karenmansker wants a quantum of respect

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by karenmansker, Apr 4, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    • This thread was formed from posts split from "Quantum Fluctuation : Causal" with an off-topic discussion of karenmansker's dissatisfaction with specific moderation action and that user wants it clear that the thread title is not orignal to that user.
    I, KSM received this 'alert' 4/4/2017 from Mod (who?) . . . . re: KSM reporting rpenner (post above) for insulting a fellow Sciforum member . . . . :

    "Unfortunately, your recent report has been rejected: Post in thread 'Quantum Fluctuation : Causal' - Post doesn't meet the threshold for moderator action. rpenner can post the opinion that you are a pseudoscientist. It is up to you to show that you are not."

    KSM inquiries: Who is the Moderator who sent this alert to KSM? What would 'meet the threshold for moderator action'? Comment: Perhaps Sciforums Admin should require certified credentials for all members to determine who is a scientist and who is a pseudoscientist. (BTW: I have such credentials; do you?) (Mods: You may move this post elsewhere or delete, if you like).
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,584
    You make a big deal of claiming scientific credentials (you have mentioned it on several threads) but you reject any attempt by people to discover what they are. I asked you, quite politely, what you specialised in, in another thread, and got a very uninformative tirade in reply. This secretiveness, coupled with some of the errors you have made (e.g. about energy in Doppler-shifted light) quite naturally lead people to wonder a bit about you.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    Sorry Exchemist . . . . but, having seen how other members are treated (i.e., slammed, demeaned, etc.!) by senior members and Admin when too much background/personal info is revealed . . . so you will have to continue to wonder. Sciforums is NOT a peer-review publication system, although I am sure Admin/Owners might pretend so. IMO, it is a venue for (basically) discussion of scientific ideas (new and old) and the development and transfer of scientific knowledge to both fellow scientists and the lay community. If my (pre-) assumption is correct, Sciforums should not be fearful of entertaining new ideas from any source. I readily admit to sometimes proposing ideas that may be out of the mainstream of scientific (ad)venture, but many so-called scientists here seem (IMO) reluctant to entertain such free-thinking excursions and prefer instead to strain themselves (and their egos) by trying to pat themselves on their backs while their heads reside elsewhere (<-- HAHA! . . . . intendeed as humor!). Since we seem to be straying way off-topic, I recommend that you and/or any interested others create a new thread where we might amicably discuss the philosophies we seem to be now focused upon. HSIRI
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
  8. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,116
    """I express my opinion that rpenner is subservient to mainstream science establishment. Now if he objects it is up to him to show that he is not."""

    I think this kind of free hand to abuse or name calling is bad. Abuse is abuse, name calling is name calling....it does not matter if x calls y as Moron, fool, idiot, crackpot, pseudoscientist... This is name calling, onus cannot be on y to prove that he is not a moron.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,584
    Out of the mainstream seems to be fine here, so long as the person understands what the mainstream view is and doesn't misrepresent it. New ideas are also fine - we have several members who do this quite happily here. Though if they conflict strongly with established science they may get moved - naturally - to Alt Theories. HSIRI
     
  10. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    Exchemist: . . . . sure . . . . .uh-huh . . . . right!???? . . . . . NOT!
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,584
    We've had some quite interesting unconventional ideas from such people as (going form memory, which may not be 100% accurate) quarkhead, RJ Beery, Qreeus and others. I think the important thing is that these guys know their science: they know when they depart into new or unconventional ideas and they don't make school-level errors in what the "mainstream" [how I hate that term] model says. That means one can have a serious discussion, without spending one's time watching people get annoyed at having to correct misunderstandings.

    On the other hand, people who lead with their chins, by saying relativity is hogwash, or something, and then show they don't understand how it works, naturally come in for a bit of a pasting.
     
  12. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    I agree. I too have quite reasonable discussions with some of those you mentioned.
     
  13. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    Quote ". . . . Since we seem to be straying way off-topic, I recommend that you and/or any interested others create a new thread where we might amicably discuss the philosophies we seem to be now focused upon." (partial quote from above, KSM original post on Quantum Fluctuations: Causality)

    SCIFORUMS MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE: I DID NOT CREATE THIS THREAD (subforum!) although is is purposely attributed to me and - without my permission - includes a spiteful and condescending reference to me (karenmansker) as author in the title. Such childish immaturity, IMO, certainly reflects negatively on the professionalism of the Admin/Mods and on the integrity of Sciforums - that they would allow such activity.
     
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    That's because a pseudoscientist is defined as someone who apes the form of scientific inquiry or report without the methodology, so you pretty much provided evidence for this opinion to the moderation staff.

    The head of all volunteer staff.
    For one, evidence of animus. Since classifying members on the basis of behavior which is similar to that of known trolls and pseudo-scientists is my job, my opinion, supported by citations of your own behavior, immunizes me from being singled out as a bad member when acting as a moderator. That other moderators confirm my opinion, leaves me largely bulletproof as a moderator.
    That's materially untrue. At best, you have a degree from an accredited university in an applicable field. Much like a piece of paper with "I AM SANE" in your own handwriting, "credentials" can not demonstrate your current intellectual honesty, your current intellectual ability, or your current engagement with reality. Even figures like Einstein and Newton had their scientific output dwindle as time advanced. Regardless of what credentials you think you have, your performance, not your credentials are what are judged by moderation staff.

    Moreover, how would you propose we link your credentials to your internet pseudonym? The "real" KSM might be a victim of identity theft by the Internet version. No member of staff wants to verify your home telephone number and work history. The current software doesn't even have a place for staff to place staff-only notes on your profile page other than the Warnings mechanism.

    Saying "I am a former member/troll/sock-puppet/lawyer who wants to sue you/life-long misogynist/web story serial reposter/angry nationalist/OK with the prmomotion of racism" is background information which moderators feel empowered to act on.
    You are a serial teller of baseless, laughable untruths. Telling fibs about the owners is no way to ingratiate yourself with staff.
    We're not a poet's self-publishing site. "New" isn't the criteria for acceptance in science, describing observable behavior more precisely is.


    Free-thinking means "unconnected to tradition and reality", not "a viable precise framework for description of phenomena that actually happen."


    You are the egotistical one as you are trying to dictate policy on this forum (which you do not own) to impose your beliefs on a field you do not understand. That's not ego, that's hubris.

    HSIRI is not science. It's trolling.

    Valueless pop-physics drivel.

    For example: “Theories have suggested that the quantum nature of space should become apparent at the Planck scale: 10-35 of a meter. But the Integral observations are 10,000 times more accurate than any previous measurements and show that if quantum graininess exists, it must occur at a level of at least 10-48 m or smaller.” which does not follow for it assumes physics has tested physics theories at the Planck scale which is terribly wrong, scientifically illiterate. Further, they are looking for one tiny class of phenomena, vacuum birefringence, which doesn't happen if CPT symmetry holds even in the face of new physics.

    The actual P. Laurent paper is not so Flash Gordon, but controversial.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4282 <- Observation
    https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.121301 <- Analysis
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5288 <- Reply “we refute a more recent limit claimed in [5]”

    Not my claim.

    Trolling and a waste of space.
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    No, but it was created at your insistence:

    You started this off-topic chain of posts starting with your reaction to a private moderation action. See G2, G3 and H3 of the "Sciforums site rules"
    Your permission for staff to edit, move, delete, copy your posts was granted when you accepted the terms of service of this site. See "Terms and Rules" link at the bottom of every page.
    See also D2 and E5.
    How is the title not both 1) a summary of your crusade to be labeled as other than "pseudo-scientist" and 2) a humorous comment on the original title of the thread these posts were split from "Quantum Fluctuation : Causal"
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    If someone resorts to name calling they lose.

    Name calling never moves a discussion forward.

    It may be tempting to lash out and call someone stupid whatever but to do so is wrong.
    Personally I try to extend respect to another and I find that I receive respect in return.

    I believe there is no point in attacking the person when it is their arguement that needs only to be addressed.

    I try to behave as I would if the other person was sitting in front of me and my mother and children are witness to my behaviour, which for me means being polite and respectful.

    The use of profanity is best avoided and I find it distressing many here see no problem in using profanity with the mistaken belief it adds to their arguement. The use of profanity tells me its user is too lazy to seek a real word.

    On the positive this forum seems to have improved somewhat.

    Tolerance and patience with others would appear to be ideals worthy of pursuit.

    Alex
     
  17. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    rpenner: What a crock! So, you started this thread . . . . you do not have my authorization to ascribe the thread to my username or authorship. DaveC, what say you here about libel? rpenner, your self-effacing comments betray your apparent (IMO) egomania. Alex: My respect to you . . . . . I think you might be a more civil moderator for the forum.
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    Every post attributed to you has been left untouched. But if you insist...
     
  19. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    rpenner: BTW . . . . from Google definition:

    li·bel
    ˈlībəl/defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering;More
    aspersions, denigration, vilification, disparagement, derogation, insult, slander, malicious gossip;
    lie, slur, smear, untruth, false report;
    informalmudslinging, bad-mouthing
    "she sued two newspapers for libel"
    • the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person.
      "a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"
    • a false and malicious statement about a person.
    • a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.
    • 2.
      (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
    verb
    verb: libel; 3rd person present: libels; past tense: libelled; past participle: libelled; gerund or present participle: libelling; past tense: libeled; past participle: libeled; gerund or present participle: libeling
    1. 1.
      Law
      defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
      "she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
      synonyms:defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur;
     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
    Apropos of nothing.

    Where is your context? Where is your content?
     
  21. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    521
    Content is in my report of your posts. IMO, your behavior is putting the forum at great legal risk, not to say your professional integrity.
     
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    I think these days for a charge of libel or defamation to hold up, the defamee needs to demonstrate actual harm to themselves, in the form of, say, loss of income.

    So how much has your posting here earned you so far? Are all your customers satisfied?
    (Just kidding, in a not-kidding kind of way).
     
    joepistole likes this.
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,827
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page