I got myself banned becuase I PM'ed a moderator "F#$% You". I did it on purpose.
Concerning MR's ban
- Thread starter C C
- Start date
- Status
I've known some very nice retarded people. You're just a nasty piece of turd.
Which is a good thing, since I have answered the same question from you twice now. Is it that you missed it, or did you not understand either answer?
Nope.
You were banned for being persistently obnoxious and ignorant.
But if you want to lie about it to make yourself feel better that's OK.
MR can speak for himself, meaning I'll shut up.
Uh... You can always rethink what you just said.
Well, when in Rome...
No need.
Since it was me that banned you I know exactly what the reason was.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
This thread started out as a rather innocent inquiry into the fairness of my banning. It's turned into yet another bashfest of me and now another member. Thanks to those who eloquently defended me here. In the interest of not rehashing what has already been belabored to death here, I submit this thread be closed. Nothing enlightening is coming out of it, and it's turned into yet another feeding frenzy of valued members by the usual band of immature flaming trolls. Is this how we want Sci Forum represented to new members? Really?
As must every fair inquiry into the topic of your posting history and the nature of this forum.
Who?
Who? Have you mistaken sarcasm for defense? Have you mistaken bloviation for eloquence?
I see your proposal and raise a change of rules to require extraordinary evidence be required for each and every extraordinary claim.
Are you aware that "Valued Senior Member" is a title awarded by a counter and not a mechanism which judges the content of your posts or your actual esteem in the eyes of the readers? While the judgement of "immature" is possibly better explained by the hypothesis of "drunken". You likewise cannot be trusted to judge anyone as a "troll," because ordinary people demand more of your claims than you ever seem willing to supply.
This is the best argument for your permanent banning. Instead of wringing their hands over how the variety of viewpoints espoused by posters reflects on Sci Forums, the ownership seems committed to supporting the principle of free speech up to but not including rampant sexism and racism and solicitation.
So if you want management to scrutinize every post on the basis on how its content reflects on Sci Forums, what basis do you have than more than 10% of your posts will survive such scrutiny?
Nope.
Every such thread has one thing in common. Can you name what (or who) that is?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You're actually blaming threads bashing and flaming me, even when I'm not here to defend myself, on me? Are trolls not responsible for the insults and lies they post about people?
You asked a question; I answered it. No, I don't think we want Sciforums represented by posters like you, or by threads you create.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I didn't create this thread. I wasn't even here as it spiralled into the disgusting moderator-supported hatefest it turned into. The trolls who turned this thread into another chance to insult and bash me are alone responsible for it. Take heed new members. This is what it comes to if you don't conform to the majority opinion around here.
Take heed new members. This is another claiming victim status when his threads are unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
It just so happens that on a science forum, scientific methodology and scrutiny are generally held by the majority.
And by the way...As one who has continually whinged and whined about being insulted and bashed, your above statement insults and bashes most all reasonable thinking people on this forum.
I call that hypocrisy.
He's special. He can troll, attack and insult, but he's doing it for a good cause - because he's so persecuted.
Bells
Staff member
And if it was scientific scrutiny that many engage in, it wouldn't be an issue.
At present, we have certain individuals descending into the Fringe sub-sections solely to abuse and insult members for their personal beliefs. The same thing is happening in the religion sub-forum.
Pray tell, what does making comments about whether he believes "such contrived nonsense" and querying what he might read and believe in "these sensationalistic tabloids", have to do with the scientific method and scientific scrutiny? While we may be thankful that you are not, as yet, making offensive anal probing comments that you are known for, I am curious why you think asking such things amount to scientific scrutiny?
See, this is the thing I have with this whole issue. There are certain individuals who go out of their way to seek conflict and personally insult people in sub-forums they find personally offensive or do not believe in, while invoking the "scientific method" they do not practice themselves. I have to ask, is there something driving you to go well out of your way to seek this personal conflict? Are you driven to personally insult and abuse people who do not believe as you do?
Yes, this is a science forum and yes, it does have a fringe section and yes, people who post there will face scientific scrutiny. If only that is what you and the other science wannabes who always drive this conflict were actually doing.
You wish to be taken seriously and you want people to believe that you are upholding the scientific method and applying logic to your argument? Then leave out the personal insults and attacks.
- Status