific originality of thought (here and elsewhere) and of the inevitable result of such behaviour as AlexG/Trout in the long term to proper scientific discourse?

    When are you going to make the site free for safe and good faith discussion rather than a site for premeditated and malicious spoiling/poisoning of potentially fruitfull 'from left field' discourse from whence potential insights may come irrespective of the reactionaries and trolls?

    The ball is in your court, but make no mistake, your site/reputation is being more and more brought into question the longer you allow such mindless negativity and nastiness from the likes of AlexG and his mentors Trout et al to persist.

    You did not 'spare the axe' for Pincho Paxton, but still allow such antics from 'your friends' (that is what the take-home inference will be from this if AlexG is allowed to continue his destructive/spoiling presence here). Just letting you know how it looks from out here, mate! Up to you to prove that inference wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anyhow, it is patently clear that AlexG is taking you and prometheus as 'friends' who will not dare to act decisively against his behaviour; or he is taking you as fools and idiots who have not the wit to realise how he is playing you' so effectively as such so far. So, if you are neither his 'friends' nor the 'fools and idiots' he is obviously treating you as, then perhaps it's time for you to do what is necessary to prove that you are NEITHER (especially since you have had no compunction in so brutally taking up your axe against PP with such decisiveness and gusto?).

    Your call, mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 18, 2012
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Sorry. You'll have to look for him on some other forum. Probably he has a blog or website or whatever where he posts his "simulations" of the universe.

    You must waste a lot of time investigating every bizarre claim that comes along. It makes good sense to build up a picture of a person's reliability, knowledge, expertise and so on, rather than starting from scratch each time.

    He has been given many chances to post something coherent here, but he has never done so. His time is up.

    It's certainly not out of character for AlexG, and he has been warned about this kind of thing in the past - even banned if I recall correctly. Obviously he is willing to risk another ban.

    In this instance, yes. It seems to me that his comment referred to the content of your post and was not a personal insult directed at you. Here at sciforums we do not wish to stifle the expression of opinions, provided that the discourse is about the subject matter and not the person.

    It's interesting that you've chosen to use your complaint post to make what may in itself be regarded as a personal attack on at least two posters here. Do you advocate one standard for yourself and a different standard for others?

    As moderators, we always seek to strike a balance. It seems to me that there is ample opportunity here for "left field" discussions. In fact, no less than 5 subforums are specifically dedicated to such discussions. You cannot expect to be packed in cotton wool, however. This is a science site. You must expect to be challenged from time to time by people who know a little science.

    Now you're making accusations of moderator bias? Ho hum.

    Why don't you ask AlexG whether he is my friend? Virtually the only direct contact I've had with him has been to moderate and/or ban him.

    You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you may want to consider that AlexG has been previously warned and banned for similar behaviour.

    It seems to me that if I'm getting complaints from both sides, then maybe I'm drawing the line reasonably.
  10. RealityCheck Banned Banned


    Hi James R.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sure, sure. Sematics and rationalizations seem to come easily to you. Anything but looking directly to his intentional provocations even in cases which NO RATIONALIZATIONS can excuse. Whether or not you are or are not really his 'friends' or his trained 'fools and idiots' hardly seems to matter, since his OVERALL and PERSISTENT behaviour seems EFFECTIVELY and CONFIDANTLY to ASSUME and TREAT YOU as such in the knowledge that any 'ban' will BE temporary and minor, after which he can once again return confidant in the knowledge that he can once again resume business as usual and you will AGAIN only make rationalisation-excuses and/or aply only minor sanctions and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

    Wake up: he is PLAYING you and your 'evenhandedness' for a friendly/sucker (even if you are not in fact but in effect via your failure to act decisively against his malicious/spoiling behaviour/provocations); and that he is playing you so is clear to everyone but you, mate. Don't fall for it.

    And in the case of Trout et al, it may have escaped your notice that Trout et al were the ones who were WRONG to carry on in the same vein over at physforum; and they are PROVEN to be WRONG by the posts by many HERE, including Tach's own post regarding 'accelerating even while not moving on the surface of the planet' question. He and others badly affected 4Dguy personally EVEN THOUGH 4Dguy HAD A VALID SCIENTIFIC POINT to pursue.

    Yet such as Trout et al were aloowed to ruin the person's reputation and spoil the science discourse....and NOW you find excuses to continue letting them do business as usual?

    Have we not learned anything about internet BULLIES and SOCIOPATHS masquerading as 'defenders' of science while they ruin the very discourse that enables that science to flourish without fear or favour?

    You have a moral DUTY to exclude EVEN THE HINT of such destructive characters/behaviours in a site purporting dedication TO science discourse without fear or favour.

    Not to mention you may be leaving yourself and your site to eventual possible legal action should your lenience towards these obvious sociopaths lead to tragic consequences in the rare case.

    And anyway, what has empty BULLYING and PROVOCATING SOCIOPATHY to do with science here or elsewhere? Get rid of these poisonous pretenders who treat you like mugs and exploit yor 'evenhandedness' to do their nasty work over the internet exploiting your basic decency in order to get away with murder of threads/discussions and by doing so discourage others from joining the discourse. Science does not flourish by discouraging innocents from contributing because they are not tough enough to withstand the bullies. Consider that. Exclusion of the innocent thinker/questioner is not the science way.

    So, such people are GUILTY BEYOND A SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT of UNCONSCIONABLY RUINING perfectly LEGITIMATE discussions and have not even bothered to apologise for doing so, and THEN they come HERE to accuse ME of 'cross-forum contamination' while they are allowed to continue to treat perfectly legitimate discussion points with the same tragic stupidity and malice as they are KNOWN to have done WRONGLY before MANY times, and YOU call that being even handed?

    And when one tries to defend oneself against such malice aforethought as happened over at physforum so tragically WRONGLY, then what does one get?....a WARNING for being the VICTIM? Blame the victim? Is that your 'balanced approach' to such matters? Think again, for pity's sake and for the sake of real science discourse 'in its most innocent stages' as on such science sites as these.

    Mate, perhaps you should re-consider your position before treating such miscreants and proven LIARS and RUINERS an ANTI-scientific discourse posters with what you think is fairness. Ask yourself: DO such proven spoilers and PROVEN WRONG posters deserve so many chances as you have seen fit to give such as PRETEND to 'speak' for the science when they are WRONG in fact as proven....and all the while these uncaring sociaopaths are ruining the self-confidence and reputations and threads of innocent and genuine questers after knowledge and scientific advancement? How is that by any stretch of the imagination being fair and balanced?

    You acted decisively against PP, now perhaps you may wish to end the rationalisations and excuses for AlexG? He is the one that started to troll/harass me here based on his sociopathic malice over from physforum. I only brought straightforward scientific points for discussion. No more, no less, and the 'spoilers' started in knowing you would be lenient with them. Is that being fair and reasonable in your judgement? Read the history before being so quick to punish the victim and excuse the perpetrator.

    Again, I respectfully ask you to actually BE even handed and deal with the PROVOCATEUR and PROVEN WRONG spoilers rather than try to find ways of allowing them to flourish by recourse to some 'leeway' which you afford to SOME (the sociopaths and provocateurs) but not to OTHERS (the victims}. The perpetrators actually bring poison rather than good faith discourse, and you keep making lame excuses for them to be allowed to come back again and again for business as usual. If that is not being UN-balanced in your actions I don't know what is, mate.

    I tried to get redress by PM as per the rules; but no satisfaction there. I have now had no option other than to put the case for your action in AlexG's et al's case to you in the open forum as clearly as I can. What you make of it in the end is your affair; but be aware that your final response/action will reflect on YOU personally as well as this site and your fellow mods.

    I trust to your much vaunted fairness etc. No hard feelings anyway, mate!

    PS: You should treat the 'complaints' from THE SPOILERS and perpetrators with a pinch of salt; because they KNOW HOW TO EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM to 'paint' the VICTIM as 'the bad guy'. The tragedy is that their exploitation is very successful so far, and you fall for it all too often. Otherwise, this is an excellent site!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    It seems to me that you take me for some kind of fool. Believe me, I am no fool. I am well aware of two particular types of "problem" posters here: (1) those who persist in posting useless nonsense, thus potentially misleading people who are interested in learning some science, and (2) those who know a bit of science but don't want to share it - they only want to boost their egos by belittling those who are less educated.

    Both types are a problem. Type 1 is usually, sooner or later, banned for trolling or posting useless material. Type2 sooner or later learn how to keep their discourse within acceptable bounds of politeness or, failing that, are banned for personal insults.

    We have an established warning and ban cycle here, based on accumulated infraction points. In practice, this means that members can get away with a number of insults or rubbish posts and only be banned temporarily. If the negative behaviour continues over a long period of time, these bans get longer and longer, eventually becoming permanent. You can read all about how this system works in the Announcement posted at the top of each subforum.

    The point here is: bad behaviour eventually catches up with people here. It can take a while, but we get there. We give people multiple chances to change their ways. If they can't, in the end, follow the site rules, they are gone. Ideally, we try to leave personal feelings out of it. The general site philosophy is, however, firmly kept in view at all times.

    I wonder: why weren't you complaining equally about how Pincho Paxton was playing everybody for a sucker, too?

    I don't know any "Trout". You seem to be carrying issues from another forum over into this one. I am not in any way responsible for what happens on other forums. If you have issues over at physforum, you should deal with them there, not here.

    Actually, no. We have a fairly clear list of site rules. My "duty", if you like, is to try to implement the spirit of those rules to the best of my ability. I have no duty to act as a moral policeman or a protective parent. By and large, the people posting here are old enough to have adult responsibilities and rights.

    I'm not entirely sure what you think we might be legally liable for. You might like to elaborate on that.

    Nothing. But I'm not sure what outcome you're looking for here. Do you expect moderators to remove any hint of criticism directed at any kooky idea, in case it is perceived as bullying? What exactly do you want? Bear in mind that we do police personal insults, off-topic posting and trolling.

    We have a rule here against knowingly posting falsehoods. If you think somebody has done that here, please supply me with link(s) to the relevant post(s), with any explanatory information you feel is relevant, and I'll take a look at it. If your case is made out, appropriate disciplinary action can be taken.

    As I said, I have no responsibility for what happens at physforum. Take up your complaint there. If AlexG is reported for and/or is found to be hurling personal insults or posting useless, off-topic posts, he will be dealt with here.

    Of course. Every action by a moderator reflects on that moderator and the site. How could it be different? You're not telling me something I don't know.

    That's an interesting end, considering the rest of your post.

    I have had quite a lot of experience with the "report button used as a weapon in a personal dispute" tactic, I assure you. I always look at the context in which complaints arise.
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned


    It's not ME that takes you for a friendly/fool/idiot, it is the AlexG behaviour that demonstrates it is HE that takes it for granted you are such.

    And while you wait for the actions of the bullies and sociopaths to 'catch up with them', spare at least a LITTLE thought FOR THE IRREPARABLE damage they may do in the meantime to innocent/genuine people/threads while you make excuses for NOT acting IMMEDIATELY and DECISIVELY against what are obvious spoilers and sociopaths.

    Actual genuine constructive criticism is NECESSARY but 'spoiling' and malice' designed to intentionally goad and destroy innocents/genuine posters (with a view to getting them riled enough to get them banned) IS NOT NECESSARY or TOLERABLE in any way shape or form/extent. And whether or not Pincho Paxton was what you or certain others (note, including the same spoilers and sociopaths in question here who are playing their 'games' here) say he was is not for me to judge, I only wanted to get his final word on the coincidence between "electron Holes' and his 'negative energy' perspective, that is all, and no 'judgement' required from ME because that point was a legitimate aspect upon which I wanted an answer from him. Period. If I don't agree with his content I ignore him because I haven't the time to argue or complain to you about him. The malicious sociopaths have been allowed to do their work and finally they impact DIRECTLY ON ME, hence I have no option to state my case to you. The difference between such sociopaths and genuine people like myself is that the latter do NOT avail themselves of the report/complaint option lightly, and do so rarely only in the extreme where the situation is obviously out of hand and NOT 'balanced' even when you involve yourself, and when you do act you do so in an 'indulgent' tone/rationalisation for the perpetrators and a 'punishing' mentality towards the genuine and innocent victim (in the case at physforum myself and 4Dguy; and now here, myself).

    As to the Trout 'template' for sociopathy and anti-science-discourse tactics/craziness, ask your fellow mods about his unconscionable behaviour at physforum even when he as wrong in fact and persisted to destroy 4Dguy's reputation and eventually he and his cohort played the 'feedback' and 'report button' game and successfully GOT 4Dguy BANNED even though his threads/questions/points were perfectly legitimate and worthy of discussion without the continual spoiling and malice from the Trout et al sociopaths masquerading as the 'forum mafia' which took it upon themselves to 'patrol' and to 'punish' as they saw fit even though they were WRONG in science and in ethics to do such anti-science things.

    Mate, I have said it clearly and do not wish to make it more than it is in fact obvious already. IIt is obvious that you do not have all the facts.

    I have neither the time or the energy to make any further posts on this. You can do what you think right according to what information you feel is sufficient for your 'balanced' action on this. I just want to get on with my search for and discussion of individuals perspectives on the universal phenomena as compared/consistent to what is 'known already'; and I only ask to be allowed to do this without the unwelcome and poisonous attentions of wrongheaded and malicious spoilers and sociopathic whose only agenda is to stop genuine discourse from flourishing on a site supposedly dedicated to such. That is all.

    No further representation/discussion on this will issue from me. The ball is in your court (and if you haven't been brought up to speed abot the responsibilities of site owners/admins/mods regarding allowing bullying and harassment etc on the internet, then I suggest you read up on the latest news/legal precedents etc and ask around of other mods etc in the internet forums industry).

    Cheers and no hard feelings, James R. Great site otherwise! G'night.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Meh. If that's true, he won't be the first person who has underestimated me. It's really water off a duck's back.

    You're right. That would come under the heading of trolling.

    I remind you again that this is not physforum. If you have a complaint related to something that happened there, I suggest you post it there rather than here. And please don't bring your baggage from there to here.

    You don't seem to be getting it. I don't know "Trout". I don't know "4Dguy". We're not at physforum. This is sciforums. I can deal with what happens here. Don't bring me complaints from physforum.

    No worries.

    Don't worry. I'm reasonably confident that we have the legalities under control here.
  14. RealityCheck Banned Banned


    Good morning, James R.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Mate, I am compelled to answer this because your (rather selective quoting technique) response does not address one very crucial point I made; and also you missed entirely the actual meaning of another point I made.

    First: You did not address the point about while you wait and wait and wait for the sociopaths' actions to "catch up with them", they are MEANWHILE DOING UNJUSTIFIABLE IRREPARABLE HARM to reputations and discourse/threads which are legitimate and possibly valuable if allowed to reach their natural cnclusion befoe being 'spoiled' and 'cluttered up' by the tactics and malice of the trolls in question which YOU seem to find 'acceptable' FOR LONG ENOUGH FOR THEIR POISON TO DO THE DAMAGE THEY SO ENJOY. In another context such prevarication and biased rationalisations to allow them to get their fix of sociopathic pleasure would make you AN ENABLER of the most base behaviour/malice. Think about that 'image' of yourself before telling me again how 'fair' and 'reasonable' and 'powerful' and 'dutiful' you are in your actions. They have 'played' you and the system again and again, and even when you 'slap them on the wrist' they come back to 'business as usual'....and you don't even seem to see it for what it is (or perhaps you are so far gone to bias that you don't care?....perish the thought!).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Second: You missed the fact that it was AlexG (and the Trout in another of his proven MANY might try INFORMING yourself about this by asking certain of your fellow mods....or is it that you wish to ignore all the information for expediency and rationalisations and excuses to make again to me as to why I the victim am to blame instead of the cross-forums sociopaths themselves?...again, perish the thought!) that brought their mindless vendettas/tactics from physforum to here. Yet when I pointed that out to you, what do you come back with?....some totally lame EXCUSE to blame ME (the innocent victim of that very same sort of cross-forum contamination and 'baggage' you say you abhor so much!) rather than bringing home the actual blame to those perpetrators that STARTED IN HERE quite UNPROVOKED to do the very same thing HERE that they were doing THERE (and which was proven to be disastrously WRONG in fct and intent there, and which is STILL wrong in fact and intent HERE).

    So, what do you do with your much vaunted 'balance'? IGNORE while they do damage, and totally REVERSE the blame onto the victim!

    Mate, I think you had better stop your boasting about how very well you have things under control legally/ethically and look to your apparent unwitting bias and incompetence if this exchange is anything to go by. :

    I still think you are basically a decent bloke who has somehow convinced himself that he remains unbiased and competent. It is obvious that you think you have a handle on things (possibly due to ego and heady self-empowerment of your position here, as demonstrated by the self-serving 'power trip' responses in lieu of actual sense and fairness and understanding of what is what and who is the perpetrator and who is the victim). You may think yourself 'right' and 'balanced' etc., but it's like "the emperors' new clothes', it takes just one person to point out that you may not be so, and then you are left with the image problem, not the victim (and meanwhile the perpetrators you seem to tolerate too long are no doubt thoroughly enjoying every bit of the damage and disharmony they have sown between me and yourself. Don't be an enabler to them. Do what's right without further excuses for not doing so).

    Look again to all the facts in evidence before making rationalisations and excuses for the inexcusable. Then maybe your responses might carry some logic, fairness and weight of legitimate authority. Arrogant power posts ignoring all the salient legal/ethical and human dimensions does you and this site no credit. Take a real and properly informed stance before your and the site's reputation goes down the gurgler like physforum's did when the same trolls and sociopaths were allowed to run amok and damage people and sicourse for no reason other than the trolls and sociopaths ENJOYED negativitu and destruction and cared not at all for the science they PRETENDED to 'uphold' EVEN WHEN THEY WERE PROVEN DISASTROUSLY WRONG in fact and in humanity.

    Look to yourself and your ego before responding again in the lame and troll-excusing and victim-blaming way as you have demonstrated so far, mate. :

    Good luck and good thinking and good ethics and good humanity and less ego, James R.....and if you think the same people who played the mods over at physforum are not doing the same to you here, then I think you do not know what's going on at all at all. Wake up and act decisively; you and the site will be infinitely the better and more legitimate for it!

    No hard feelings. Bye....oh, and believe it or not, I am still very busy and would like to avoid unnecessary time lost in such exchanges as these, so I will trust to your better attention to the facts in future than heretofore, and hope that you will make it unnecessary for me to come back to you again on this in order to inform you on the actual situation/damage etc being perpetrated here by the same sociopaths that infested physforum.....the point that you seem to have missed altogether in your rush to arrogantly and unprofessionally blame the victim and instead excuse those same perpetrators which were the ones which brought the 'baggage' and sociopathy to your site entirely unprovoked by me. So please do stop the unwitting bias and just do your duty, mate (and do also stop telling me at every turn how great you are at doing that duty, because your boasts and self-congratulations ring hollow in the face of the facts of the matter).

    Otherwise this is an excellent site. Cheers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Oh dear. My apologies, mate.

    I guess that, equally, you'll agree that I am an "enabler" of pseudoscientists like your mate Pincho Paxton, in that I wait and wait until their actions in posting meaningless rubbish catches up with them. Would you like me to clamp down on the pseudoscientists some more as well, before they do IRREPARABLE HARM to the reputation of sciforums as a site for Science? We wouldn't want them to stay here long enough for their POISON to do the damage they so enjoy, would we?

    Or do you advocate a double standard in this case?

    I don't think I mentioned powerful. You brought up the idea of duty, as I recall. I did mention an intention towards fairness, admittedly.

    Well, let's take an example. I've just banned AlexG, on of your nominated "sociopaths", for 1 week from sciforums. He now has 3 active infraction points. The next time he is banned, it will be for 1 month. If he is then banned again (before his infraction points expire), the ban will be permanent. So, AlexG can continue on with "business as usual" if he so chooses, but only in brief spurts a month or so apart, and they won't last for long before he finds himself banned again. Does it seem to you that AlexG is successfully "playing the system" here? Or is it more that you'd like zero tolerance - perhaps something like an instant permanent ban for insulting other posters? Of course, we'd have to apply a similar policy to other offences, such as trolling and posting meaningless content. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?

    You're still not getting it. People come here with a clean slate. I don't care what happens on physforums, or on any other forum that I don't
    administer or moderate or post in. Get it?

    Please deal with your problems over there over there, ok?

    I'm not sure what you think I've blamed you for. Maybe you're playing the victim card a little too much. Do you think?

    Sorry. You'll have to point out where I have blamed you for something.

    I don't actually recall boasting.

    Things speak for themselves here. It it your perception that things are out of control. I do not share your perception. But I assure you, I feel no need to boast about how great sciforums is or how great I am. People will decide for themselves, one way or another.

    Hmm... a half compliment and half insult.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "unbiased". I don't really claim to be unbiased. I have many opinions on many things. I have certain views about how sciforums ought to be administered, and I try to be consistent in implementing those views. I'm not sure what an "unbiased" administrator of a forum like this would look like, exactly. Every forum administrator has to have some vision or aim in mind for the site he administers.

    Competency, once again, is in the eye of the beholder. I am quite happy to let others judge that for themselves.

    So let's see. Basically you're saying I'm a biased, incompetent, power tripping egotist. That doesn't sound very unbiased from your side, does it? Do you really think it deserves much of a serious response?

    If you just want to vent and insult me, please take one post, free of charge, to get things off your chest. I promise I will not penalise you in any way. Tell me what you really think. Then maybe we can leave this alone.

    Not at this point. We're all mates here, aren't we?

    You can stop any time you like. No pressure.

    I'd hate to put you out and take your valuable time. I'll try to do better.

  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    JamesR, even though Pincho was so wrong, he was interesting, and I feel the forum will be that little bit less human if he is banned forever. He never became rude or crude, but consistently explained his way, which seemed to have a consistency about it, so it wasn't just made up, but thought through.

    I don't know where the ideas came from but to me it was rather harmless. I would like to see him back at some stage.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Being consistently wrong isn't a great virtue, Robittybob1.

    A couple of months ago, I asked Pincho a few basic questions about his amazing New Physics theory of the universe. He avoided most of them and couldn't answer the rest. Basically, his "theory" evaporated the first time it was gently prodded. Many other people here have also given it a prod, and it has turned out to be just a mist of obfuscation and nonsense.

    If Pincho had restrained himself to a single thread for his "theory", or even perhaps resricted himself to the "Fringe" section, he might still be here. But he insisted on spreading his meaningless crap into the Science subforums. He was warned repeatedly that the Science subforums here are for Science, but he apparently was unable to understand that. In fact, I don't think he knows what science is, or how to tell science from crap.

    Unfortunately, Pincho Paxton's posts here were not "harmless". They had the potential to mislead those who are actually interested in learning real science. They were a huge time-waster for many readers, and a headache for the moderation team.

    He won't be coming back - at least not in the same form.
  18. RealityCheck Banned Banned


    All kidding aside, life has a way of getting in the way of the best laid schedules for internet discussion, so one must do what one can with the time available to one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anyhow, I do have enough time to humbly suggest that you are mixing up two quite different beasts.

    The one beast is/are those who, while they may be clumsy and/or annoying in their OP and discussion, they may nevertheless be interesting and provoke constructive dialogue between themselves and those interested. An example of this kind of beast is/was Pinch Paxton. While I did not agree with everything he presented, at least it DID get me thinking 'laterally' in order to try to find something in his perspective that might prove useful/consistent with my own perspective and/or the conventional perspective. My nom de plume is "RealityCheck", after all, and that is what I do. Hence my INTEREST in asking Pinch Paxton where exactly the phenomena of "Electron Hole" might fit (or not) in his perspective. THAT is the sort of dialogue that is constructive and potentially useful to OTHERS even though YOU may find it 'ho hum' and 'pseudoscience' etc etc.

    Then there is the OTHER beast altogether more sinister and malicious/destructive of constructive dialogue irrespective of scientific merit. These beasts care only for their own malicious ego/pleasure at ruining people/discussions for their own sociopathic ends/gratification. As an example of this I refer you to my thread in the Cosmology section presenting for discussion a HYPOTHESIS using the latest Dark Matter observations/studies to support the contention that all galaxies, including our own, possessed vastly greater quantities of Dark Matter in epochs past (as 'perceived' now here by the light now being received from far distant galaxies) than they do now. The implication being that when photons left the gravity wells of far distant galaxies they were greatly redshifted by the then vastly stronger gravity wells contributed to by the then greater quantities of galactic Dark Matter which has since been lost to intergalactic space as indicated by recent observations/studies (hence why since 'then' we here in our galaxy 'now' have a gravity well much less strong than we had in the epochs which the distant light represents). The hypothesis/implications being that the redshifted light from Dark Matter rich galaxy sources (then) is not equally and oppositely 'blushifted' as much upon entering our galaxy (by falling into our 'weaker-than-then' gravity well in our now Dark Matter POOR galaxy). The upshot posited was that the redshift we use to interpret 'cosmological recession' may actually be only the REDshift/BLUEshift 'mismatch' between when the photons left a dark matter rich galaxy/epoch (then) and its arrival (now) in our dark matter poor galaxy (ie, source there/then in much stronger gravity well; receiver here/now in much weaker gravity well....hence no 'cosmological recession' interpretation necessary or called for if the hypothesis/implications of dark matter distribution variations are found to be a tenable factor).

    Now the hypothesis was prsented in genuine and constructive manner, but what happened? Certain well-known trolls/spoilers stepped in and, without even trying to comprehend the essential points (which were valid and strictly scientifically based and supported by relevant professional observations/studies), started to make snide and prejudicial posts/comments designed to satisfy/confirm their own personal/sociaopathic bias/needs.

    There is the difference, mate. The treatment you deal out to the different beasts should DISRIMINATE CAREFULLY between those with a spoiling/malicious agenda, and those with a (however clumsy/annoying) agenda of constructive dialogue inviting interested people to think/question further.

    I humbly request you go read the relevant thread for yourself, James R, and give me your own constructive assessment of that hypothesis. Perhaps if you set the example of what a proper/positive discussion of 'give-and-take should be, then the trolls may not be so bold in future!

    Oh, and I note somewhere in another thread AlphaNumeric said something for which I applaud him: to the effect that those who come to him with a problem to put into maths terms should be treatd with some give and take because they should not be expected to present him with the problem 'complete and mathematical', else he would not be needed. I trust, therefore, that the same level of forbearance is shown to those HERE who may present their OP's clumsily/incompletely, since they too may be in need of assistance WITH THEIR NEW IDEAS which may be half-formed or novel to the extent that they may not have the lexicon/professional resources/background to present the 'complete/physical' version (which if they did have, would not be posting their idea HERE but in a peer-revied journal after all).

    I must go again, mate. Sorry, I don't wish to come across as what you may be inferring; it is just the way life is for me at the moment and I just wished to explain it so you knew my situation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Good luck and see you and everyone again tomorrow (I hope!). And thanks for your kind efforts/responses in the face of what you may have taken as being provocation but which in fact is mere 'customer feedback' from one affected by those kinds of posters more interested in negativity and discord than positivity and discourse, irrespective of the content. G'night!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Maybe you could continue the conversation on Dr Lindsay's website.
    Dr Lindsay gave him a special invitation to join him there.

    I have read some of your posts and would appreciate any involvement in our
    new science
    and philosophy forum...........................
  20. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Note to self: avoid Dr. Linday's website at all costs....
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member


    Honestly, there is no scientific merit in any of his posts.
    He is unusual in that his utterances seem to have some kind of organisation.
    There are shadows of truth, but no substance.

    Bringing him back would be of no use whatsoever.
    He is adept at flitting from science to meaningless terminology,
    and from there to meaningful terminology, but with his own variant definition.

    You could argue with him forever, and make no progress.
    He's the best at what he does.

    Of late, he seems to have popped up on nearly every discussion I have been looking at. I can hardly believe he has had only 2,000 odd posts.
    It feels like tens of thousands.

    In the last few weeks, I have heard quite a few people complain about the amount of junk science.
    I've been here a few years, but I can't remember it as bad as this.
    Some stodge is fine, but a continual diet of the science equivalent of sausage, pie and burgers can begin to pall.
    Has it ever been plagued by so much nonsense?

    At the moment. this is a science site with huge internet exposure, but a minimal amount of credibility.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2012
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    This sounds like a description of the majority of the posts I've read from RealityCheck, except for a generous helping of complaints and accusations. May explain the natural kinship here.
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it's my understanding that the concept of "electron holes" originated with the advent of solid state semiconductors.
    it is the basic premise of the theory underlying their operation.
    these "holes" are introduced into the crystal lattice by the manufacturing process called doping.

Share This Page