Not much to say really - MR has made it abundantly clear he has no intention of listening to or following ANY rules laid down by anyone, including the administration (given his responses to JamesR in the past); about the only time he seems to reference them is when he is trying to twist them to his own means when he can't defend his claims *shrug*
Closing threads to win arguments
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I think it would have been funny as hell if you had closed the thread after your comment.
Besides this is just another 'boo-hoo I am a poor victim' thread and so it should be cesspooled anyway....
Even better if he deleted every post after his and then locked it!
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL! You couldn't even get me banned for posting fringe threads. You failed miserably to legislate fringe topics out of existence. You were reprimanded and overruled by the mods continuously for targeting me with infractions and closing threads just because you couldn't make your own arguments. You made my case for me by obsessively posting whining threads about me in the feedback section, which is a blatant violation of sci forum rules. Why should anyone take you seriously here? You're a joke.
Last edited:
More to the point, why should anyone take you seriously, which they don't.
Thats not a valid defense for closing a thread in fringe section. In a fringe section OP cannot be expected to be objective for others. The maximum requiremwnt should be civil behavior. You cannot defend God, ghosts or bigfoots here, because few naive people here think by abusing/ridiculing the poster who pushes ghosts etc, they are being more scientific.
Wrong. Although anyone can and have the right to post what ever they believe in, in the appropriate section, they must also expect scientific critique by others on those beliefs, and should be able to answer all questions asked of them as per the scientific method.
This is first and foremost a science forum....If those that push god, ghosts, Alien origin UFO's expect to post their mythical beliefs, they must also expect critical, scientific review and questioning of their positions: Obviously those subjects inevitably are unable to stand up to appropriate questioning, which angers those pushing such myths, and hence the flaming/adhoms/ war starts.
And by the way, what you claim should be the "maximum requirement" [civil behaviour] is the minimal requirment.
This claim is disputable that this is first and foremost a science forum. Except Rpenner, I see none here who has any sound knowledge of the subject. All are pretentious bluffs. Kittamaru himself, is not able to assess the science content properly.
Think of it, you admittedly, having very little knowledge, are the mainstream torch bearer here.
And BTW, you can apply anything anywhere, but what's the use of applying your science in Ghost sub forum?
Thank god you did not. Now stop trolling.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
They always pull that one out of their ass: "This is a science forum, so all forums here are subject to the rigorous analysis of science." They always forget that this forum includes philosophy, politics, ethics, art, economics, and religion forums which are clearly bound to their own epistemic modes of validation without resorting to science. The same can be said for the Fringe section, utilizing things like first hand experience, intuition, and electronic measurements. I guess it's partly science, but not entirely.
Mod Hat ― Correction
Given that you actually have the notes available to you, it does not seem so much to ask that you could give people an accurate description:
Let us simply start with what you were told publicly:
Note this pertains to doing two things simultaneously. Not that you did A, and then later did B. Indeed, it's kind of funny that you even got A and B mixed up.
At any rate, that's the public note, (with an extra 'o' in "information" corrected).
Shall we move on to the multiple iterations you were told privately?
You know, since you wish to deliberately misrepresent?
Or are you capable of participating honestly?
You were asked why you were angry, and you lied in the weirdest and most useless way I probably would never have imagined. There really isn't any ambiguity, yet you can't seem to manage to not invent some.
Given that you actually have the notes available to you, it does not seem so much to ask that you could give people an accurate description:
• "... was that I quoted Sci Forum rules about not posting misinformation and then later on posted a link that said the 2012 DNA study performed on Bigfoot showed it was an unknown species."
Let us simply start with what you were told publicly:
• "Posting debunked information while lecturing on rules about sources is rather quite inappropriate." [Public note attached to offending post↑]
Note this pertains to doing two things simultaneously. Not that you did A, and then later did B. Indeed, it's kind of funny that you even got A and B mixed up.
At any rate, that's the public note, (with an extra 'o' in "information" corrected).
Shall we move on to the multiple iterations you were told privately?
You know, since you wish to deliberately misrepresent?
Or are you capable of participating honestly?
You were asked why you were angry, and you lied in the weirdest and most useless way I probably would never have imagined. There really isn't any ambiguity, yet you can't seem to manage to not invent some.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Ahhh..but then it isn't a debunked study as I showed you clearly and have already cited here. So your claim was a total lie itself based on your own ignorance of the study itself. Remember, you actually have to read that study to find all this out. Cherry-picking skeptic websites and blogs won't do at all. Oh and flying off the handle because I mentioned sci forum rules on misrepresenting information earlier in a different part of the thread doesn't count as a reason to infract and close the thread. Your anger is your own issue. Own it.
Mod Hat ― Correction
You have provided vested interest, namely a debunked forensic scientist who started a fake journal to publish a study no respectable scientist would touch facing all the criticism and retorting, "Nuh-uh!"
Secondly, don't change the subject: You lied, Magical Realist.
Look around at this thread. Look around at these people at Sciforums. You owe them an apology for lying to them.
You have provided vested interest, namely a debunked forensic scientist who started a fake journal to publish a study no respectable scientist would touch facing all the criticism and retorting, "Nuh-uh!"
Secondly, don't change the subject: You lied, Magical Realist.
Look around at this thread. Look around at these people at Sciforums. You owe them an apology for lying to them.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..you lied and continue to lie that it is a debunked study. And then you closed the thread based on that lie. The fact that you refuse to even read the study shows your bias on this matter. I suggest backing out of this until you educate yourself on the facts of this study and it's long history of being mocked and slandered and misrepresented by mainstream academics and the media. You certainly aren't qualified to say anything intelligent about a study you never look at:
http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/
No, quite a factual claim in fact, and as the name dictates.
Obviously expected from you, as probably the chief occupier of the cesspool, alternative and pseudo threads, in near every thread you have started.
And of course the sound knowledge exists within the accepted mainstream view, and that is the view both rpenner, and myself, among all the others that have you on ignore apply.
Well at least head and shoulders above your own god driven, agenda laden nonsense.
Just as I said: This being primarilly a science forum, means that all implications, claims etc, should face critical scientific review, which obviously you dislike.
No, quite a factual claim in fact, and as the name dictates.
The name of site is 'sciforum' so science. Thats Paddoboy argument. My name is 'the God', but I am not. Yours is Paddoboy, but boy you are not.
Sciforum is a forum for science...your handle is just that: A user name instead of your own, but in reality as we all know, also a reflection of your delusional problem.
paddoboy is my handle and a reference to where I spent my youth.
This is a science forum, that has rather lax rules allowing for cranks, quacks, and religious zealots to put their views.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Actually no. The name is SciForums--it's plural and refers to the 10 science forums under the heading "Science". The remaining 24 forums come under separate headings and are not scientific in nature.
Actually yes.....
The whole forum, including the nonsensical fringe sections, come under the banner of Sciforum.