RealityCheck: moderators are trolling and treating me unfairly

[RealityCheck]

@RC: Thank you for your confirmation that you were offered an opportunity to start your thread again.

Maybe due to your naitvity with internet forums or whatever you fail to realise that when a moderator offers you to start your thread again he is making certain concessions that indicate "a preparedness to work with you" to solve the issue that forced thread closure. The question is why have you not taken up the offer and volunteered to help solve an issue that is endemic to all public forums on the net.
In the 10 years or so of membership here I have only ever personally witnessed a Moderator make such an offer maybe 3-4 times. It is a very rare thing for a moderator to offer IMO
and for AlphaNumeric, of all people, to offer such a thing is indeed rather amazing [chuckle]

I don't know about you, QQ, but there is a limited amount of time etc for people in my circumstances..........

now where have I, opps!, I mean WE, seen this excuse used before...

Hi QQ. My ride is late, so I have about 30 minutes. I checked bak and saw this and logged back in to answer you.

No naivete', mate. Too old for that. Just a straightforward guy expecting the best from people as a first expectation, and often getting it!

That is why it was so disappointing to have the closed thread 'trigger finger' response to my pleas in-thread for the mods to get rid of the trolls. This has occurred more than enough times here and elsewhere. That is experience, not naivete' where I am coming from on this.

And since it is in the hands of the members of a forum to shape that forum as they would wish according to good principles of science and humanity, should the 'difficulties' encountered be excuse for giving over the forum to the trolls and malicious types?

All over the world, govts are engaged in reviewing and implementing 'internet standards'. Are members of sites such as these not allowed to set and expect standards here without being forced to by some authority or other? No. We should all be proactive if we are not to just capitulate and hand the internet over to the trolls etc.

And I agree, it WAS (sorry, QQ) a 'magnanimous gesture' from AN. That is why it pained me to decline the offer, based on past experience, not naivete'.

The original problem was the issue. And the 'offer' would have done nothing to solve that. I was not prepared to spend more time in repeating the scenario in a new thread unless the trolls were controlled and prevented from sppiling that thread also. See what I mean?

What good is the shifting about when the trolls follow and the mods do nothing about it?

I did already say to prometheus that the victim in this case is only the tip of the iceberg of cases, and that the victim is not obliged to be grateful for token magnanimity when the problem will only rear its ugly head again elsewhere.

Better if the problem was faced squarely in the original thread as suggested, and none of this to-do would have been necessary.


If the problem has now been 'aired out' sufficiently, the solution must be clear by now: control the trolls in the original threads instead of closing them and rewarding the trolls. This constant closing/aborting of discussion flow is NOT GOOD (again, sorry QQ) for science, this site or anyone else (except the trolls).


I trust there has been enough talk. How about we all concentrate on controlling the trolls etc and just letting discussions proced properly where the OP is not immediately offensive, hey?

Then the mod actions will have some purchase because the discussion will have been fair and proper for long enough to make the decision accordingly and without genuine members having cause for complaint.

Just because the current state of 'internet forums' is woeful (elsewhere), it does not mean it should be forever so. We have the power to make Sciforums a real excellent site for its role. Discourses in science and humanity. Courteously as possible given the goodwill of all concerned (that excludes trolls by definition, hey!).


Thanks again for your evenhanded approach, mate. Much appreciatd (as was AN's gesture to open another thread....which I may take up if the problem currently affecting the threads is solved reasonably well and quickly).


Cheers!


PS: AN, prom, everyone, is it possible to re-open the original thread and just remove the off-topic/trolls etc and just continue that discussion as was? Any reasons why not? Thoughts?



PPS: QQ: I am not a moderator, so my time etc constraints are not an issue. However, a moderator that is severely constrained in his efficacy/effectivenes by time etc problems is not in a good position to start with. And hence the problems that have arisen. I can claim time etc constraints (and sometimes that is why I have to leave a thread foe a few days while others make their requested contribution). I find that my absences are not problematic because they usually allow a fuller discussion on the wider context of all the responses in the meantime, rather than 'piecemeal' and 'cross-purpose' exchanges etc. That's my stated MO and all are fairly advised of same in my threads. Each to his own. As long as the discussion is constructive then no problem. But if time etc constraints severely and adversely affect the moderation, then that's another kettle of fish (which is hat we are dealing with in all this).
.

 

[Trippy]

Let me ask you something RC, is this the thread you're complaining about?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...he-Functional-Difference-between-these-two-is

That's for the mods to judge.

And yet here you are complaining when a moderator has done precisely that.

But when the obvious trolls and spoils were actually pointed out to the mods concerned, and their only response was to oblige the trolls and close the thread before proper courteous discussion was complete, who you gonna call?

And Just because someone does not accept fair criticism does not mean everyone automatically should be put in the same mold by kneejerking to that conclusion even before the discussion is allowed properly.

What knee-jerking? A wrong assertion was made. It was pointed out that the assertion was wrong - by two seperate posters, and then you get your panties in a wad telling one of those posters to stay out of your thread and that if you wanted his opinion you would have asked for it. How is that constructive? How would you react if you raised a valid point, and someone told you to butt out of the conversation?

How is anything you said in this post even remotely constructive or conducive to calm and rational discourse? Would it not have been better to simply say "Mate, I take your point, but do you have any input on the issue of definitions?" Pointing out the inaccuracy of someone elses claim, and providing evidence to support that assertion is not trolling. Arguably, it's the scientific method in action. It's a 'critical review' of your sources. If it had been me, and you had tried pulling that shit in Earth Science, Chemistry, or GS&T, I might have been inclined to tell you to fuck off and not just close the thread, but send it straight to the cesspool and consider giving you a ban.

And I trust you are not claiming that all tolls are legitimate?

Mate, you're three prawns short if you think that's even remotely implied by anything I've said. Not only that, but what you've presented is a fallacy, it's of the form "All cats have fur, all dogs have fur, therefore all dogs are cats." Personally I find it as offesnive as if you had suggested that because I thought Pauline Hanson was racist that all australians are racist.

So it's a question of discernment on the part of the members and the mods. Once the difference is made obvious and reportd, and pleas are made for the mods to act accordingly but they do not and instead close the thread, then what's the point of splitting this particular 'hair'?

From where I sit, I don't see the comments of BruceP or Prometheus before you toss your toys as being problematic or troublesome. Prometheus offered a valid criticism of Farsights input - it was wrong. And BruceP offered a valid opinion - that the question, as framed, was meaningless because you're comparing an imaginary thing with a real one, or rather, the object with its analog. And the response they got was you basically telling them to fuck off and mind their own business.

The trolls are obvious. The valid criticism is obvious but sometimes not quite related to the point being made by the other person, and so may sometimes be a preconclusionary kneejerk response which has no bearing on the actual OP point in question.

The first knee-jerk response I see in that thread is Emil's. His is the first off-topic post, and it's a knee-jerk reaction to the status quo.

Frustration then ensues on both sides when the trolls move in and muddy the waters some more and create so much noise and distraction and misundrstanding that the discussion is effectively killed. With the usual consequences for all concerned except the trolls. Not good.
Thanks for your interest and trouble in this, Trippy.

Really, I have to go now. Bye everyone.

There are 31 posts in that that thread.
Eleven of them - nearly one in three - are yours.
Of those eleven posts, nine of them are you complaining.
Regardless of any justification you might have felt you had given yourself for doing so, the simple majority of offtopic posts were made by you and were you complaining about others posts, and all because you took offense at a post that wasn't even in response to one of yours.

Personaly, I think it's time for you to man up and accept that you had a role in the escalation of that thread and its subsequent closure.

Treat it as a learning curve.

 

[RealityCheck]

Let me ask you something RC, is this the thread you're complaining about?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...he-Functional-Difference-between-these-two-is

And yet here you are complaining when a moderator has done precisely that.


What knee-jerking? A wrong assertion was made. It was pointed out that the assertion was wrong - by two seperate posters, and then you get your panties in a wad telling one of those posters to stay out of your thread and that if you wanted his opinion you would have asked for it. How is that constructive? How would you react if you raised a valid point, and someone told you to butt out of the conversation?

How is anything you said in this post even remotely constructive or conducive to calm and rational discourse? Would it not have been better to simply say "Mate, I take your point, but do you have any input on the issue of definitions?" Pointing out the inaccuracy of someone elses claim, and providing evidence to support that assertion is not trolling. Arguably, it's the scientific method in action. It's a 'critical review' of your sources. If it had been me, and you had tried pulling that shit in Earth Science, Chemistry, or GS&T, I might have been inclined to tell you to fuck off and not just close the thread, but send it straight to the cesspool and consider giving you a ban.


Mate, you're three prawns short if you think that's even remotely implied by anything I've said. Not only that, but what you've presented is a fallacy, it's of the form "All cats have fur, all dogs have fur, therefore all dogs are cats." Personally I find it as offesnive as if you had suggested that because I thought Pauline Hanson was racist that all australians are racist.


From where I sit, I don't see the comments of BruceP or Prometheus before you toss your toys as being problematic or troublesome. Prometheus offered a valid criticism of Farsights input - it was wrong. And BruceP offered a valid opinion - that the question, as framed, was meaningless because you're comparing an imaginary thing with a real one, or rather, the object with its analog. And the response they got was you basically telling them to fuck off and mind their own business.


The first knee-jerk response I see in that thread is Emil's. His is the first off-topic post, and it's a knee-jerk reaction to the status quo.


There are 31 posts in that that thread.
Eleven of them - nearly one in three - are yours.
Of those eleven posts, nine of them are you complaining.
Regardless of any justification you might have felt you had given yourself for doing so, the simple majority of offtopic posts were made by you and were you complaining about others posts, and all because you took offense at a post that wasn't even in response to one of yours.

Personaly, I think it's time for you to man up and accept that you had a role in the escalation of that thread and its subsequent closure.

Treat it as a learning curve.

Hi Trippy.

This has been covered in previous exchanges between me and prom et al here.

The point was and still is:

- polite appeals do not work.

- prom's initial post was intimidatory and not conducive to getting unhindered and honest on-topic responses to MY OP irrespective of source/history between prom and Farsight. I will not tolerate anyone coming in an effectively telling me what I will or will not hear from frasight or anyone else as long as they are on-topic and courteous and their input discussed properly as to 'correctness' in due course. I do not want preconceived judgements effetively 'framing' a discussion which I want to have in my way with those interested enough to respond.

- when pleas for the trolls to be removed before any further ado, the mods just closed the thread instead of just removing the troll posts (whatever their source).

- the relevant number of my posts you point to was in direct correlation to the number of troll/inappropriate posts which were pointed out thereby for mod action which never came until 'thread closed'.

- proms posts were all either troll or inappropriate (as I pointed out at the time). So when a mod comes in inappropriately, then continues to troll and effectively encourages other trolls z(which duly arrived on cue), and I plead for it to be stopped, and then I am the one selected for mod 'feigned outrage' while they themselves and the trolls are made out to be the good guys, well, imaging that, it is unacceptable. Period.

- hence the complaint after all other reasonable efforts failed.



No more need to be said.

The mod-troll pattern for closing threads down prematurely to the delight of the trolls was clear. That has been acknowledged.

The solution was always there. That has also become clear.

So how about we stop talking and just fix it?

If it has been fixed already, and the mods are now taking more care to actually control the trolls in otherwise good discussions, then there is an end to it.

I don't want to say any more than I have done already. It will only become a cross-purpose exchange fest. It has all been said. Thanks for your interest and concern, though, Trippy. Much appreciated nevertheless.

That's it, mate. I leave it in the mod/admin hands. They have a hard job, but it can be made easier with the application of a judicious 'stitch in time' (removing the trolls and punishing them as and when they rear their ugly heads intent on spoiling and trolling a thread/discussion to death with glee, as has been demonstrated more than once already).

Cheers!

.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I just read the thread and wow one thign really sticks out.

I believe and i may be mistaken that Albert Einstien, once exlaimed to an audience:

"It is only a Theory"

it is not a matter of right or wrong it is only a matter of what fits the best but at all times it is only a theory nothing more.

You have asked for a definition of both aether and field according to theory, not fact!

Brucep refuses to give a definition to something that he believes doesn't exist as fact when in fact he nor any one else knows whether it does or not. According to the limitations of our expertise an Aether has no reality.

and all RC is wanting to know is what exactly has no reality [aether] according to the limits of our expertise.
What is the definition of that which we have discounted as being unreal? [Which I happen to think is an excellent question IMO]

and the rest of the thread is history after that.

It is obvious that RC is super sensitive to the issue of topic adherance and I would suggest to RC that if you wish to enjoy participating in online fora disucsssions that you work on that sensitivity because until you do all your threads are going to end more or less the same way regardless of moderator action.

 

[Trippy]

You say it's been covered already, and yet you missed my point entirely because you're still too butt-sore to see past your own ego.

Hi Trippy.

This has been covered in previous exchanges between me and prom et al here.

The point was and still is:

- polite appeals do not work.

You offered no polite appeals in that thread, you came out guns blazing, no holds barred. In your first response you basicaly told Prometheus to stuff off.

- prom's initial post was intimidatory and not conducive to getting unhindered and honest on-topic responses to MY OP irrespective of source/history between prom and Farsight. I will not tolerate anyone coming in an effectively telling me what I will or will not hear from frasight or anyone else as long as they are on-topic and courteous and their input discussed properly as to 'correctness' in due course. I do not want preconceived judgements effetively 'framing' a discussion which I want to have in my way with those interested enough to respond.

No it wasn't off-topic. You asked for definitions of aether and fields. Farsight provided you with a definition of what a field was. Rpenner pointed out that the definition that Farsight was using was inconsistent within the context it was framed. Prometheus pointed out that Farsights definition was inconsistent with the mainstream definition, which you had asked about, and you went off your rocker, threw a temper-tantrum at him, and told him to stuff off.

- when pleas for the trolls to be removed before any further ado, the mods just closed the thread instead of just removing the troll posts (whatever their source).

Maybe you should look to your own conduct, both in this thread and that thread, and reconsider why that might have been done. Additionally, Alphanumeric, in closing the thread, clearly invited you to start a new thread. But you have so far refused to do so based on the assumption that everybody else will troll you again, and alphanumeric will do nothing again.

- the relevant number of my posts you point to was in direct correlation to the number of troll/inappropriate posts which were pointed out thereby for mod action which never came until 'thread closed'.

First rule of dealing with trolls:

Second rule of dealing with trolls: Use the report button.

First rule of dealing with moderators: We have lives outside of this place. Personally there are days when I don't bother checking in here because you don't want me moderating when I'm in that sort of a mood and besides my bloodpressure is high enough already.

Second rule of dealing with moderators: When you use the report button, stay calm, clear and concise. You're not going to win any favours when reporting posts if your bordering on abusive (James R once responded to a report I made about another user with a PM that said, among other things "We don't ban people here for stupidity").

The whole point of trolling, by definition is to provoke an emotional reaction. If Prometheus is trolling, in conducting yourself the way you did in that thread, and frankly, this one as well, you've given him exactly what he wants. I gaurantee that if you had said "Well mate, thanks for that, do you have anything else to add?" to Prometheus, the thread would have gone very differently. If you think that Prom, BruceP and the others were trolling, then you didn't just feed them, you got out the silverware, rented a banquet hall and served them a thirteen course feast that started off with caviar vindaloo.

If you can't tolerate your work or your sources being criticised, mate, you're in the wrong field. Science comes down to critical thinking and critical reasoning. If scientists weren't critical of their own work, and that of others, science would have failed.

- proms posts were all either troll or inappropriate (as I pointed out at the time). So when a mod comes in inappropriately, then continues to troll and effectively encourages other trolls z(which duly arrived on cue), and I plead for it to be stopped, and then I am the one selected for mod 'feigned outrage' while they themselves and the trolls are made out to be the good guys, well, imaging that, it is unacceptable. Period.

Are we looking at the same thread? In the thread I see Prom offering a valid assessment of Farsight's definition, you spitting the dummy and telling Prom to naff off, Prom pointing out contradictions in your statements and suggesting that once you post a thread you won't neccessarily be able to control the direction it takes, chastising you for your behaviour then stating that he believes it's an important discussion to have and then you telling him that you don't have to put up with him?

Get a grip, mate.

Prom contributed to the discussion. He contributed by illustrating that one of the definitions you had been given was erroneous and he contributed by endorsing the discussion and suggesting that it was one that was important to have - even as he was having to politely discipline you for your behaviour.

- hence the complaint after all other reasonable efforts failed.

To be perfectly honest, I see no reasonable effort on your part.

No more need to be said.

Yes there is, there is much more. However at this point, trying to discuss it with you is looking more and more like an exercise in futility.

So how about we stop talking and just fix it?

How about you grow up?

If you were either of my children, I would not accept that behaviour, nor would I accept your attempts to justify it.

That's it, mate. I leave it in the mod/admin hands. They have a hard job, but it can be made easier with the application of a judicious 'stitch in time' (removing the trolls and punishing them as and when they rear their ugly heads intent on spoiling and trolling a thread/discussion to death with glee, as has been demonstrated more than once already).

Cheers!

.

Careful what you wish for, mate.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I read the thread and found no trolling [at all from any one] so I am not sure where the accusation justification is coming from other than unrealistic expectations of RC. A touch of paranoia perhaps?

Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."

While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5

Notice the emphasis on deliberate/intentional/primary intent etc...
RC can you show any post that you believe was posted deliberately to spoil your thread prior to the threads destruction point around post #13 when you demand the impossible.

 

[RealityCheck]

I just read the thread and wow one thign really sticks out.

I believe and i may be mistaken that Albert Einstien, once exlaimed to an audience:

"It is only a Theory"

it is not a matter of right or wrong it is only a matter of what fits the best but at all times it is only a theory nothing more.

You have asked for a definition of both aether and field according to theory, not fact!

Brucep refuses to give a definition to something that he believes doesn't exist as fact when in fact he nor any one else knows whether it does or not. According to the limitations of our expertise an Aether has no reality.

and all RC is wanting to know is what exactly has no reality [aether] according to the limits of our expertise.
What is the definition of that which we have discounted as being unreal? [Which I happen to think is an excellent question IMO]

and the rest of the thread is history after that.

It is obvious that RC is super sensitive to the issue of topic adherance and I would suggest to RC that if you wish to enjoy participating in online fora disucsssions that you work on that sensitivity because until you do all your threads are going to end more or less the same way regardless of moderator action.

Hi QQ. That was quick. The item was there ready and waiting for pick-up. No fuss. Makes a change. So, since I am back with more time than expected, I'll just clarify a little to help forestall any more cross-purpose tail-end misunderstandings.....


The situation is not just an isolated one. It did not spring up overnight in just one thread/instance.

That should be borne in mind when making judgements on this based on just the one thread.

The frustrating/destructive troll-mod pattern was endemic and frequent. It was put up with for a LONG TIME (sorry, QQ) before it was finally brought up as it was in this manner.

That was the point. Enough was enough. Something had to be done if the site was not to fall into a downward slide to irrelevance by virtue of that 'pattern' being ignored while it did harm to the future potential of this site, and not just the present casualties (which, again, was just one amongst a long train of events/instances).

So, in fact, it's not me being 'overly sensitive to strict adherence' to anything, it is the bringing to the attention of the admin/mods and members of the mod-troll pattern that had insidiously established itself as 'the norm'.

It doesn't take 'over sensitivity' to spot the pattern and its deleterious effects to members, discourse and the site itself.

My case in point was just that, one case in point. It could have been any number over the years, involving any number of instances/people before me.

I spoke up when it became intolerable, not because of oversensitivity but because of frustration that nothing at all was being done to even minimize the troll menace, and in some ways they were being actively encouraged (whether wittingly or unwittingly, as described earlier) by the mod inattention in some cases which led to aborting a perfectly good discussion thread before it was properly under way.

Now that it has been highlighted, there is no need to attribute 'oversensitivity' to anyone involved. But rather just doing one's duty by the community at large and hope that at least some improvement eventuates.

For surely, no-one here objects to some improvement for the greater good of all when it comes to such things as trolls and mod problems?

I don't expect anything more than the next guy of internet forums, but at last I have a positive attitude to their potential. And at least one tries to better things even at the cost of one's own neck (sometimes).

Anyhow, QQ, its more than just what has appeared in this discussion. It's a longstanding problem which has come to a head. Just looking at the head' may lead you or others to opine things about 'over sensitivity' etc. That is not the case here. Just doing what is indicated necessary given the circumstances overall, and not just in the one case which I used to bring this up for discussion/remedy as appropriate.

I trust that clarifies about 'sensitivity' not being the issue, but rather longstanding problems s demonstrated.

What results is what results. But at least I tried. One can't do any better than that, even if the odds are against one, hey!

Thanks again!

Cheers!


PS

I read the thread and found no trolling [at all from any one] so I am not sure where the accusation justification is coming from other than unrealistic expectations of RC. A touch of paranoia perhaps?

Notice the emphasis on deliberate/intentional/primary intent etc...
RC can you show any post that you believe was posted deliberately to spoil your thread prior to the threads destruction point around post #13 when you demand the impossible.

Prom posted an intimidating post and brought personal baggage from other thread between him and Farsight. The trolls were there after. Please look again. And please bear in mind that it was the beginning of the usual suspects PATTERN (sorry, QQ) that was being observed in an attempt to forestall the usual troll-mod pattern from establishing. To no avail, obviously. The "thread Closed" shutters came down, as usual, and the trolls didn't even get fully into their usual stride in order to achieve it.

Again, it is more time than I have available. The problem is now that you are not familiar with the longterm posting behaviour of the 'usual suspects' in question, so you may find their posts initially innocuous because you are not aware of the 'pattern' of troll-mod interaction that has closed more than just the one thread. While I appreciate your wanting to go inot more detail like that, the record is all there in many instances than just this one. So unless you are fully familiar with the history behind this matter, it will take more time and effort to give you the fuller picture than I have time to spare. The troll-mod combination has been done more times than I care to remember. Raking over the obvious history is not what this is about. I just wanted to air the issue and let the admin/mods/members do their thing in full cognizance of the problem brought to their notice. I expect nothing in particular, it is the internet after all as you say), but it is not unreasonable to hope that improvements will result from us all having had this discussion.

I've said all I wanted. No use 'belabouring' it now, especially if admin and mods and members have taken note and remember the history behind it, and make at least some improvements which will minimize the troll menace at least to some extent? Thanks. Cheers. RC.
.

 

[Quantum Quack]

have another read of my post... I had to edit it.. sorry
shall post again later upon return

 

[RealityCheck]

You say it's been covered already, and yet you missed my point entirely because you're still too butt-sore to see past your own ego.

You offered no polite appeals in that thread, you came out guns blazing, no holds barred. In your first response you basicaly told Prometheus to stuff off.


No it wasn't off-topic. You asked for definitions of aether and fields. Farsight provided you with a definition of what a field was. Rpenner pointed out that the definition that Farsight was using was inconsistent within the context it was framed. Prometheus pointed out that Farsights definition was inconsistent with the mainstream definition, which you had asked about, and you went off your rocker, threw a temper-tantrum at him, and told him to stuff off.


Maybe you should look to your own conduct, both in this thread and that thread, and reconsider why that might have been done. Additionally, Alphanumeric, in closing the thread, clearly invited you to start a new thread. But you have so far refused to do so based on the assumption that everybody else will troll you again, and alphanumeric will do nothing again.


First rule of dealing with trolls:

Second rule of dealing with trolls: Use the report button.

First rule of dealing with moderators: We have lives outside of this place. Personally there are days when I don't bother checking in here because you don't want me moderating when I'm in that sort of a mood and besides my bloodpressure is high enough already.

Second rule of dealing with moderators: When you use the report button, stay calm, clear and concise. You're not going to win any favours when reporting posts if your bordering on abusive (James R once responded to a report I made about another user with a PM that said, among other things "We don't ban people here for stupidity").

The whole point of trolling, by definition is to provoke an emotional reaction. If Prometheus is trolling, in conducting yourself the way you did in that thread, and frankly, this one as well, you've given him exactly what he wants. I gaurantee that if you had said "Well mate, thanks for that, do you have anything else to add?" to Prometheus, the thread would have gone very differently. If you think that Prom, BruceP and the others were trolling, then you didn't just feed them, you got out the silverware, rented a banquet hall and served them a thirteen course feast that started off with caviar vindaloo.

If you can't tolerate your work or your sources being criticised, mate, you're in the wrong field. Science comes down to critical thinking and critical reasoning. If scientists weren't critical of their own work, and that of others, science would have failed.


Are we looking at the same thread? In the thread I see Prom offering a valid assessment of Farsight's definition, you spitting the dummy and telling Prom to naff off, Prom pointing out contradictions in your statements and suggesting that once you post a thread you won't neccessarily be able to control the direction it takes, chastising you for your behaviour then stating that he believes it's an important discussion to have and then you telling him that you don't have to put up with him?

Get a grip, mate.

Prom contributed to the discussion. He contributed by illustrating that one of the definitions you had been given was erroneous and he contributed by endorsing the discussion and suggesting that it was one that was important to have - even as he was having to politely discipline you for your behaviour.


To be perfectly honest, I see no reasonable effort on your part.


Yes there is, there is much more. However at this point, trying to discuss it with you is looking more and more like an exercise in futility.


How about you grow up?

If you were either of my children, I would not accept that behaviour, nor would I accept your attempts to justify it.


Careful what you wish for, mate.

Again, Trippy, like I just stressed to QQ, this was not just about that particular thread/instance. OK?

It was about the troll-mod 'pattern' that has been in operation for a long time.

The point was that in this instance enough was enough (for the stated reasons) and something had to be said in open forum for the matter to be discussed and hopefully attended to as appropriate by the admin/mods/members of goodwill and genuine positive wishes for the future potential of this site.

If reasonable review and action by the mods/admin of the issues in question is what transpires from my 'wish' for same, then I am not afraid of getting my 'wish' in this instance, mate! Only the trolls had better watch out, hey? Else let's just give it over to the trolls and all go home.


And anyway, I suspect that I already got what I wished for: proper attention from everyone concerned to this particular problem highlighted by me now. That is enough to be going on with! Anything more that would really keep those trolls/spoilers out of perfectly innocuous threads would be a bonus. Impossible ask? Maybe. But we won't know unless we try it. The impossible has more than once been a challenge as much as it has been a barrier to some people, "just because it's there", you know?.

Cheers and thanks again for your time and trouble in this mate.

Gotta go again....bye.

.

 

[Trippy]

Again, Trippy, like I just stressed to QQ, this was not just about that particular thread/instance. OK?

I understand that this is your assertion, yes.

It was about the troll-mod 'pattern' that has been in operation for a long time.

I also understand that this is your assertion. I have also seen the way you react to various posters any time they open their mouths.

The point was that in this instance enough was enough (for the stated reasons) and something had to be said in open forum for the matter to be discussed and hopefully attended to as appropriate by the admin/mods/members of goodwill and genuine positive wishes for the future potential of this site.

The point your ignoring with your dismissals is that this incident was generated entirely by you and your responses.

This naturally leads to the question 'What proportion of the other instances you are complaining about are entirely your own doing?' This isn't the first time I've seen you derail one of your own threads complaining about other posters.

If reasonable review and action by the mods/admin of the issues in question is what transpires from my 'wish' for same, then I am not afraid of getting my 'wish' in this instance, mate! Only the trolls had better watch out, hey? Else let's just give it over to the trolls and all go home.

Right, I forgot, clearly you don't think your own behaviour is reprehensible. Never mind the fact that you've now had three moderators, one admin, and several posters tell you that, in this instance at least, your behaviour was, in fact, reprehensible. That's what I mean about being careful what you wish for.

And anyway, I suspect that I already got what I wished for: proper attention from everyone concerned to this particular problem highlighted by me now.

Oh look at that, you've gone and made us popular and when they flash you like that, they aint been friendly​

T-Bird, The Crow. (something like that anway).

That is enough to be going on with! Anything more that would really keep those trolls/spoilers out of perfectly innocuous threads would be a bonus. Impossible ask? Maybe. But we won't know unless we try it. The impossible has more than once been a challenge as much as it has been a barrier to some people, "just because it's there", you know?.

How about growing up, and learning how to deal with criticism, both constructive and otherwise in a mature and constructive manner.

 

[AlexG]

This is ridiculous.

RC is the troll, and he's still trolling.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ RC Do you feel it is appropriate to ask a moderator to remove a troll post when he can not understand how a post is in fact trolling? [ regardless of historical issues the mod can not legitimately remove a legitimate post so asking him to do so is asking the impossible]
You have yet to show any one post that you believe to be trolling and nor have you justified your accusation?
Please do so other wise your posts have to be considered by me and no doubt others as the actions of a man suffering from paranoia...[ not that I really matter ]
You have to show reason to believe that a post has been deliberately targeted to frustrate the thread.. which one and please quote it?
Quote it and show reasons and justifications. Word for word if you need to..
If you feel too embarrassed to do so then I would suggest you take a break for a few days and see how you feel then.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Open a new thread. Why? Do you think my life revolves around making up for you and prom not doing your job right in the first place? You have the power to delete the troll/spoiler noise in the thread concerned and LEAVE IT OPEN so that the proper flow of ideas/exchanges can continue. A new thread may lose continuity of thought/input and be counterproductive to the extent that anyone who may have been interested to contribute to the original thread would now be intimidated either into silence or hesitancy of honest response to the OP as put.

That was the whole thrust of the issue. The precipitous closing and interruption of treads because the trolls wanted it and the mods obliged even though they could have easily removed the troll etc posts and left the OP and potential genuine respondents get on with a sane and courteous discussion of the merits.

Thanks for your understanding.

So you admit that you read I said you could open a new thread? Then why are you saying we tried to stop the discussion? You're being so blatently dishonest I can only conclude you're doing it deliberately because the alternative is you have an IQ so low you might struggle to use a computer.

And you ignored my requests you explain how you can say one thing when in fact Prom and I did or said, explicitly, the opposite.

I have misrepresented nothing. Your own construction is based on your own preconclusions.

Sorry, you have lied. You said we didn't want non-professionals discussing things. I'd explicitly said I wished more non-professionals discussed things. You said we prevented any discussion by closing the thread, when I explicitly said you could start a new discussion. You complain your views are being censored yet you demand every post of ours is reviewed. Time and time and time again you have lied.

You are deliberately and consistently dishonest. Numerous people have said it and not just on this forum so you can't blame it on moderators here or anything. You are the common denominator. You have a laughable delusion of entitlement when you have done nothing to help your own case and in fact have demonstrated that restricting your ability to post in the maths/physics main forum is clearly a good idea because you seem incapable of mature discussion. You don't know any science, which in itself isn't a problem, but you throw a fit whenever someone corrects you or points out your claims are nonsense, thus rendering you incapable of engaging in informed discussion. I'm sure you and QQ can spout ignorance at one another but that isn't something we'd allow in the main forum.

Well done on proving PhysForums were utterly right in kicking you off. You're wantonly dishonest.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you admit that you read I said you could open a new thread? Then why are you saying we tried to stop the discussion? You're being so blatently dishonest I can only conclude you're doing it deliberately because the alternative is you have an IQ so low you might struggle to use a computer.

prove that he is being dishonest Alphanumeric.... I see no reason for that accusation.

And you ignored my requests you explain how you can say one thing when in fact Prom and I did or said, explicitly, the opposite.

this does not equate with dishonesty... prove that his frustration was not to blame for NOT allowing yours and Proms comments credibility?

Sorry, you have lied. You said we didn't want non-professionals discussing things. I'd explicitly said I wished more non-professionals discussed things. You said we prevented any discussion by closing the thread, when I explicitly said you could start a new discussion. You complain your views are being censored yet you demand every post of ours is reviewed. Time and time and time again you have lied.

yet you moderating behaviour seriosly suggest other wise. Who exactly is lying? the one who says or the one who does?

You are deliberately unsupported and false accusation and consistently dishonest and another unsupported and false accusation Numerous people have said it said what exactly and not just on this forum so you can't blame it on moderators here or anything. flame away You are the common denominator. You have a laughable delusion of entitlement when you have done nothing to help your own case and in fact have demonstrated that restricting your ability to post in the maths/physics main forum is clearly a good idea because you seem incapable of mature discussion. You don't know any science, which in itself isn't a problem, but you throw a fit whenever someone corrects you or points out your claims are nonsense [false he and i talk fine] , thus rendering you incapable of engaging in informed discussion [more unsuported accusation designed to belittle and destroy a person esteem you nasty flame boy] . I'm sure you and QQ can spout ignorance [ sure! wat's 1+1 AN?] at one another but that isn't something we'd allow in the main forum.

do you believe you are attempting to reconcile or flame? Certainly looks like "flaming" to me and others.
Obviously you are an incredibly abusive person who seeks to gain esteem advantage from the destruction of others. You are not fit to be a moderator and any commentary you make is worthless because of it. A real pity because you do have some scientific talent which unfortunatey is totally destroyed by your incredibly weak personality. If you want to RAPE someones self esteem do it at Physforum , I am sure they would appreciate you....

Well done on proving PhysForums were utterly right in kicking you off. You're want only dishonest.

So I ask you this AN why aren't you posting at PhysForums where they do take science as seriously as you "pretend" to do? why? Is it because you can't cut it when it counts?


see, getting frustrated is easy with AN around... no credibility as a moderator at all
RC is obviousy suffering issues because of continuous abuse from you.. and now we all here at sciforum are having to deal with it.


I have a friend who specialises in this sort of thing and he is going to love this last post of yours Alphanumerico.
especially how you can't prove your own ego centric credentials any way. you attitude would most likely prevent you from getting through the 1st year of university.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Alphanumeric did you know that normally when a claim of dishonesty is made it is assumed you are referring to deliberate dishonesty that a person is deliberately misleading hmself or others?
You will need to support your claim that I and every person YOU disagree with and accuse thereto as being deliberately dishonest is in fact dishonest deliberately?
Remember in 2003...nearly 9 years ago ......unlike you, I realised I have nothng to hide.
You may also remember a poster call Reiku. Do you realise he is probably in an Psychatric institution some where because of the incredible and penetrating abuse you levelled upon him. I caught up with him at another forum and his distress was obvious. Others also complain in similar ways. But I guess knowing this will give you a hard-on yes?

You do recall when we first met online here I complained of coughing up blood..

"..snip...a blood splattered monitor

remember? well I don't do that any more... oh that's right that was after you coudn't provide evidence of the reality of a photon beyond it effect....and I still have my $500 USD I offered as a reward for any one who could...check the archives if you like. It was only a few years ago.
The only person being deliberately dishonest here is you!

 

[Quantum Quack]

I might add , every thread and every post that you have used the accusation of dishonesty across the net has been retreived and archived. Every person you have attacked in this manner is being tracked down and surveyed especially for lung and respiratory disorders eg. [spontaneous Pneumothorax], including the lethal tension version. When the stats come back the evidence of what and who you really are is going to make headlines.

 

[prometheus]

I might add , every thread and every post that you have used the accusation of dishonesty across the net has been retreived and archived. Every person you have attacked in this manner is being tracked down and surveyed especially for lung and respiratory disorders eg. [spontaneous Pneumothorax], including the lethal tension version. When the stats come back the evidence of what and who you really are is going to make headlines.

Are you accusing AN of trying to kill people?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Are you accusing AN of trying to kill people?

I do not need to, let the stats speak for themselves.
"you see the method AN uses is almost identical to that which my own father used when I was a teenager... some 35 years ago... it resulted in 5 pnemothoraxes including the resection of my left lung by approx 1/3"
and like my father AN probably can't control himself and tries to restrict his compulsion by using an internet forum like this one."

 

[prometheus]

I do not need to, let the stats speak for themselves.

When do you expect these stats to come back then?

 

[prometheus]

This seems so utterly preposterous I'd like to see if I am reading this right: You are saying that AN's rude posts on a forum are causing the targets of said posts to have a spontaneous pneumothorax?