Splinter: Dispute From "Timeless vs Time"

[Undefined]

OCD much!

Irrelevant much? When complaints are made, they say 'you have no proof', go away!

When proofs' are presented, they cry OCD much!

See how it works, against the victim getting 'painted' in such a way that he becomes the problem rather than the abusers?

How could you even go there, mate? Have you no common sense or decency regarding all the other victims out there who are also fighting for the right to be heard by a system which up till now was stacked against them being heard and so being called/characterized as you have just done??

Shame on you. Such issues as these IN PRINCIPLE and IN REALITY all over the world, in many contexts, is beyond mere 'cheap shot' politics like that. Reconsider your 'impressions' from being uninformed in the matters you are making so light of.

If you didn't mean to demean victims in such circumstances, quinnsong, then a simple 'sorry' will suffice to clear you of any taint as 'apologist' fro the abusers, whatever the context. Thanks.

 

[Aqueous Id]

If Victor can have a Thread of Intrigue, can't RC have a Thread of Melodrama?

Or wait--is this RC's outcry? (is RC trying to say he's the victim of a dirty priest?)

maybe Thread of Recovery? Something; anything but Thread of WorshipMeAndBashEverybodyWhoBotheredToGoToCollege.

 

[Undefined]

*sighs* Undefined, I'm simply going to drop it here and now, because no matter what is said, you have already made up your mind and taken your stance, and nothing is going to change that.

*Sigh* right back at you, Kitt.

And what you just said exemplifies EXACTLY what has been happening in the mod ranks! And it's because you are too close to it to see it, that you just used that 'characterization' about THE VICTIM. See how subtle the 'cultural brainwashing' of 'groupthink' happens when you are too long in a 'group' situation which makes you blind to the faults developing in that group? It's called "group degeneration by stealth" because you are not even aware it's happening until the 'shite hits the fan' and people point it out.

And I haven't 'taken a stance', anyway. I have provided proofs and instances over the YEARS that prove the troll-mod gangs still exist and try their tactics thinking no-one has been watching and recording. How can you, now, just new and innocent to the longrunning problem they have created, have any real exhaustive idea or even an inkling about what's what. It's all over the place, so any 'impressions' you have got about me ore the problem of victimizations of others as well, is most probably UNINFORMED and hence WRONG. So best you DO keep out and leave the troll-mods to explain themselves. No amount of 'cover' from innocent latecomers will change the fcats of their abuses and victimizations as I have given you just an inkling of today.

Good luck, Kitt. No hard feelings. Cheers for trying to be 'a good one'. Kudos.

Just allow me to say... you are trying to compare someone being "treated unfairly" on an internet forum to children being molested in the catholic church...

Not at all. The PRINCIPLE of denial and framing and blaming the victim was honed by the gangs of pedophile priests and religioses. It was this MO that the mod-troll tactics were patterned after. And ABUSE OF TRUST and ABUSE OF POWER is an ABSOLUTE thing. It corrupts ABSOLUTELY both the practitioner AND the 'system' in ANY and ALL CONTEXTS.

The same 'types' that seek abuse power at 'lesser' institutions are the same types who will go on to do the same if given the opportunity in 'greater' institutions. Just because the 'training ground' is a science discourse site, it makes no difference to the POTENTIAL HARM which may ensue ELSEWHERE if once these types are APPEASED, EXCUSED and APOLOGIZED for or in any way 'enabled' or 'justified' in their abuses. Period.

There is NO 'little abuses' of POWER/POSITION of TRUST. It is broken and that's it. Absolutely. Don't fool yourself that there is a 'degree line' which STOPS such types. That way lay cruel futures for FUTURE VICTIMS elsewhere. Not good, in any context.

 

[Undefined]

well, so much for trippy being a ho.
we all have our bad days i guess.

Because he realized that if I was banned it would again prove my point about the threats of bans to intimidate and put the victim at a disadvantage. I am glad that he realized that before too much more time elapsed, as it would have been even more damaging if the ban had held. Sometimes self-interest is a good thing, especially when it leads to 'doing the right thing' whatever the motive may have been.

 

[Undefined]

Was it rpenner that banned you from physforum?

I think he's banned five doughnut exponentially more than you.

You mean the same rpenner who hacked into a member's "signature" field (I had no signature input) and wrote crazy and rude remarks purporting to be from me, so he could frame me? You mean that rpenner?

You mean the same rpenner who allowed the mod-troll crazies to run riot and make slanderous and foulmouthed remarks against all that disagreed with them? You mean that rpenner?

You mean the same rpenner who preferred to delete and distort the post record to cover up his own proven instances of abuse of mod powere and insults an scandalous suggestions some 'enemy' of his with whom he was having some slanging match elsewhere should be 'taken out into the street and shot". You mean that rpenner?

You mean the same rpenner who when confronted with the record of his blatant abuses and scandalous actions just banned me to try to shut me up about his wrongdoings? You mean that rpenner?

You mean the same rpenner who, when I used the "GUEST POSTING' access to restore the rcord proving I was in the right and he was in the seriously wrong, he just kept deleting the posted facts hoping no-one else had noticed? You mean that rpenner?

You mean the same rpenner who since that debacle of his gaining sole moderatorship of physforum had brought further disrepute by suggesting to members there that they desert that site and go to his blog site instead? And who thus was actively engaged in undermining the site from the inside in his TRUSTED POSITION as sole mod, and has therefore lost all credibility in his ability to resist abusing his power for his own egotistical ends? You mean that rpenner?

You mean the same rpenner who was cowed by a commercial spamming troll (Dave, Fivedoughnut, Lady Elizabeth, Lady Doughnut, and now Madame Doughnut) into posting crazy insane and foulmourthed obscenities all over that forum, which continues till today despite rpenner being the sole moderator with the power to ban that crazy? You mean that rpenner?

He has lost all credibility and relevance as far as 'modding' positions go. No-one knowing that history of personal and egotistical and plain criminal abuses against members there would ever offer him a position of power again. It is to be hoped, else what damage will ensue when he gets 'in' and 'reverts to type' already proven.

So don't go there, Beer; that rpenner will not thank you for forcing me to allude to his 'history as mod' and troll-mod leader in order to defend against your trolling and insinuations now, even though you know the full sordid troll-mod gang story but keep trolling and insinuating and lying thereby. Best forgotten if he is not at issue now, hey Beer? He won't thank you for this, that's for sure.

 

[Undefined]

Attention Kittmaru

See how subtle and devious are the Troll-mod gang's MO and insinuations, as follows....

If Victor can have a Thread of Intrigue, can't RC have a Thread of Melodrama?

Or wait--is this RC's outcry? (is RC trying to say he's the victim of a dirty priest?)

maybe Thread of Recovery? Something; anything but Thread of WorshipMeAndBashEverybodyWhoBotheredToGoToCollege.

See how Aqueou Id has just 'tarred by association' this thread (which I did NOT start, because I would have left it where it started so objective readers had the full context surrounding the posts)?

A Id invoked an obvious 'crank' and makes some 'false connection' with this matter; which matter is serious and proven and based on facts, not on 'crank' or 'crackpot' associated origins/arguments from other unrelated sections/threads/personas.


See, Kitt? They will stop at nothing to 'frame' and 'distract' and 'crank-by-non-sequitur association even!', just so long as you and others are insinuated with the 'impressions' AId wishes you to INCORRECTLY form in your minds about the victim in THIS STAND-ALONE ISSUE created by the mod-troll actions/agendas, and not by some innocent 'crank' dragged into this in order to 'use' him as a false connection 'tarring with same brush' tactic in order to avoid and distract from the REAL ISSUE...which is the original proven mod-troll actions and abuses which have led to this thread/discussion of the mod-troll abuses.

See, Kitt? They will stoop to using and abusing a totally 'harmless' innocent 'crank' in another section if they think it will help them to avoid any close scrutiny of the real ACTORS in the piece here. They have no conscience or principles that you or I would recognize as 'decent' in any context, let alone in a supposedly OBJECTIVE SCIENCE DISCOURSE site where the facts not the personalizing and tarring should be the point discussed.

That is what you are up against, Kitt. Blatant personal dishonesty masquerading as 'sciencist'. And A Id's latest example is not the only one. If you only knew all of it, you would cry, I think, for the damage they do while apparently STILL trying to 'convince themselves and others' that they 'aren't doing anything wrong'!

Amazing to watch them at it though... a study in studied dishonesty and cognitive dissonance by supposedly 'educated' trolls. Wow.

PS: And Aqueous' nasty insinuations which effectively make light of victims of abuse, wherever it occurs, is also much of a piece of the mod-troll gang MO. I know of two Aboriginal friends who were abused by a 'dirty priest'. There were more they told me about. It won't make Aqueous Id look good in their eyes once I tell them of how Aqueous Id is mocking them and all abuse victims of any kind any place and time. Sad, really, that such trolls are so insensible to the damage they do. But that's trolls for you, they wouldn't be trolls if they had a real brain instead of 'educated dung' in their craniums, would they?

 

[Russ_Watters]

If Victor can have a Thread of Intrigue, can't RC have a Thread of Melodrama?

No: Victor is crazy politely.

Undefined/RC/whatever, you really should take the advice and take some time out to cool off. Ironically, you'd have been better off with a temporary ban, as it would have forced you to do it. Instead, you are just making things worse for yourself.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the mods really are trolls, corrupt, or whatever. You chose to be a member here. It's like going to a restaurant - repeatedly - and ripping into the wait staff and management every time you go. Whether they make good food or not and provide good service or not, you shouldn't be shocked to find that they are spitting in your food (if you're lucky) and threatening to kick you out.

 

[Undefined]

No: Victor is crazy politely.

Undefined/RC/whatever, you really should take the advice and take some time out to cool off. Ironically, you'd have been better off with a temporary ban, as it would have forced you to do it. Instead, you are just making things worse for yourself.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the mods really are trolls, corrupt, or whatever. You chose to be a member here. It's like going to a restaurant - repeatedly - and ripping into the wait staff and management every time you go. Whether they make good food or not and provide good service or not, you shouldn't be shocked to find that they are spitting in your food (if you're lucky) and threatening to kick you out.

Yes, that's what I told Kitt; Victor is harmless and innocent, and shouldn't be dragged into some 'tarring with same brush' attempt at insinuating 'crnk' or other 'connection' just to distract from the real issues here. Thanks for pointing that out to A Id, Russ.

And...

Why "better off", Russ? Is the cowtowing and slinking away and appeasement of abusers something which makes ANYONE "better off" in the long run?

Just because YOU would do what you say, it does not follow it's the right and proper thing to do for the greater good. Your 'expedient' way of rationalizing a nasty mod-troll abuse situation is instructive, in its total lack of any practical benefit EXCEPT TO THE MOD-TROLL abusers.

If you were the longstanding victim of such sustained and corrupt victimization again and again no matter WHERE you went that the abusers have infiltrated, then you would effectively be denied access to many discussion sites.

How could you as a 'scientist' tolerate such abuses that effectively would constrain open science discourse (and instead replace them with a system demanding mod-troll 'approval' before 'being allowed')?

Maybe it's not too late for you (and PhysBang), since you've both shown some glimmers of a conscience in this regard, but obviously under the continuing prejudicial influence/reach of the subtle devious old gang of mod-troll MO and tactics/prejudices which are still embodied/practiced by some 'relics' of the mod-troll Forum Mafia gangmembers that are not yet weeded out of the system here and elsewhere.

So I will give you (and Phys) the benefit of the doubt and just wish you luck in your future polite and objective science (not personality cult) discourses here and elsewhere! Cheers.

PS: The point is, either the admin change the mods for the better, or the site will suffer the inevitable further loss of integrity/respect accordingly. Such a situation as at present is an UNSTABLE STATE from which the site either rises to better things or descends further into troll-mod abuses and the damage it does wherever it rears its ugly head and MO. Admin has the last word. Their choice will make or break, for better or worse. Good luck to us all, members and site admin. Cheers.

 

[Gremmie]

I've had a bad day... But, I've gotta say this whole "mafia" bit, just has me in stitches... Thanks for that.

It's a conspiracy, dammit!!!... TFF.

 

[Trippy]

Let me set one thing straight, right from the get-go.

This is not Physforums. I have not participated at Physforums for Two years - that's longer than you've been enroled at sciforums for.

It should have been left IN SITU where it transpired/started, so the full context was available for due diligence by other observers/actors.

No, because it was off-topic and having this discussion in that thread would disrupt that thread..

Glad to see my exposure/complaints have made you rethink your previous arrogantly 'dismissive' and prejudicial approach to the VICTIM's side of the story. Thanks for doing the right thing at last, Trippy, Tiassa. kudos for that at least!

Nothing has changed Undefined.

The last time you tried to debate my moderation decisions with me I asked you to take it to either one of the supermods or the admin.

The time before that I invited you to create a thread in SFOG to have the discussion in, you declined repeatedly even though your posting was disruptive of the thread.

What has changed this time is that I have taken it upon myself to push the matter and have done for you what you seem unwilling or unable to do for yourself.

Remember when you even admitted (in one of dmoe's thread IIRC) that you 'engage your targets in conversation and string them along so you could eventually have an excuse to ban them?

I have admitted no such thing. What I have said is do not feed the trolls.

The advice I have given is that if you feel that you are being trolled, respond to the on-topic points in their post, ignore the abuse (or whatever) and report them. I then emphasized the point by saying that I had managed, before I was made a moderator, to get a troll permabanned using this method. This is not entrapment. It's called keeping your nose clean.

And the SLANDERS and LIES and PERSONAL FRAMES by the trolls you 'run with' and 'exploit for entrapment' is OK with you? LOL

I don't know who you're talking about here so... I seldomn exchange PM's with anybody, and most of the PM's I do exchange are to other moderators.

You effectively and unambiguously ADMITTED therein to employing ENTRAPMENT TACTICS from your MOD position for the intention of targeting and banning.[/b]

This is an outright lie, and I challenge you to post a link to me making this claim when you return. I've explained to you what I said, and I will not be repeating myself.

You even intervened in that thread without any due cause and intimidated the posters concerned by that very intervention! And when I called you out on it, you 'flagged me' and intimidated me! Even when I PM'd you as recommended by admin, in order to reasonable discuss and have you reconsider the facts, you just DENIED any wrongdoing on your part and just 'blew me off' arrogantly in the confidence of you having the power and 'mod mates' in your prejudicial version 'pockets, so that no matter where I went from there, I, the one who called YOU out for abusing the mod power/system like that, was behind the eight-ball and couldn't get anyone to TAKE YOU TO TASK because no-one in your 'mod pockets' was prepared to DOUBT YOUR WORD and actually look into the matter properly and discuss the matter/evidence with ME. So please don't pretend anymore that the system was fair to the complainant, and wasn't being abused by the mods who are supposed to keep up the spirit and standards of fair play. Won't wash anymore, Trippy. Self-delusion if you continue thinking no-one has been watching and recording every abuse you and your mod-protected 'convenient troll' gang has been up to contrary to the rules and spirit of open science discourse on the matters' merits, and not the person's reputation 'sabotaged/framed' by the mods/trolls for intimidating/banning.

Again, you're lying.

You are presumably referring to this occasion. I gave you a yellow flag (only red flags count for bans, I've explained this to you before) for this post, for offtopic posting:

Some assumptions are reasonable, supported by evidence, and happen to be correct. It's no big deal.

In the same vein of your earlier "Mostly just curious" to dmoe, Trippy....

Are you in any way trying to give him and others the impression that all mainstream physicists/cosmologists agree with all the current mainstream assumptions and that all these assumptions are supported by evidence that has no other interpretation possible and that all those assumptions and interpretations based on them all "happen to be correct"? If you cannot claim that all same ARE indisputably 'correct', then it IS a "big deal" if mainstream has the BB and all consequential interpretations of evidence all wrong. Yes?

Like you say, "Mostly just curious" about what you meant by that response to dmoe above. Thanks.

Source

Given that you raised the PM's and aren't in a position for me to ask you, I'm assuming that by bringing them into the conversation you're giving implied consent for them to be shared.

Hi Trippy.

Ok, Trippy, in the spirit of 'taking it up with the moderator in question'....

Why is it that when YOU question others in like vein when they make assertions/implications which causes YOU to question/comment from a "Mostly just curious" angle, do you then turn around with a DOUBLE STANDARD 'excuse' for warning like that?

I therefore humbly and respectfully request you please remedy/reverse this obvious double standard mod-decision/action on your part asap. On the grounds that you are intimately implicated in the very sort of post/comment/question I made!

If no satisfaction from the responsible mod is forthcoming, this will go further up the chain, as per the recommended course to follow in such situations. Thanks in advance for your more impartial review of your warning/reason given. Cheers.

The OP was based on a series of blog posts, those blog posts were spurred by a combination of a particular study and personal experience, my question - whether or not the poster who started the thread had read the paper in question, was actually relevant to the thread. Your question was off-topic, regarding assumptions in cosmology, was not.

Request denied.

The thrust went to the assumptive per se that YOU implied in saying "happens to be correct" and "No big deal" in that context of you implying that anyone making counter-assumptions are not correct because they are not your/mainstream assumptions.

Do you see the essential thrust/point of my post to get you to correct that wrong impression of YOUR/MAINSTREAM 'approved' assumptions set are the only ones that can be 'correct'?

I trust to your integrity to let this obvious double standard warning/situation go no further, and trust you will see that immediate withdrawal of that warning is indicated in the interests of the site harmony, respect for mods and avoiding personal considerations get in the way of modding considerations/action impartiality.

Please i ask that you reconsider and withdraw the warning based on the obvious objective reading of the thrust/reason for my posting what I did pursuant to your post/implication/opinion to dmoe about what assumptions happen to be correct or not.

If you read something personal or subjectively objectionable in what I posted to you in "Mostly just curious" vein like YOU introduced to the thread when questioning dmoe etc, then that is unintended and unfortunate, but not my objective fault nor worthy of any warning by the mod involved in that possible misunderstanding of the thrust of my post in the same vein "Mostly just curious" which you excused your curiosity/question to dmoe.

Fair enough, Trippy? I don't want to take this further afield unless I have to. Can you please withdraw the patently unwarranted warning so we can forget this ever happened?

The thrust went to the assumptive per se that YOU implied in saying "happens to be correct" and "No big deal" in that context of you implying that anyone making counter-assumptions are not correct because they are not your/mainstream assumptions.

The assumption in question was my assumption that the paper was behind a paywall. This has nothing to do with the assumptions made in mainstream science. I was simply making the point that assumptions can often turn out to be correct, for example, assuming that you will fall if you step out of a third story window on earth. Many papers these days are behind paywalls, I would go as far as saying that most of them seem to be, and I have found a number of these on the wiley website. It has been my experience that finding free papers on wiley is unusual, and so when I got to this one on wiley, I assumed that it was behind a paywall and looked elsewhere. As it happens, this assumption was in error.

Do you see the essential thrust/point of my post to get you to correct that wrong impression of YOUR/MAINSTREAM 'approved' assumptions set are the only ones that can be 'correct'?

Your post is off-topic and has nothing to do with anything that has actually been said.

I trust to your integrity to let this obvious double standard warning/situation go no further, and trust you will see that immediate withdrawal of that warning is indicated in the interests of the site harmony, respect for mods and avoiding personal considerations get in the way of modding considerations/action impartiality.

An immediate withdrawl of the warning is not indicated in the interests of anything. As for this going no further, I have already escalated this - I forwarded my previous reply to Tiassa and James R, and will be sharing this one in the moderator subforum along with the context of the conversation so far.

Please i ask that you reconsider and withdraw the warning based on the obvious objective reading of the thrust/reason for my posting what I did pursuant to your post/implication/opinion to dmoe about what assumptions happen to be correct or not.

I've reconsidered it, my answer is unchanged.

If you read something personal or subjectively objectionable in what I posted to you in "Mostly just curious" vein like YOU introduced to the thread when questioning dmoe etc, then that is unintended and unfortunate, but not my objective fault nor worthy of any warning by the mod involved in that possible misunderstanding of the thrust of my post in the same vein "Mostly just curious" which you excused your curiosity/question to dmoe.

My curiosity was whether or not he had read the paper in question. My contribution was relevant, yours is off-topic.

Fair enough, Trippy?

No.

I don't want to take this further afield unless I have to.

I have already taken it further - that ship has sailed.

Can you please withdraw the patently unwarranted warning so we can forget this ever happened?

No, not at this time.

Do not PM me again on this matter - if you want to take it further, PM James R or Tiassa about it, but I have no interest in discussing it any further with you.

I have right of reply to your PM to me. Else only your version is available on the PM records on this.

And you miss the point that the "Mostly just curious" excuse you used appeared in the same post where you also implied that mainstream assumptions "happen to be correct".

It is all connected in the READERS' mind. It may not have been what you intended to imply by that whole post, but it was there. And how many times have YOU or some other mod INFERRED something and castigated the innocently/unintended post comments/implications of others and used them as excuses for banning? Too many times to count. So please stop this further demonstration of what YOU want and what the situation demands objectively based on the double standards obviously applied here by you, irrespective of its genesis/misunderstandings/unintentional implication by you in the assumptions laden post I queried you on.

And I note you ARE STILL AT IT, subtly baiting and leading dmoe on with your TAUNTS daring him to 'say what you want to say' even as YOU go about 'subtextually' THREATENING to punish him because IF he says what he wants to in reply to YOUR baits, then you will use some excuse YOU FRAMED HIM FOR in order to ban him and pretend that you did not give him rope to hang himself with' while YOU FEEL IMMUNE to being hanged by that very same rope YOU have been given by ME and others. You're still 'untouchable' for YOUR offenses, and are subtly ABUSING your mod position tom bait and frame others.

Obviously you must either be totallyt unaware of your actions, or just don't care because you can get away with it as a mod. Not a good look or fate for your character/integrity as person, scientist or mod, Trippy.

Yes please do pass it up the line, being scrupulously careful to not ONLY present your 'version' to prejudice other mods. Let the record of my relevant thread post and these PMs speak for themselves, hey?

And you miss the point that the "Mostly just curious" excuse you used appeared in the same post where you also implied that mainstream assumptions "happen to be correct".

I stated or implied nothing about mainstream assumptions.

Please stop harrassing me about this. I have asked you to take it up with Tiassa or James R if you wish to take this further.

Further PM's on this matter directed to me will not be replied to, but may result in disciplinary action being taken.

So YOU are still in that thread patently HARASSING dmoe while he wants QUIT OF YOUR baits and dares to say something for which you will ban him, and you have the silliness to accuse me of harassing you? What are you doing there, Trippy? Your posts read like a TROLLs baits and taunts and clutter for your own agendas. Not a good look. Are you now framing and angling going to use that trumped up 'harassing' charge/excuse to ban me Trippy?

And what assumptions were you suggesting "happen to be right". The implication was that your assumptions, and by extension mainstreams, assumptions "happen to be right" while others' assumptions are not. If you did not mean to imply that, THEN WHY DID YOU NOT JUST SAY SO in reply to my "equally curious" question of you as you were "curious" asking dmoe your question?

That would have been the end of it, all misunderstandings cleared up and everyone no worse for wear. But you instead immediately jumped to the choice of warning me while letting the implication/inference stand? How can you possibly justify that as anything but the wrong way to go around things in this instance?

I am trying to be reasonable and friendly about this unfortunate blow-up, mate. Please withdraw the warning and there is no need for this to become a 'federal case' where no-one comes out of it smelling like a rose. Yes?

At which point the conversation ended when I banned you for moderator harrasment. - As it happens I forwarded at least some of the conversation to James R and Tiassa, and posted the entire exchange in the moderator subforum, along with a link to the post that resulted in the yellow card in the first place.

Stop pretending to yourself and others, Trippy. You have been caught out and called out before this latest instance. Being 'lenient' and/or 'appeasing' types of crooked mods like you and your other troll-mod gang of old 'associates behind the scenes' is a fools play. Only direct EXPOSURE to the light and excision from power positions will do. Anything less merely prolongs the infestation and loss of integrity 'downhill slide' for any site which still has within its 'trusted sphere' such obviously UNSUITABLE CHARACTERS for such trusted position/power.

I'm still not sure what you think is going on here - I haven't posted on Physforum for two years - that's longer than you have been a member here, and that's including your RealityCheck login, and I stopped deliberately associating with the group you're referring to even before that.

Can you imagine how your VICTIMS feel day after day of your selective' intimidation and threats and 'censor in advance' thereby? Your interventions have bee proven PARTIAL (obviously intentionally as proven already more than once, because you always ignore the trolls who caused the situation, and they get away with a 'slap on the wrist' just for show in case anyone is watching you at your worst modding silliness)...

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, but I have moderated many of the people you complain about as being trolls, at levels appropriate with the offense. They just don't feel the need to complain about it.

UNINFORMED (you admit you don't always read back fully to ascertain who is the culprit who should be banned and just ban the victim instead) and just plain PREJUDICED from 'old PERSONAL/EGO baggage' and new personal agendas).

Liar, that's not what I said, and this assertion has been demonstrated wrong in this very thread.

My advice, Trippy: Give up the troll-mod-gang powerplay route, and just concentrate on getting back some of that personal/professional integrity and respect you have been losing for so long as part of that 'relic' FORUM MAFIA gang started so long ago by the crazy "dave" the Doughnut whose 'insanity and insults and plain madness of mind and character is still plainly posting at physforum with the permission/fear of the sole mod there (you know who) who has lost all credibility as impartial observer/commentator long ago (again, he was proven and witnessed to EGREGIOUS abuses of his power to frame, hack and otherwise delete/distort the objective posting record to 'cover his ass' when he was challenged and exposed. How can any self-respecting 'moderator' allow the sort of personal crap and insane disruption to discourse at physforum in this day and age, and still pretend to himself he is in any way personally/professionally 'trustworthy'? Insensible types are like that, no matter how well 'educated' they think they are. Obviously, such 'education' missed instilling a sense of integrity and fair play in that one...and in the FORUM MAFIA troll-mod 'gang' he once openly and cynically exploited/fostered over there. The further that type of character is kept away from ANY POSITION of POWER, the better for science and society everywhere/when in future. Good luck to you, Trippy, whatever comes after this 'mod' stint. Anything is better for your character than this 'enablement' of the less-than-better-side of your character. Nothing personal,; it's the principle of the thing, and the greater good for science and society that I have spoken up and exposed such things as these across the internet sites. Wish you well for your future, Trip.

Your issues with RPenner and his moderation of Physforums have no place here. This is Sciforums.

Given his posts above, why would you do that?

You're not the first person to ask me that.

b]until now, the victim could appeal etc but has to date been proven that the system was stacked against the victim...

You have been given every chance to appeal, you have steadfastly refused to take them. That's your own fault, not mine.

Because he realized that if I was banned it would again prove my point about the threats of bans to intimidate and put the victim at a disadvantage.

No, because I have invited you time and time again to air your greivences in an appropriate forum and you have consistently declined those invitations and consequently derailed the threads the issues arose in. This time I took the initiative and forced the issue.

I am glad that he realized that before too much more time elapsed...

Do you even read bro?

No, seriously, I know I'm being flippant, however, I asked Kittamaru not to ban you (the issue of your behaviour had been raised by one of the mods - not me), however, he did not see the request until after he had actioned the ban.

...as it would have been even more damaging if the ban had held. Sometimes self-interest is a good thing, especially when it leads to 'doing the right thing' whatever the motive may have been.

At this point, words simply fail me...

PS: And Aqueous' nasty insinuations which effectively make light of victims of abuse, wherever it occurs, is also much of a piece of the mod-troll gang MO. I know of two Aboriginal friends who were abused by a 'dirty priest'. There were more they told me about. It won't make Aqueous Id look good in their eyes once I tell them of how Aqueous Id is mocking them and all abuse victims of any kind any place and time.

Don't forget to mention that it was you that bought their plight into the discussion, in a manner making light of it:

That's exactly the tactic the CHURCH was using for decades to 'characterize' the victims of abuse as 'hysterical' and 'ranting' etc etc, by the very same ABUSERS responsible who have later been EXPOSED as abusers. Where is all the 'hysterical' and 'ranting' now? The facts are the facts, silly Alex, Beer. Calling/characterizing them like you do is just a tactic to DENY YOUR ABUSES and/or BLAME THE VICTIM. You should be ashamed of yourselves, acting like pedophile priests/church gangs of abusers who deny they have done anything wrong and call the victims names and pretend they are the 'problem'.

...as the old Church Pedophile network and apologists/systems were stacked against the abuse victims.[/b]

Not at all. The PRINCIPLE of denial and framing and blaming the victim was honed by the gangs of pedophile priests and religioses. It was this MO that the mod-troll tactics were patterned after. And ABUSE OF TRUST and ABUSE OF POWER is an ABSOLUTE thing. It corrupts ABSOLUTELY both the practitioner AND the 'system' in ANY and ALL CONTEXTS.

Sad, really, that such trolls are so insensible to the damage they do. But that's trolls for you, they wouldn't be trolls if they had a real brain instead of 'educated dung' in their craniums, would they?

And it's invective rhetoric such as this that gets you banned (although this wasn't the post that got you banned).

If you were the longstanding victim of such sustained and corrupt victimization again and again no matter WHERE you went that the abusers have infiltrated, then you would effectively be denied access to many discussion sites.

This is kinda funny coming from you - at one stage when you were banned from here, you ran to another forum where I post from time to time to complain about me and this site there, and as I recall, you were disciplined for that as well.

 

[Kittamaru]

Attention Kittmaru

See how subtle and devious are the Troll-mod gang's MO and insinuations, as follows....




See how Aqueou Id has just 'tarred by association' this thread (which I did NOT start, because I would have left it where it started so objective readers had the full context surrounding the posts)?

A Id invoked an obvious 'crank' and makes some 'false connection' with this matter; which matter is serious and proven and based on facts, not on 'crank' or 'crackpot' associated origins/arguments from other unrelated sections/threads/personas.


See, Kitt? They will stop at nothing to 'frame' and 'distract' and 'crank-by-non-sequitur association even!', just so long as you and others are insinuated with the 'impressions' AId wishes you to INCORRECTLY form in your minds about the victim in THIS STAND-ALONE ISSUE created by the mod-troll actions/agendas, and not by some innocent 'crank' dragged into this in order to 'use' him as a false connection 'tarring with same brush' tactic in order to avoid and distract from the REAL ISSUE...which is the original proven mod-troll actions and abuses which have led to this thread/discussion of the mod-troll abuses.

See, Kitt? They will stoop to using and abusing a totally 'harmless' innocent 'crank' in another section if they think it will help them to avoid any close scrutiny of the real ACTORS in the piece here. They have no conscience or principles that you or I would recognize as 'decent' in any context, let alone in a supposedly OBJECTIVE SCIENCE DISCOURSE site where the facts not the personalizing and tarring should be the point discussed.

That is what you are up against, Kitt. Blatant personal dishonesty masquerading as 'sciencist'. And A Id's latest example is not the only one. If you only knew all of it, you would cry, I think, for the damage they do while apparently STILL trying to 'convince themselves and others' that they 'aren't doing anything wrong'!

Amazing to watch them at it though... a study in studied dishonesty and cognitive dissonance by supposedly 'educated' trolls. Wow.

PS: And Aqueous' nasty insinuations which effectively make light of victims of abuse, wherever it occurs, is also much of a piece of the mod-troll gang MO. I know of two Aboriginal friends who were abused by a 'dirty priest'. There were more they told me about. It won't make Aqueous Id look good in their eyes once I tell them of how Aqueous Id is mocking them and all abuse victims of any kind any place and time. Sad, really, that such trolls are so insensible to the damage they do. But that's trolls for you, they wouldn't be trolls if they had a real brain instead of 'educated dung' in their craniums, would they?

I'm sorry Undefined... but all I can see is someone who seems to suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder and is trying to take everyone to task for every criticism or opinion they voice, no matter the validity or reason... I really, sincerely hope that, if this apparent Paranoia is in fact a part of who you are, that you are getting help for it, because I fear for your health and well being otherwise.

In all honesty, I think what you need to do is step back and re-evaluate your reasons for coming here at all... because right now, if it is causing you this much distress and anguish, it would seem logical that you simply stop and leave so that you can live happily.

 

[rpenner]

This is pretty on topic.

 

[Gremmie]

This is pretty on topic.

That, is so spot on... Friggin' perfect.

 

[Stryder]

Due to a request by Undefined, this thread has been cleaned of Reiku related side tracking and returned to active status.

 

[origin]

Well here we are. So whats the deal? I will start; time is real and stuff like that.

Hope Putin doesn't loose his mind, more than he has.