Formal Complaint About the Admin James R.

MetaKron:

You can join OIM and take one day off. Bye!

 

Yes there are. The moderators/admins here are very tolerant and forgiving. We have a policy of giving members multiple warnings and chances to change their ways. A permanent ban really is a last resort.

We don't ban people just because they have fringe views. We have a pseudoscience forum, after all.

However, repeated deliberate lies and misrepresentations of science can require action.

 

OIM has been caught out in lies many times, and not just by me.

What is it, then?

As you and I both know, MetaKron, you have a problem with authority figures, regardless of who they are. It's probably nothing personal. It just happens that I'm an administrator here, and so therefore look to you like an authority figure you think you need to fight. You're by no means alone in that.

If any evidence of this is needed, we need only look at the positions you have supported and maintained on sciforums. Basically, you'll fight any science that is defended by anybody you think is part of the "establishment". You claim the RSPCA is out to kill people. You think AIDS is a conspiracy by the powerful and authoritative medical establishment. And so on and so on.

You're also not unusual in that you're an attention-seeker, just like OIM. Perhaps because the "authorities" pay no attention to you in real life, you want your voice heard loud and clear on this internet forum, and you'll fight for your right to be the centre of attention.

Look at OIM's pattern of behaviour - again, not unique to him. He starts by posting some provocative pseudoscience. Or he starts with an innocuous-sounding question, only to insert pseudoscience into the thread in the next post or two. The fundamental aim - to attract attention to himself.

Once he has the attention of people he perceives as "authorities", he breaks into lies, dissembling and attempts to ridicule his "opponents". The aim - to pump up his ego and convince himself that he is "winning" against the "authorities".

The cycle continues when he is banned due to trolling or misrepresentation. Then we proceed to the next phase of the game. On his return, he will start a complaint thread, or two or three, about how evil the moderators/admins are, about how his legitimate viewpoints are being censored or stifled by the conspiracy (his term is "religion") of scientists.

For a while, other disgruntled posters jump on the "let's complain about the moderators" bandwagon. When that starts to get a bit old and the general attention starts to wane, he reverts back to his original one-track record of posting misleading and provocative nonsense, and so the cycle starts again.

Now compare your own posting record, MetaKron. Is it surprising that you jump to OIM's defence? I don't think so. Because your style is, in general, the same as his. When attention starts to wane - when you're no longer the centre of the storm - then you poke and prod to make sure you regain the spotlight. Because that's what it's really about, isn't it?

In addition to OIM's foibles, it also seems to me that you really believe some of the way-out nuttiness you espouse. In fact, I expect you'll feel compelled to justify yourself once again in response to this very post. As a wise man once said, there's really no point continuing a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Once you realise that your opponent isn't playing with a full set of pieces, the only sensible alternative is to withdraw from serious discussion. You can't persuade somebody who has actually lost touch with reality.

I hope this helps clarify my position with you, MetaKron. I am sorry if this sounds a bit harsh.

I do not propose to engage with you again following this post, unless I have to regarding my duties as administrator.