Suggestions criticism from Bishadi

[Bishadi]

Suggestions and criticisms, from Bishadi

this site used to be fun

as many offered a bunch of diversisty

No banning should be done without reasons offered.

No thread should be moved just because the moderators don't like the material contradicting what they believe.

This is a science forum in which people are supposed to share material information.

I suggest the moderations be based on evidence and no beliefs or accepted paradigm.

I suggest any fool who contradicts a post be liable to posting evidence over accepted ideology.

I criticize the moderating of Ben in the physics math section for being unable to observe material that HE does not understand (that scientist are currently working on all over the world; nothing is pseudo as evidence and scientific integrity is being applied)

 

[cosmictraveler]

this site used to be fun

If you do not enjoy being here then by all means leave, no one is stopping you.

This is a science forum in which people are supposed to share material information.

But information which is based upon fact, not conjecture by a few.

suggest any fool who contradicts a post be liable to posting evidence over accepted ideology.

Accepted by who? Can you give sources which are credible?

 

[Bishadi]

If you do not enjoy being here then by all means leave, no one is stopping you.

i am not here just to play

i come to read and learn

if what i have come across can assist others, i post threads (that is my MO)

But information which is based upon fact, not conjecture by a few.

and to have material evidence in and from experiments is what is most important for others to have a balance of data to observe.

eg.... black holes aint a fact; never have been, but them kinds of thread run and no one says a thing.

Accepted by who? Can you give sources which are credible?

the thread BEN moved from physics-math, to cesspool

that is a thread offering evidence and the moderation was based on the ignorance of accepted ideology over observing the evidence.

if the evidence was wrong then the mods should be assisting folks in comprehending why; not just moving a thread because a specific person posted it.

if the people who run this site do not want me here; then just say it!

but the trolls and mods are too stubborn and often rude beyond belief.

i will learn from anyone but if the so called 'moderators' are supposed to be leaders in their field and cannot articulate; then they are the wrong folks to have measuring/monitoring the forum.

it is almost like having a single religious leader running a forum of many religions; they will maintain their bias often based on ignorance

 

[Oli]

The post that was moved directly contravened the rules of the sub-forum.
It's that simple.

 

[Bishadi]

The post that was moved directly contravened the rules of the sub-forum.
It's that simple.

that is a bold faced LIE!

nothing broke the rules as i read through them directly before i opened another thread on that section

that is why i opened this thread!

i followed exactly what the rules represent (and my own thread name from ben) before i posted it; just to make sure

so your claim is a LIE, period!

the thread was moved because it came from me and for others to read it, then any will find, that much of what has been said is really occuring within the sciences.

your problem is Oli, you have no moral fortitude or honesty within your opinions


and the post claiming what you did above is direct PROOF!

 

[Oli]

that is a bold faced LIE!

You really should learn English. The phrase is "bald-faced".

nothing broke the rules as i read through them directly before i opened another thread on that section

Ben's thread entitled "The Bishadi Mandate" explains that you should summarise, not cut and paste.

i followed exactly what the rules represent (and my own thread name from ben) before i posted it; just to make sure

No you didn't.

so your claim is a LIE, period!

You do like to confirm your own hypocrisy.

your problem is Oli, you have no moral fortitude or honesty within your opinions

Says the liar and idiot.

and the post claiming what you did above is direct PROOF!

Proof that you can't understand instructions?

 

[Bishadi]

You really should learn English. The phrase is "bald-faced".

bold-faced lying

is what you are doing

you feel you have the right and will BS no matter what anyone says

Ben's thread entitled "The Bishadi Mandate" explains that you should summarise, not cut and paste.

the comments in exact are

So let it be said, and so let it be done:

No poster in this forum shall post links to any document, scientific paper (refereed or not), news article, website, or portions thereof, without also giving an accompanying explanation, detailing why said document, paper or website is important, relevant, interesting, or confusing.

In addition, posters should attempt to summarize long portions of text (in their own words) instead of cutting and pasting. Note that this is consistent with precedent: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42924.

There will be no debate about this policy. Thank you

seems every word you said in your line was wrong, again

and if any read the thread, they will see; a fw lines of the article were shared, the evidence with pubs was shared and an analogy was shared

the only thing off, was the line 'energy upon mass' and that just pisses you off.

 

[Oli]

8 lines of your own "work" including "filler" and 23 lines of cut and paste.
Wrong again.
Bald-faced lies from Bishadi.
I DO wish you'd learn to write and understand English, it can't be too hard, after all small children manage it.

 

[Bishadi]

8 lines of your own "work" including "filler" and 23 lines of cut and paste.
Wrong again.
Bald-faced lies from Bishadi.
I DO wish you'd learn to write and understand English, it can't be too hard, after all small children manage it.

Oli, you are a troll!

23 lines of evidence and alternative opinions (not mine)

and a short summary to allow the bridging to be understood

links to verify the evidence and even see the math of the pubs and the scientists locations



all in good intent, of good resource, and with little opinion to allow anyone to observe the evidence themselves

then a dialogue between people can be left open so others can add

kind of like what a forum is for!

 

[Oli]

Nope: tell you what, create a thread and see who the real troll is.
You didn't summarise, you simply cut and pasted.
And then left it up to everyone to read the entire lot of articles and respond.

 

[Bishadi]

Nope: tell you what, create a thread and see who the real troll is.
You didn't summarise, you simply cut and pasted.
And then left it up to everyone to read the entire lot of articles and respond.

again; you are a trolling liar

Originally Posted by Oli
8 lines of your own "work" including "filler" and 23 lines of cut and paste.


i did summarize and why you hate the idea or words combined that say quite clearly





'energy upon mass"




as that just bugs you to no end


Oli,

i could care less if you a mod, the owner of the site or GOD himself

you a troll and will lie all day long to keep your position!

 

[Oli]

More crap.
I don't have a position and you're the liar.

 

[Bishadi]

More crap.
I don't have a position and you're the liar.

i rest my case.

Oli is a troll (proven even within this thread)

and the moderation is weak in which trolls like Oli are allowed to just rant with nothing to support their position!

 

[Oli]

All you've proven is your total inability to see the truth.

 

[spidergoat]

Bishadi, stop abusing entropy please.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I suggest any fool who contradicts a post be liable to posting evidence over accepted ideology.

You seem to think that because we say "Bishadi, do you even understand this stuff?" or "You're incorrect in your claimed interpretation of that" that we're proclaiming thge papers you link to wrong.

The fact you've linked to a paper doesn't mean you understand it and more than once you've made claims about some part of physics which are not true. Correcting your misunderstanding of science is not the same as denouncing that part of science. I know it's very hard to you to accept but your knowledge isn't the be all and end all of science.

 

[glaucon]

Bishadi,

You confuse me. At times, you're both eloquent and insightful. At other times, you're as obtuse and insane as a theist. I would suggest that your greatest problem (with respect to engaging in discussion) is that you seem incapable of actually responding to the criticism of others. You either flatly ignore, or compose a strawman. You need to calm down and actually read what others say. More often than not, you seem to be more concerned with convincing others that you are right, as opposed to actually engaging others in discussion. There's a word for this type of behaviour: proselytizing.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi,

You confuse me. At times, you're both eloquent and insightful. At other times, you're as obtuse and insane as a theist. I would suggest that your greatest problem (with respect to engaging in discussion) is that you seem incapable of actually responding to the criticism of others. You either flatly ignore, or compose a strawman. You need to calm down and actually read what others say. More often than not, you seem to be more concerned with convincing others that you are right, as opposed to actually engaging others in discussion. There's a word for this type of behaviour: proselytizing.

constructive criticism!

 

[DiamondHearts]

I'm sorry to put this so plainly but your posts are a bunch of incoherent rambling. Your posts are impossible to read and never backed by any type of evidence.

 

[Bishadi]

I'm sorry to put this so plainly but your posts are a bunch of incoherent rambling. Your posts are impossible to read and never backed by any type of evidence.

can you define that statement with an example of a thread i opened; that was based on news, then items from pubs (with links) and the experimental evidence provided by the scientist who wrote the pubs?

from the cytoskeleton, polaritonics, solitons, excitons, and all the threads i have opened; please show me one of them that did not have evidence?

please; i would like the education on this!