i'm sure einstein said "insert some strange stuff here" too.
anyway, knowledge is a prerequisite for the interpretation and/ or application of said imagination.
Inconsistent ban policy?
- Thread starter funkstar
- Start date
anyway, knowledge is a prerequisite for the interpretation and/ or application of said imagination.
I'm back after a weeks ban.
I was banned for calling another post 'word salad'.
I then gave the wikipedia definition of word salad.
So James decided that 'word salad' was insulting another member.
I'd say that I disagree, but shit, it doesn't matter. James is going to ban whoever he wants to, for any reason he invents.
I was banned for calling another post 'word salad'.
I then gave the wikipedia definition of word salad.
So James decided that 'word salad' was insulting another member.
I'd say that I disagree, but shit, it doesn't matter. James is going to ban whoever he wants to, for any reason he invents.
Public displays of inexplicable punishment are quite effective at keeping everyone in line, because no one knows exactly where that line's boundaries reside.
Let me understand a bit. Were you banned for a week without any warnings? I wouldn't think that was good. However in another science forum I was in I knew a member that used 'word salad' a lot to describe the post of others and nothing was said to him, so others jumped on his bandwagon and formed a group that I could only characterize as forum bullies trying to control what other posters had to say. I'm not one to complain about other posters, but I don't do much posting in that forum anymore. In your case someone obviously complained, I can't comment because I wasn't following that thread. But when you got the complaint how did you respond to it? That might have made the difference in why you got banned.
I quite like the term "cognitive slippage", as opposed to "word salad".
AlexG:
Don't tell lies now.
No. You were banned for insulting another member. In particular, your post accused another member of posting "word salad" which you said was "symptomatic of various mental illnesses". In other words, you implied that the member concerned was insane. That is an insult if presented without good evidence.
No. If that had been your only comment, it would have been pointless trolling and off-topic. But you added in a personal insult as well. Of course, referring to somebody else's post as "word salad" will often be insulting to them. Luckily for you, our rules do not extend to banning you solely for that, because some comment on post content must obviously be allowed.
I suggest you read the site rules before posting. They are available in an announement at the top of every subforum.
KilljoyKlown:
No. AlexG was first warned several times for posting contentless insults directed at other members. Then he was banned for 3 days. This time, having 1 active infraction point already, he was banned for 1 week, according to the usual ban cycle and site rules.
Bans here are not arbitrary. People are banned for breaking the rules. We lead up to this with gentle warnings. The first ban is usually short. If the person is too stupid to get the message following an initial ban and insists on repeating the same offence again, then the bans tend to get longer. Details of the ban cycle are available in an announcement at the top of every subforum.
Don't tell lies now.
No. You were banned for insulting another member. In particular, your post accused another member of posting "word salad" which you said was "symptomatic of various mental illnesses". In other words, you implied that the member concerned was insane. That is an insult if presented without good evidence.
No. If that had been your only comment, it would have been pointless trolling and off-topic. But you added in a personal insult as well. Of course, referring to somebody else's post as "word salad" will often be insulting to them. Luckily for you, our rules do not extend to banning you solely for that, because some comment on post content must obviously be allowed.
I suggest you read the site rules before posting. They are available in an announement at the top of every subforum.
KilljoyKlown:
No. AlexG was first warned several times for posting contentless insults directed at other members. Then he was banned for 3 days. This time, having 1 active infraction point already, he was banned for 1 week, according to the usual ban cycle and site rules.
Bans here are not arbitrary. People are banned for breaking the rules. We lead up to this with gentle warnings. The first ban is usually short. If the person is too stupid to get the message following an initial ban and insists on repeating the same offence again, then the bans tend to get longer. Details of the ban cycle are available in an announcement at the top of every subforum.
"word salad" Definition
chronically incoherent speech: an incomprehensible mixture of incoherent words or phrases, a common symptom of advanced schizophrenia.
I first heard the term used in the TV series Boston Legal when James Spader playing Alan Shore had a serious speech problem in court while defending a client. I believe it was in the season 2 episode 4.
Per Wikipedia below:
Cognitive slippage is a symptom of several psychiatric diseases and mental disorders associated with cognition and formal thought disorders. It is manifested in patterns of speech, where categories and lists become overly broad as concepts unrelated at first glance become related through tangential connections.
An example of cognitive slippage might be as follows:
"List some types of cars." "Let's see, there's Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Japan, Rising Sun, Hiroshima, Atomic Bomb, Enola Gay, oh and Miata."
Yeah, I looked it up too. Just need to find the appropriate moment to appropriate it accordingly . . .
Word salad definition....
"Excuse me I don't know what you just said, because your intelligence has taken you to a level beyond my comprehension."
"Excuse me I don't know what you just said, because your intelligence has taken you to a level beyond my comprehension."
Copy of pm to James R, as I said I would.
Hi,
I am not posting with this name (yet), but this is kwhilborn. I was banned. Let me explain briefly.
NASA has finally announced they stand behind LENR as a new green energy source and that they feel it is the green energy of tomorrow.
Please view this short (2 min) NASA video.
technologygatewaydotnasadotgov/media/CC/lenr/lenrdothtml
(edit: James R got Link, and it is in my threads)
(removed link from above to post as this ID)
Please look at the URL. This is an official NASA website and you can eliminate the subfolders on the URL to see that this is true. It is a known NASA website.
The subfolder attached to this website is called "media"
Now I know Global warming is of interest to you. We now have NASA standing behind a science that can remove 600 million cars from the road over the next decade.
Imagine buying a smog free car (Steam/electric/hydrogen are all possible with LENR)
So you can see why I have been excited about this science from the get go. If it turned out to be real. Wow! The impact on our society.
So now we have one of the best scientific topics of the last hundred years or maybe since fire was invented, and Trippy bans me from sciforums because he "feels" that this is not a NASA media video.
You can see for yourself it is on a NASA website in a media subfolder. I assume you can read a URL better than Trippy so I appeal to have the ban lifted.
After he banned me he then wrote a lengthy post about my view and I cannot technically answer back for 4 days. No offence intended, but that is childish.
I will also post this in Open Government and report it so any online moderators will see this ban for what it is.
Some people just do not like scientific progress. I have presented many peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of LENR on the thread and probably have a better understanding of it then most members on sciforums including doctorates. I have been studying this for months.
I know I like some woo-woo topics like telepathy but I am also a licensed Soil Engineer with a strong background and interest in science. I do profit from the paranormal industry as well.
Anyways. I think a 4 day ban is a bit ridiculous, and wish you would choose moderators with better temperaments. Trippy banned me so I couldn't respond to his wrong comments period. Very childish. Most people can thankfully read a URL correctly. Does he suppose I hacked NASA and Hired Dr. Joseph Zawodny to act in a hoax for the sake of Sciforums?
kwhilborn
Hi,
I am not posting with this name (yet), but this is kwhilborn. I was banned. Let me explain briefly.
NASA has finally announced they stand behind LENR as a new green energy source and that they feel it is the green energy of tomorrow.
Please view this short (2 min) NASA video.
technologygatewaydotnasadotgov/media/CC/lenr/lenrdothtml
(edit: James R got Link, and it is in my threads)
(removed link from above to post as this ID)
Please look at the URL. This is an official NASA website and you can eliminate the subfolders on the URL to see that this is true. It is a known NASA website.
The subfolder attached to this website is called "media"
Now I know Global warming is of interest to you. We now have NASA standing behind a science that can remove 600 million cars from the road over the next decade.
Imagine buying a smog free car (Steam/electric/hydrogen are all possible with LENR)
So you can see why I have been excited about this science from the get go. If it turned out to be real. Wow! The impact on our society.
So now we have one of the best scientific topics of the last hundred years or maybe since fire was invented, and Trippy bans me from sciforums because he "feels" that this is not a NASA media video.
You can see for yourself it is on a NASA website in a media subfolder. I assume you can read a URL better than Trippy so I appeal to have the ban lifted.
After he banned me he then wrote a lengthy post about my view and I cannot technically answer back for 4 days. No offence intended, but that is childish.
I will also post this in Open Government and report it so any online moderators will see this ban for what it is.
Some people just do not like scientific progress. I have presented many peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of LENR on the thread and probably have a better understanding of it then most members on sciforums including doctorates. I have been studying this for months.
I know I like some woo-woo topics like telepathy but I am also a licensed Soil Engineer with a strong background and interest in science. I do profit from the paranormal industry as well.
Anyways. I think a 4 day ban is a bit ridiculous, and wish you would choose moderators with better temperaments. Trippy banned me so I couldn't respond to his wrong comments period. Very childish. Most people can thankfully read a URL correctly. Does he suppose I hacked NASA and Hired Dr. Joseph Zawodny to act in a hoax for the sake of Sciforums?
kwhilborn
Last edited:
Jack T aka kwhilborn:
Our usual policy on sciforums is that anybody who creates a sock puppet in order to keep posting when banned will have BOTH accounts permanently banned. I will assume you were unfamiliar with this rule.
You were banned for spamming the same information across a number of different threads. Then you PMed me to spam it to me in person as well (as your sock puppet).
Your post could have been and would have been discussed if you had posted it ONCE.
The length of your ban is in line with the number of active infraction points you currently have. If you are unfamiliar with how bans work here or with the site rules, please read them. They are available in an announcement at the top of every subforum.
You are, of course, free to discuss this news of your further when your ban ends.
If I want to comment on it, I will. I haven't had a look yet, but I'll fall off my chair if this is NASA saying cold fusion is proven.
Our usual policy on sciforums is that anybody who creates a sock puppet in order to keep posting when banned will have BOTH accounts permanently banned. I will assume you were unfamiliar with this rule.
You were banned for spamming the same information across a number of different threads. Then you PMed me to spam it to me in person as well (as your sock puppet).
Your post could have been and would have been discussed if you had posted it ONCE.
The length of your ban is in line with the number of active infraction points you currently have. If you are unfamiliar with how bans work here or with the site rules, please read them. They are available in an announcement at the top of every subforum.
You are, of course, free to discuss this news of your further when your ban ends.
If I want to comment on it, I will. I haven't had a look yet, but I'll fall off my chair if this is NASA saying cold fusion is proven.
Thing is, that is where something called Restraint comes into play... think about it like this:
If this were the "real world" and you had put something out there, then got arrested and were in jail for a week until you were cleared and/or as punishment, what could you do about it?
If this were the "real world" and you had put something out there, then got arrested and were in jail for a week until you were cleared and/or as punishment, what could you do about it?
Be wary, you may be banned for using it.
Kwhilborn, you simply continue to make yourself look foolish here - over and over again.:bugeye: You've got FAR more problems than I care to address but I will deal with one of them:
You make it painfully obvious that you do NOT understand nor recognize the difference between "official" and "affiliated." You CONTINUE to think that's an official NASA website (and video) that you think vindicates your view on cold fusion. It plainly is NOT!!! It's simply affiliated with NASA and only the highly undereducated would take it to be "official."
That's EXACTLY the same problem you had with those various professors who viewed cold fusion (and Rossi) in a favorable light and their universities. Those jokers were expressing their own PERSONAL views and were NOT speaking officially for the universities!!! They are simply AFFILIATED with those universities!!!! Even a child would note that the universities themselves made NO official statements concerning those experiments. NONE!!:bugeye:
Until you can get that simple distinction through your head you will keep on believing everything you come across as official - which it CLEARLY is NOT.
Now you're lying - that isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't think it was a press release - IE that it was an informational video, rather than a press release.
You were banned for spamming.
You were posting the same link multiple times per post, in multiple threads, across multiple sub-fora. In some books that goes beyond spamming, and bordering on trolling.
Again, you're lying. There's a 30 to 45 minute gap between the post you're referring to (or at least the one I assume you're referring to) and when I banned you.
Again, you're lying. It was only a three day ban, not a 4 day ban, and given that it was your second active infraction, you were liable for up to a 7 day ban. I decided to go with a three day ban, because (among other reasons) your (at that time) other existing infraction was very close to expiring.
No, I banned you because you were spamming the forum with the same link repeatedly.
And most people can understand that not everything in a directory labled 'Media' is a press release.
This statement is bordering on intellectual dishonesty.
The only thing that I have stated is that it isn't a press release, but that it is simply an informational video, within which Zawodny is describing his work - that neither makes it a press release, nor an official NASA endorsement.
Do you not understand?