So... is it time to kill off this [P and M] sub-forum yet?
- Thread starter funkstar
- Start date
You may have proven someone wrong, and I admit when I make mistakes or am shown to be in error. But on balance, I prove people wrong too, and I don't flame then forever afterward. One meaningful distinction between you and me is your uncontrolled incivility. That is what is wrong with SciForums, and that is something those who want to turn it back around should accuse you of, not me. And I do admit when proven wrong, but stating line and verse from standard theory is not proving someone wrong, it is stating one side of a two sided issue.
You are mistaking "free speech" for your standard fare of crackpottery , Duffield.
Not when your "side" is (invariably) fringe.
No, flaming and abusive responses, never confronted by those who are the science professionals here, and who often even give support to the flames, is the number one problem. A well controlled forum can deal with the fantasy and supernatural claims posted in a hard science forum with no problem if the abuse and disdain is under control first.
What you do, and those who chime in to support you or who have the same abusive posture you have, does play well in a closed science community I suppose, but not in a public science forum that has lost all credibility because if the incivility that the forum won't control.
The forum is for science discussion, but there is also a business plan, and somewhere there are ad dollars flowing. My bet is that the revenue is declining along with the increase the incivility, but that is just a guess
.But you and your ilk are not discussing science, you are discussing your misconceptions about science, you are discussing make believe stuff. When you get called on that you all get hot and bothered and accuse of "censorship".
That is a straw man, and not true.
In your case, as well in the case of the other individuals mentioned above, it is true.
No it isn't. The fact is that there are just not enough active members on line in any give day to sustain meaningful discussions in 10 science sub forums and 5 fringe sub forums. Look down the list of active threads. Effectively we have one active science sub forum.
The decline in member participation is directly linked with heavy handed treatment of members, the failure of civil and science oriented enthusiasts to call members out on their flames and disdain, and the shutting down of discussions by you that you don't like. You are going to ruin it for everyone, and if you think it can be saved by getting rid of my "ilk" instead of you simply imposing self control on you abusive and uncivil nature, you are ignorant of what makes public science forums succeed.
Doesn't mean that the threads should be filled with fringe BS. You are simply providing noise, not science.
More likely due to the fact that the forum is being drowned in crank BS.
Not getting rid, just move your threads into Fringe, where they belong. Discuss at your hear content in Fringe. Have at it.
You have given no credibility to any of my comments and have continued to deny your role in the problems leading to the decline in member participation, but instead have passed all blame to me and others. In addition, none of the vocal advocates for better moderation have seen any merit in what I am saying to you about controlling your incivility.
Is there any point in calling for peer insistence on civility as the first fix, and then addressing the inappropriate thread and discussion placement. Or does everyone take your side and approve of your deluge of drone attacks after every other post, and like to do things that way instead of with me or the persons who's threads get hundreds of posts and thousands of views in active daily action on interesting topics?
We could argue endlessly, but I'll leave it at that.
If you stop trying to pass fringe stuf as science in the main forum , I promise to leave you alone. If you continue to post BS and try to pass it as science in the main forum, I (and others) will call you on it. Post your stuff in the Fringe section and everyone will be happy.
Nice summation pertaining to the level of intellectual dishonesty perpetrated on the science threads by folks who don't have an interest in science beyond their own sociopathic nonsense. The science sections had 2 really knowledgeable moderators in Alphanumeric and Prometheus. This is how I viewed their moderation styles. Prometheus and Alphanumeric would move unscientific threads to the appropriate section. Prometheus would make a decision to give somebody a rest once they proof they're not really interested in the scientific literature on the subject. Along with an appropriate explanation for his decision. Alphanumeric moves them over and then 'explains' why they got 'moved'. Both are pretty effective moderators. Sometimes the cranks elicit some interesting scientific stuff from these 2 highly educated PHD's.
Last edited:
The idea that you should be allowed to post nonsense in the science section just because you're civil is complete nonsense. The idea you think you're being civil when you troll the science section with nonsense is pretty lame. On point with the rest of your analysis [nonsense assertions].
Intent is a very hard thing to prove. From the day you first posted the At Rest With The Hubble View thread I had a very strong suspicion what you were up to and on how it would would end. Call it mind reading and fortune telling if you want. I did not accuse you at first because I thought the people here in P&M would handle it. I thought they would explain to you that there can be no absolute rest frame. Actually some did explain that, but with a crank, you really have to beat it into their head over and over to actually get the point across. Cranks tend to hear only what they want to hear. I don't think they emphasized the point strongly enough to get through your bias. But let's just cut to the chase.
quantum_wave: What did you learn from the At Rest thread? Did you learn that there is an absolute rest frame for the universe? Does that thread support your Quantum Cosmology theory? And yes we always need the disclaimer that you are not DOING science and that your so called model is just a hobby.
Last thing I remember from Alphanumeric is he told Farsight to limit his participation to the alternative sections of the forum. For obvious reasons. Spewing unscientific bullshit in a science forum doesn't qualify for protection under free speech.
Brucep, you are more out of control with abuse and incivility than Tach when it comes to people disagreeing with you, as is evidenced by your wholehearted abusive rants in my thread. Though you don't blow your cork as often, you do so viciously when you do.
Point in fact, the Standard Model of Particle Physics is not compatible with GR because of known aspects at the quantum level. If there were to ever be a quantum solution to gravity it would work at both the quantum level and the macro level. Curved spacetime (ignorantly called reality by a few who don't understand the importance of the tentativeness of science that is honored by the scientific method) would just be a unique way to depict the macro effects of the mechanisms of quantum gravity. That is what my "nonsense" is based on, and it is your ignorance or refusal to acknowledge those inconsistencies in the major theories that creates the red line beyond which you lose all credibility.
And your denial that when my P&M thread became a discussion of alternative ideas I requested that it be moved makes your claim of me posting alternative ideas in P&M simply another straw man.
Straw man as to me claiming that.
True about me NOT claiming to be DOING science, just discussing it. And true, I have a so called model that I use for talking points, and developing it and improving it is a hobby of mine.
Best not feed the trolls, quantum_wave.
Ah, I see. So you do understand that there is no absolute rest frame. I guess I just missed the post in that thread where you admitted that. Sincere apologies. I thought you were one of those cranks that just can't ever admit their ideas are wrong. I guess I was wrong. Good for you quantum_wave.