To our Administrator James, and rpenner

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paddoboy

Valued Senior Member
Moderator note:
The original title of this thread was:

To our Dishonest Administrator James, and the Gutless, pompous rpenner

The personal insults have been removed from the thread title.
---

Out of courtesy for the few decent science members we have here I am sending this...
Simply put, I am not here any longer for a few reasons.
James recently infracted me, strangely just after I reported an "off topic" thread that he agreed to move.
The infraction was over calling timijon gullible and impressionable.
I immediatly fired back and told him that he himself had also used the same word "gullible" when debating MR.
He answered with a lengthy post describing how his use of the word was somehow justified, and did not mean the same as when I used it. [fair dinkum! :rolleyes:] James, I express my total disgust with your conduct, and your condoning of the trolls, quacks and your pet alternative theorist of course.
He also then in quick time, referenced other posts by me with similar pedantic use of speech by myself.
When an administrator sees the need to resort to such infantile excuses and nonsense for whatever reasons, then I have no respect for such people and will gladly bow out.

This was further exassipated by rpenner and some usual gutless pompous remarks and more infractions.
A few weeks ago in an article I reproduced from "universe today" rpenner accused me of stealing, despite the unmistakable permission from that site to allow for their reproduction elsewhere and in spite of his long federal court case post excuse, seemingly implying that it was still not in line with copyright.
He was asked anyway to remove the reference to stealing in conversations with him, myself and James.
This along with my remarks in the past to his wholly mathematical albeit totally correct answers, as not being able to be understood by the vast majority on the forum, as compared to my own more basic lay persons description that were also essentially correct.
Then he had the audacity and arrogance to claim I was seeking vengeance in a reported post back by me after James' previous infraction of myself.


His gutless gutter tactics behind the facade of moderation against me is simply based on the situation that he does not like my style.
My respect for this scumbag is simply non existent and replaced with disgust for this poor excuse that dares call himself a scientist.

I'm too lazy at this time to reference these instances I have mentioned, but I'm sure anyone find them if you chose to.
I do not intentionally lie.

My respect for some mods could not be greater, due to the stand they have taken in the past and at this time I do not need to piss in anyone's pocket.....that respect is real for many reasons, not the least being some personal beliefs and how they keep that separated from science.


The up side in my leaving of course is that it will certainly make the trolls and quacks happy, and I hope James and the scumbag rpenner enjoy their new found relationship with this same crew.

Thanks to some reasonable members also, but don't worry too much...I have found a place with all mods are scientifically authenticated, and trolls, quacks, and the alternative bunch with their delusions of grandeur are treated accordingly.

Have fun!! It's been great for me, and certainly fun at times while it lasted. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paddoboy,

You were pretty bad on me in my first season, and I promised to you that I will come back with my second paper. So when that happened and I resumed you continued your tirade against me. But somehow I liked your great enthusiasm and great appetite for cosmology in general. You are a nice bloke and if one understands that you are a devotee of mainstream and anything against mainstream you start full steam, then a wonderful rapport can be developed with you.

I do not know much about Rpenner, but James R is a cool sort of guy..His only problem is that he acts in part, may be sometimes missing the background, and surely JamesR does not deserve such expletives. To be honest you deserve some infractions for your personal attacks, even trolls need not be abused.

I would personally suggest you to resume, may be with a somewhat mellowed down Paddoboy-2, where you just stop hitting the adversaries. I really loved you despite many ugly childish nonsense by both of us. Just enjoy. I am at the verge of getting a NOBEL ;), thanks to you.:D
 
Mod Hat ― Closure

I figure if my colleagues would like to respond, they are certainly welcome to, but we'll take the peaceful period to freeze this until they advise otherwise.
 
Since paddoboy has called my honesty into question in the thread title, I think I have a right of reply here.

paddoboy said:
James recently infracted me, strangely just after I reported an "off topic" thread that he agreed to move.
The infraction was over calling timijon gullible and impressionable.
Click to expand...
This is false. paddoboy was given no official warning for insulting timojin. I merely asked him, in the thread, whether he considered it necessary to make ad hominem attacks, which he regularly does on people whom he regards as "cranks" for one reason or another.

The relevant exchange in the thread, for those who want to read it, starts here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-we-exist.157598/page-5#post-3436745

However, some time after that exchange I handled a reported post in which paddoboy made numerous personal attacks on Q-reeus in the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/for-this-metal-electricity-flows-but-not-the-heat.158764

There, you can see that Q-reeus pointed out that an article paddoboy had cut-and-pasted from elsewhere somewhat exaggerated things, and Q-reeus helpfully added additional information that related to the topic. paddoboy was incensed that Q-reeus would dare to question some aspect of an article he (paddoboy) had copied, and so took Q-reeus to task for having an "agenda" to discredit scientific articles, or some such.

Somebody reported paddoboy, and I handled the report. Given paddoboy's recent history of uncalled-for ad hominems, I gave him 10 warning points and advised that he might consider stopping his personal attacks on other posters.

Five days pass, and now paddoboy throws a hissy fit and says he's leaving the forum because of some kind of dishonesty on my part. But notice in the opening post of this thread that paddoboy does not reference a single example of my supposed dishonesty. Unless it's this that he is referring to:
paddoboy said:
I immediatly fired back and told him [James R] that he himself had also used the same word "gullible" when debating MR [Magical Realist].
He answered with a lengthy post describing how his use of the word was somehow justified, and did not mean the same as when I used it. [fair dinkum! :rolleyes:]
Click to expand...
You can find the "lengthy post" that paddoboy refers to in the thread linked at the top of this current post. There is no dishonesty there.

In my opinion, paddoboy's real reason for deciding to leave is not that I am dishonest. It is this:
paddoboy said:
James, I express my total disgust with your conduct, and your condoning of the trolls, quacks and your pet alternative theorist of course.

....

I have found a place with all mods are scientifically authenticated, and trolls, quacks, and the alternative bunch with their delusions of grandeur are treated accordingly.
Click to expand...
What paddoboy wants is one rule set for him and those he regards as scientifically legitimate, and a different rule set for those who he regards as cranks, trolls, quacks or the "alternative bunch". And paddoboy has a history here of reacting in anger when the same expectations are placed on him as on other members.

So, paddoboy is taking his bat and ball and leaving with a hissy fit. That is his choice to make, naturally.
 
Mod Note

One of the things about this struck me when his thread and that OP were first reported.

I initially went through Paddoboy's infractions, and all of his posts over the last 2 months. I noted what I found to my colleagues once I had reviewed his infractions. Here is a portion of the comments I wrote in the report notes about his claims. I reproduce this with permission from my superiors. Please excuse the lack of formatting, as the report section that we handle does not allow for formatting (such as embedding links or quote boxes - but I will put the quoted sections as indents in reporting for clarity).. The links provided below link directly to the threads in question regarding his accusation of receiving an infraction in the Philosophy sub-forum.

The kicker in his rant was this:

"James recently infracted me, strangely just after I reported an "off topic" thread that he agreed to move.
The infraction was over calling timijon gullible and impressionable."​
I looked through his infraction list.

There is none there for that particular infraction. I also dredged up the post where he called timojin "gullible and impressionable" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-we-exist.157598/page-5#post-3434734

No infraction there.

In fact, he did not receive an infraction for that at all. Instead, he was told by James about his various offensive remarks in the 'Why we exist' thread:

Which is where his story about who was using more colourful language, etc, comes from in his rant. But he did not receive any infraction for that.

What he is claiming as an infraction, was actually this comment by James:

"You assert that timojin holds "mythical beliefs", without specifying what they are or how you know they are mythical.

You also claim that certain things are beyond timojin's comprehension, implying that you understand things that he can't begin to comprehend. That is insulting.

In a follow-up post you call him gullible and impressionable (and don't say you didn't mean him).

None of this is necessary." - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-we-exist.157598/page-5#post-3436769​
The conversation between the two of them follows from there. But that is what he is trying to claim was an infraction.

Ergo, he lied. He never received an infraction for any of that.

Instead, he received two infractions since then, one was for trolling and abusing another member who had made a valid point and another one for dredging up a disagreement from weeks ago.​

All of these quoted comments occurred in the thread, which were linked in the report and copied and pasted from that above. Excuse my inability to write at this point, it was late and I have been a tad under the weather the last few days.


The portion I was addressing in that report at first glance, was this, in his OP:

paddoboy said:
The infraction was over calling timijon gullible and impressionable.
I immediatly fired back and told him that he himself had also used the same word "gullible" when debating MR.
He answered with a lengthy post describing how his use of the word was somehow justified, and did not mean the same as when I used it. [fair dinkum! :rolleyes:] James, I express my total disgust with your conduct, and your condoning of the trolls, quacks and your pet alternative theorist of course.
He also then in quick time, referenced other posts by me with similar pedantic use of speech by myself.
When an administrator sees the need to resort to such infantile excuses and nonsense for whatever reasons, then I have no respect for such people and will gladly bow out.
Click to expand...

While I do not wish to guess Paddoboy's motives for these lies, whether it is mistaken or deliberate, there is a vast difference between receiving an infraction and reading a comment from someone, in this case, James R in a thread (for example, an infraction comes via PM, with points showing up on one's profile). The comment about his (Paddoboy's) behaviour in that thread were not even under a Mod Note heading, it was just an observation from James about how he was addressing timojin at that point in time. The discussion between the two of them was quite cordial, even jokey and followed on from what I quoted and linked above. No indication of his 'firing back'.

What I do not understand is how this conversation and discussion became an infraction worthy of stomping off in rage and disgust at staff.

So I then moved onto the infractions he did receive. And I will address this portion of his OP:

paddoboy said:
This was further exassipated by rpenner and some usual gutless pompous remarks and more infractions.
A few weeks ago in an article I reproduced from "universe today" rpenner accused me of stealing, despite the unmistakable permission from that site to allow for their reproduction elsewhere and in spite of his long federal court case post excuse, seemingly implying that it was still not in line with copyright.
He was asked anyway to remove the reference to stealing in conversations with him, myself and James.
This along with my remarks in the past to his wholly mathematical albeit totally correct answers, as not being able to be understood by the vast majority on the forum, as compared to my own more basic lay persons description that were also essentially correct.
Then he had the audacity and arrogance to claim I was seeking vengeance in a reported post back by me after James' previous infraction of myself.

His gutless gutter tactics behind the facade of moderation against me is simply based on the situation that he does not like my style.
My respect for this scumbag is simply non existent and replaced with disgust for this poor excuse that dares call himself a scientist.
Click to expand...

As James noted above, the infractions he received were as follows..

One was for a personal attack on Q-reesus which James linked above.

That infraction was issued by James.

On the same day that he issued that infraction, Paddoboy appeared to have gone back to a post from a few weeks ago, to report a post by Q-reesus, in a discussion they were involved in, in what appears to be a form of revenge report. rpenner handled the report and issued an infraction to paddoboy for filing a report in revenge and for basically wasting moderator time in the process.

I will say this. Several posters on this forum, Paddoboy being one of several, have every appearance of abusing the report function and have in the past received infractions for wasting staff time. There are days where we will get multiple reports from the same individuals, not to report a breach of this site's rules, but in a way of trying to get the moderators to interfere or take their side or to get back at other posters. And it is a drain on staff time and becomes exceptionally frustrating. When a poster receives an infraction for a personal attack, and that poster then trawls back through posts from weeks ago to report a post by the member they were just warned for insulting, and that post did not even rate a mention originally while they were discussing an issue with that member, and that report is filed within an hour of receiving an infraction, then it kind of stands out.

In paddoboy's case in this instance, he flagged the report from weeks ago, an hour after receiving an infraction for an ad-hom attack against another member. So it stood out. He never flagged it at the time (back at the end of January) when he was participating in the discussion with the other member. Instead, it looks like he went back and flagged it in a report, an hour after he received the infraction from James.

So yes, it stood out and had every appearance of being a revenge type of report. A tit-for-tat if you will in that it looks as though he was going for 'if I get one, then he should get one for this' and went back a few weeks to find one he could conceivably report.

Whatever issues paddoboy may have with staff, should not result in what he posted in the OP. There is no basis for those attacks in the OP. As my colleagues will attest, I am usually the first to lose my proverbial shit and openly declare war when I see over-moderation or what I think is unfair moderation. And looking back through his posts over the last couple of months and the infractions he received, I see no evidence of unfair moderation or over moderation aimed at paddoboy as he claimed in his OP. In fact, what I saw was a normal conversation that one would say was fairly jovial in a thread in the Philosophy forum, being described as one that was full of hostility and that conversation has been described as an infraction...

Since staff are now commenting in this thread, I will re-open it. Perhaps Paddoboy will return and explain what actually happened. As I have said, perhaps this is deliberate or perhaps this is mistaken. But I do think it is unfair to falsely accuse others as he has done.
 
Last edited:
Mod Note

To add to the above..

I will be deleting any troll posts about this. We do not know paddoboy's motives or his reasons and this could very well be a mistake on his part. If anyone thinks they can use this to score points, then think again. Because if you do, not only will I delete your posts, I will also issue you with infractions for trolling and flaming.
 
Also, let me just add this from paddoboy, posted last Friday in another thread (linked):
paddoboy said:
Yep, OK James...Nice to see you back.
Let's hope that the same standard applies overall, including your last edict about non scientific content being passed off as science, and that in painfully obvious cases, it does not take a couple of days..
And of course if such standards are to be upheld re calling someone a pessimist, lets hope that the same standards apply when someone calls another a liar, or a coward, or even a thief.

It just seems rather ironic, as it seems at times when it suits some one, that suddenly the rules are tightened.
Again, let's hope all remains above board across the forum, because I can certainly handle it, although I am adverse to putting in reports, but anyway.......
Click to expand...
Apparently, he couldn't certainly handle it after all, despite what he wrote there.
 
I read a lot of US legal briefs and decisions for someone who is not in a law school or law career.

One of the defenses which a lawyer may raise in defense of a civil claim is "unclean hands", the doctrine that a plaintiff, who himself acts unethically or illegally or even without good faith attempts to be a civil neighbor with the defendants, is not entitled to benefit financially in court by demonstrating the defendant has run afoul of the law.

It's about fairness and not picking fights with the expectation that one may run to an authority figure to use as your own personal cudgel.

As a moderator, I see wisdom in this rule and have applied it to a number of people who managed to call attention to their own bad behavior by filing reports on their feud partners of many months. That examination of the truth on the ground is part of the reasons why moderation action can take so long. People treat each other horribly on the Internet everyday, because they are not willing to walk a mile in the shoes of another — they don't believe in their heart in the possibility of legitimate dissent. They are unwilling to work towards a meeting of the minds because that's too much like work.

Everybody (except artists and others afflicted with imposter syndrome) loves praise for their work. But necessarily, not all work deserves praise. The solution is not to damn the critics, but to elevate one's efforts to be praiseworthy. For the true students of truth, to waste fleeting time on vendettas over opinions and motivations seems like a betrayal of that calling.

Please don't fall into the cycle of quarreling with pseudonymous people on the Internet whom you will never encounter at the market. Use the report button (on current posts) instead of replying hastily.

paddoboy said:
This was further exassipated
Click to expand...
What? exacerbated? exhaustipated? exdissipated?
paddoboy said:
by rpenner and some usual gutless pompous remarks
Click to expand...
I'm not sure when Internet forum moderation is ever an act of what a combat veteran would call "courage" but it can't be said I'm taking the easiest option when both the delete-post and ban-user buttons are less paperwork than the warning button. Mind you, both can be overruled and reversed if not reasonably supported, but a pompous person would be self-satisfied that a justification could be found. So, warning paddoboy (who has not incurred any suspensions or bans in 2017) complete with a conversation thread to ensure the circumstances are available for review and discussion seems neither high-handed or gutless.
paddoboy said:
and more infractions.
Click to expand...
Of which one is nearly a month old, and argued and appealed in PM. The reference to stealing (in the sense of non-original content being reposted) was eventually removed, but not as fast as paddoboy demanded because he also demanded James R, my superior, to weigh in if all his demands were not met. We both had time to argue our positions on what should be done. The day James R voiced a decision, it was implemented, exactly as it could have been 3 days earlier without the demand to escalate it up the ranks.

Of my further actions in relation to paddoboy in 2017, only two remain. Of which one of the infractions was the one paddoboy explicitly petitioned for, soiling a user's up-to-then spotless record. It was the other warning, the one for unclean hands that he now objects to. A full PM was written up and still waits his reasoned appeal to me or any other forum staff.
paddoboy said:
seemingly implying that it was still not in line with copyright.
Click to expand...
Specifically, I pointed out the ways it was not in compliance with this forum's rules and that there was a mismatch between the license given to paddoboy by Universe Today and that demanded by our Site Owners.
paddoboy said:
This along with my remarks in the past ... essentially correct.
Click to expand...
Who is the one who had their feelings hurt here? Not I.
paddoboy said:
Then he had the audacity and arrogance to claim
Click to expand...
The timeline and thread were very suggestive, as described in the PM. It was not a breathtaking leap of logic.
paddoboy said:
His gutless gutter tactics behind the facade of moderation against me
Click to expand...
Gutless and "gutter tactics" seem like an empty attempt to insert fighting words. They are puffery. I have been delegated actual power over the posts and user restrictions on this forum, so it's hardly a facade. Perhaps paddoboy meant to write "facade of impartial moderation" in which case I would point out that his posting history is exactly what I am supposed to judge, and I know of him in no other way. Personal animus is not what drove me to issue two warnings to him, but his own extraordinary behavior.
paddoboy said:
is simply based on the situation that he does not like my style.
Click to expand...
I do abhor abuse of fonts, wholesale quotations in violation of forum rules, quotations which are not clearly delimited, and burning bridges. It's what paddoboy should expect universally from moderation staff with a background in academia.
paddoboy said:
My respect for this scumbag
Click to expand...
This isn't an 1980's New York police drama. What sort of person says that? It's just a display of personal animus without any factual support.
paddoboy said:
I'm too lazy at this time to reference these instances I have mentioned, but I'm sure anyone find them if you chose to.
Click to expand...
References: Google it!
paddoboy said:
I do not intentionally lie.
Click to expand...
Paddoboy damns with faint praise.
paddoboy said:
do not need to piss in anyone's pocket
Click to expand...
The weirdest expression for currying favor that I have heard.
 
Last edited:
I have had a fair share abuses from Paddoboy, its not that I did not return the favors, but mostly I was tired of his linking my post with God or religion or agenda driven etc.

Many a times I feel I was infracted in pay back response. I had warned (was it Rpenner or Kittamaru, I do not recall exactly) that if you oppose or take on Paddoboy then his response is less than mature and its like oppose him and face the music. Probably now both James and Rpenner has realized the kind of ugly reaction Paddoboy creates.

I never wanted him to go, he was sort of a information provider and kept the thread alive. But then his posts, especially when he used to take on posters who were not in his good books, were lacking dignity.

I feel perma ban of Expletive Deleted should be revoked. It was Paddoboy who declared him my sock and it was Paddoboy who pushed him to corner. Now since Mods have realized what happens when Paddoboy is opposed.
 
Been away for a while,and thought I'd drop by and see how things are around here...

Some things seem different, then again, some things never change...

Anyway, "HEY" to all those that remember me.

Wish you all well...
 
Well I do think it is a pity that Paddoboy feels that upset that he feels he must leave.
There may be other things going on in his life that has caused him to react this way.
I sincerely hope he has not left and can come to terms with how he perceives he may have been wronged and move past and onward.
To move forward we sometimes have to realise we have just had an arguement, thats all it was, it need not define us or them to the exclusion of the happy times.
There are many little things that eat away at our ability to stay calm and sometimes we can let those little things destroy things that are important to us.
I am sure this forum was important to Paddoboy and he has let what Imust call little things get to him, he felt the need to take a stand against the little things that were eating away and maybe that is what he needed to do for what ever reason to make him feel whole and maybe time can help him see the virtue in not letting anything really upset you, certainly not to the point where you have to close the door on something you like and enjoy being an important part of.
I am hoping for a happy ending.
Alex
 
I think there is virtue in being able to move on.
I have endured the ultimate insult that I have seen on this forum.
Ultimately I believe that I can still respect someone having moved on.
We can all say things that hurt another sometimes but we have to move past and not waste mods time trying to get back at someone.
Alex
 
I agree that it was a "disappointing" last post. I also think, for the most part, that forums should be self-moderated. It's easier for the actual moderators and it promotes more open conversation.

No one likes to be "warned" or receive "points" and such nonsense. I've never been on another forum with "points" or a banned tab at the top of the page.

You can have a few (very few) rules that really do get enforced regarding hate speak or outright name calling of other members but this "gaslighting" thing is silly and misused and trying to be too authoritarian on a discussion forum is just misguided.

Definitely Paddoboy's last post was unacceptable on any forum, just to be clear about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top