Formal Complaint About the Admin James R.

For example?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your "expanding earth" thread.
even a moron such as myself can quickly conclude that the earth can not possibly be expanding. only through accretion can the earths surface be increasing in area, and that is on a scale so small as to be laughable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It looks like the evil administrator is winning again...curses!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He always wins.

 

This thread exemplifies why OIM needs to be banned. Letting him stay here is a disservice to the rest of the sciforums community.

 

Great example.

 

James would have done so well as a scientific censor in the 16th century.

 

Better now than never. Wrong/ignorance is still wrong/ignorance no matter which century it appears in.

 

To me it exemplifies why he should stay. The best contribution that a person can make is an idea that has a basis in reality that isn't yet approved by the scientific establishment. It's the only way that science can grow.

James and you both contend that people who make statements that you disagree with should be banned. That's the only excuse that I can see for you to ask for OIM to be banned in that thread.

In other threads OIM has been justifiably annoyed with people and having been through similar things myself, I understand when he overreacts.

 

Check out Read-Only's first post on this board for wrong/ignorance.

James must be in one of his moods today because he is starting a fight with OilIsMastery.

 

instead of going with the status quo OIM has indeed asked some interesting questions, post 11 of the thread DH pointed out for example.
the scientific community isn't exactly legit you know.
don't get me wrong, i am not using a brush here but there are certain things that really need to be addressed.

 

So you only do it when you really, really disagree. Claiming that the person that you do it to is "wrong" or "lying" doesn't really cover some of the things that you have done before, and you start fights by picking at people.

You don't have to correct everyone who is wrong on the Internet, and your moderator fiat just makes the temptation worse. You have jumped on subject matter that you don't approve of more than once, on the grounds of the subject matter, and you have trolled the threads yourself, angered people, then banned them. Please work out a better way to deal with this.

 

I've watched the scientific community run its credibility through a shredder and still pretend that it's believable, like some neurotics of a type that you and I both know. People give in eventually to make the pain stop, not because the players are right.

And James just banned OilIsMastery for asking how he was allegedly trolling after James falsely accused him of trolling. This isn't right.

 

or to remain "on the payroll".

 

So true.

 

You accused someone of lying who gave a journal article to support his contention. You did that in more than one thread in just the last half hour.

 

He posted information from a journal article:

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html

You accused him of lying, then you threatened him with a ban for trolling when he asked why you accused him of lying.

I don't think you're feeling well today, James. I'm not sure that I want to know the "real reason" why OIM was banned.

 

Seems I came in just at the right time 'eh?