Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by cluelusshusbund, Jun 1, 2014.
Realitycheck is doing his usual 'I'm the victim' schtick.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, it's you and the rest of the lying and framing and power abusing and colluding troll-mod gang from the old Physforum Mafia that are still trying on the same old schtick, Alex. You haven't learned. You have been busted via internet experiments and PROVEN to be so. Your tactics and abuses in collusion with troll-mods in perpetrating the lies and frames about your victims is no longer tenable when you have been proven to lie and abuse in collusion as a gang. So if you expect anyone to really believe your innuendos and frames like that, you are even more sorry-stupid and biased 'scientist' than I thought! Sad to see you troll and lie for so long, even after you've been busted by experiment. Bye bye, dissembling troll.
And it is a selfless service to science that he does it, all for fair play and principle. We should be ashamed of the disrespect shown to his greatness.
It sounds like he thinks everyone should be banned, all moderators fired and leave him the only real scientist on the forum. But then who would he vent his frustrations on? Who would he use his supercilious and condescending demeanor on? With everyone banned and all moderators fired, I mean. He would probably get tired of not having anyone to argue with ad nausium and go disrupt another site until he got everyone banned and all moderators fired from there.
Has he done the one in this thread yet about the moderators from all over the internet getting together in some secret moderator cabal to stalk and harass him?
"" RC's usual 10-14 day spamming rants.
who would have thought?
what ever happened with your book you were writing.
the one about how every single individual on a forum is a troll except you ?
it's wise to perma ban RC while you can,
other wise it will have to be learned the hard way.
which i'm sure it's already known.
just a thought. ""
Yet I was the only one here and at the other site who could immediately and objectively spot the OBVIOUS and EGREGIOUS flaws in the recent BICEP2 papers 'work/claim'. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The trolls had a field day at the time calling me crank etc. But they went strangely quiet when my comments prompted mainstreamers to do what I suggested and not accept at face value all the claims from BICEP2 team.
Mainstream has proved me right, and proved those usual-suspect mainstream-pretenders and mindless cheerleaders trolls like YOU wrong.
Yet you keep lying and making false innuendoes for your personal NOT SCIENTIFIC motives.
So what does that make you and all those trolls who ignored my SCIENTIFICALLY OBJECTIVE observation/suggestion just because they wanted to 'believe' all the 'confirmation biased' publish-or-perish' motivated crap from BICEP2 at that time...?
Suckers and groupies as well as clueless and biased trolls, that's what it makes you and them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Learn from that episode. And do better, Declan...otherwise you're no 'scientist' at all except 'fraudulent' like many I could name. Bye bye, troll. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
RC, you and I have NEVER traded a post about ANY aspect of the BICEPS group's finding. NEVER at ANY site. Not even in passing or second hand. What the devil makes you think we have?
Do better? What's that supposed to mean? Do better at what? I'm fully employed, my house is most of the way paid for. My car too. I've got a very nice girlfriend. And a really cool dog. Friends and coworkers that are a joy to be around. How could I expect to do better than that? Hey, you're the one who is miserable, maybe you should do better.
And nothing is done to keep mod-trolls from mod-trolling, because it resets the week following. That's what I've been saying: top down. The admission of top down isn't a by. It's a statement of rust. That being said, don't actually take the extra effort to make it worse: there's a special layer of hell reserved for people like that.
You might try (for a change) being an objective intellect, observer, scientist and decent (not mercenary/egoistic) human being? Try it, you might like it. When you gauge your performance against materialistic/personal measures and standards, then you are not being an objective thinker on the universal phenomena, but merely another one of an all too many materialistic egoistic pricks who infest the world and some of whom falsely label themselves as 'scientist' and troll on the net pretending to have anything worth a damn to offer the real objective scientific mainstream.
You being a self-absorbed materialistic and egoistic prick does not qualify you to call others crank...especially in my case because I was right and the rest of your troll gangmembers was clueless and would swallow anything if it was labeled 'mainstream'. Like that BICEP2 crap which you and other trolls were swallowing hook-line-and-sinker until I and REAL objective mainstream scientists gave them and you lot a reality check which agreed with my realitycheck. Go figure. Go do better, Declan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Didn't have to, Declan. You have been 'running with the old troll-mod gang' for some time now. Remember your first comments (full of uninformed opinions and lies/frames spread by the mod-trolls, even though you had no idea of ALL the facts) in which you called me crank, even though I have been right and the detractors wrong?
And in the latest instance re BICEP2, you obviously came across my RealityCheck posts at Phys.Org about that, but you made no effort to defend my objective observation/suggestion to do careful due diligence for themselves before 'believing' obviously flawed 'publish or perish' crap like that BICEP2 'work/claim' announcement. So, you agreed with the trolls by omitting to point out I was right to warn them to do their own due diligence before getting all excited and wrongly and unscientifically calling people cranks who did not agree with them.
No more excuses, trolls; from you and the rest of that useless gang. You are all too eager and ready to call me crank, but not so eager and ready to admit I was right. Typical troll MO.
Learn from it. Stop trolling. Do better, objective intellect-wise, for science's sake, Declan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It would appear that Undefined has completely lost it...
Undefined has received and infraction and, pursuant to his current active infraction points, a 14 day ban for persisting in violating forum regulations instead of utilizing the available avenues for his grievances.
Hmmm, 1 days. I wonder what the chances are that at the end of those 14 days we find that Undefined has patiently reassessed his motives/actions and will no longer be carrying on his relentless attacks against this site with his rants against the "MOD-TROLL GANG"/"MOD-PROTECTED/COLLUDING TROLLS".
Unfortunately, I doubt it... which is a shame. If he put half as much passion into his scientific endeavors as he does this vendetta against the forum management, he'd probably be a well respected, and well-learned, member.
Pardon this interruption, Declan.
Likely he thinks that you and I are the same, because he and I DID trade posts about the BICEP findings at Phys.org. and he has accused me of this in the past. (or was that another troll? I cannot remember)
given that this is not PO, and that this thread is about moderation here on this site, how is it relevant? I suppose, tangentially, he could say that both sites have people who dislike his trolling irrelevant posts...?
IMHO - I had to vote the moderation low in this case: after all, Undefined is RealityCheck, and given that he has posted this fact at PO (in yet another irrelevant off topic supercilious and condescending diatribe about fair practice while trolling comments etc) and given that I tried to PM a moderator about this, and given that He's already been BANNED from here permanently... WHY IS HE BACK POSTING?
Perhaps this is an unfair question? I am not sure, which is why I am posting it here for reply. If I am being unfair to the moderators, I apologize, but it just struck me as odd that he was allowed to come back and do the same stuff he was doing to begin with while under a perma-ban.
Again, apologies for the interruption.
If you think his remarks are annoying here, you should go to Phys.org and see how he trolls with the same stuff (even about THIS site) over there... saying the same things, same points, even posting links to here ....
At least there is SOME moderation here. Thanks for that much...
I DID ask a question in another comment to Declan, and I hope the MODS can answer this (and you posted a ban with the MOD HAT on) : WHY is Undefined still allowed to post when he's already been banned from here as RealityCheck ?
RealityCheck had been granted a second chance by James (one of our administrators)... however, he is quickly falling back into his old habits.
For me it is perfect.
I wish every forum had a moderation like this, specially the one I moderate.
Then I would not have problems with the other moderators on the forum I moderate.
(walks on a mod's shoes)
Question: Did someone perform the wrong infraction calculation or did the passing of time alter the active infraction count?
As one of the few on [THREAD=141840]SR Issue[/THREAD] thread to go without adverse moderator action, I noticed that thread was mentioned [post=3201275]here[/post] as an example of moderator inaction. While I believe only moderator action would give the OP reason to confront the question of whether the OP actually knew what was meant by relativity of simultaneity, it would be perhaps unfair to expect generic forum moderators to share my diagnosis of the main issue and unrealistic to expect them to share my pedagogical goals.
Indeed rpenner, that would be my mistake - I somehow missed the multiple pages of infractions - this ban SHOULD have been for a month, with a request for permanent... but we have discussed it behind the scenes and agreed to let it stand as I issued it at 14 days
Completely my mistake... instead of looking at the display showing the active infraction points, I looked at the first page which showed several, then a reversed one, so I didn't think to check the 2nd page XD My bad.
Separate names with a comma.