...
@Kitta
It is really doubtful that someone like RC will believe he has done anything wrong. One thing I DO know however, is that he CAN NOT argue that you are being strict, or that you are picking on him! You've been very lenient and you've actually given him quite a low ban when, IMHO he should be perma-banned again for starting the same stuff that he was perma-banned for to begin with.
The mind-set is fascinating, but quite irritating. His inability to accept empirical data as well as his annoying habit of "ToE bait" (can you call that ToE jam?) shows that he is baiting for attention and seeking recognition. His posts are designed to give the impression of intellect without actually making any claims or having to provide any information that would prove/show others that his ToE is pseudoscience. This may be fear of rejection, but I think it is more fear of being ridiculed as a crackpot/pseudoscience hack as some already have attested to.
hope to learn more here.
Why should anyone believe your 'version' about me/RealityCheck?
Aren't you the 'personality cult' troll over there, the one who 'friended' with a net-wide manipulative, sockpuppeting, downrating-bot-operating troll over there called "Uncle Ira" (who was later permabanned from here for sockpuppetry and trolling/stalking me from over there)?
And aren't you the troll who attacked me when I suggested in parting (while trying to withdraw from further posting on the net) that you should do your own due diligence on the BICEP2 'paper' because I could see immediately many assumptive/interpretive, systemic and methodological flaws in that obvious 'publish-or-perish' offering?
Didn't other more objective and less 'trollish' mainstreamers (and also professional physicists/cosmologists) also see many of the same flaws I mentioned, once they had taken my suggestion and had a closer look at the 'work' and 'claims' before using same as 'confirmation' for BBang etc hypothesis claims?
You still haven't apologized to me for your shrill attacks on the messenegr (me) while ignoring my parting suggestion for you to look again at that 'work'.
I trust you at least learned a very important lesson for a scientist: don't just believe the 'source' just because you respect them as mainstream 'scientists' and 'source' because they feed into your confirmation-biased way of 'accepting/rejecting things. Be strictly skeptical and objective above all. Don't troll around based on 'personality cult' crap; leave out the excitable 'giddy schoolgirl' type of 'true believing' and think it through for yourselves in future, before sayiong this or that has been 'proved/confirmed' by this 'source' or that. It's the objectively observed reality, and not the believed fantasy/source, that is the final arbiter of what you should accept/reject. That's the real science method. Yes?
Oh, and since you are still in denial about it, you are in for a shock when my 'non-existent' complete and consistent ToE is published, Captn. Don't say you weren't warned to prepare yourself for that shock.
Anyhow, believe it or not, no hard feelings! I have mostly withdrawn from net posting, but will be reading-only you all as I get the time. Bye for now. Good luck and good thinking, Captn S, everyone. Enjoy your discussions.
