It has been my experience that there are a limited (but to many) members here that do nothing but deliberately attempt to start flame wars or drag threads off topic and trash threads that others might otherwise be interested in discussing.

Just as we now have the "Ignore" option, it seems it would be advantageous to this forum to allow thread starters the ability to block undesireable harrassment by chronic offenders of the purpose of this forum which is to discuss actual issues.

Keep in mind this works two ways. You don't want to hear from me you can block me from posting in your threads as well.

I like this idea.

Unless I am mistaken on how the "Ignore" works others can see BS being posted but you can't. There are situations where nobody should be subjected to the distraction of deliberate destructive behavior and that should be at the descretion of the thread starter.

Mind you that this has been brought on by MacM deciding he'd rather not have to support what he says. In particular:
MacM posted a link to a paper on ether theory (basically treats space/gravity as a fluid).
The issue was raised that it didn't address compressibility of the proposed ether.
MacM didn't address the point and continually evaded, finally saying:
There is no fucking missing issues of compressabiliaty of Ether because there is no requirement to have compressability of Ether you fucking lame brain.Yet the very paper he was trying to support said:
The ether is instationary and compressible.After I pointed this out, he claimed Yuriy and I were put on his ignore list.

So the issue is, do you want people to just stick their fingers in their virtual eyes and say 'la la la, I can't hear you' whenever they try and support an idea which is blatantly wrong?

We have mods if posts are out of hand. If someone wants their own personal platform from which to lie and make stuff up, SciForums shouldn't be it.

A thread starter does not "own" the thread, and should have no say in who can and cannot participate in it.

If someone wants their own personal platform from which to lie and make stuff up, SciForums shouldn't be it.
I fully agree!

READERS:

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

In thread GLET vs GR Here Persol posted (6) times. Not once making any contribution to the thread but only casting personal attacks and innuendo. Yuriy posted (13) times and continued to repeat the same arguement even after it was answered. Each containing personal attacks.

In another thread Post I posted a long list of other scientists Conferances, Communications and Experiments that are Generally Ignored which draw Relativity into question. Since these submissions were not my statements but those of highly qualified scientist, Persol and Yuriy chose to attack me and disregard all the information posted.

For example in one case where a general comment had been made in one paper, I made note of a correlation between that view and my own. Referring to that paragraph I said.


Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states, "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass.

To which I got the following response from Yuriy.


Here is direct evidence: only a sick mind can state that
"a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy ." In other words – no conservation of the angular momentum of the closed system, no isotropy of Space, etc. But we will gain a Biggest prize – the UniKEF!

This falsely claimed I said something I had not by quoting a paragraph from the paper referenced and further continued personal insults and attacks. I clarified the issue pointing out what I actually said.


Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states, "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass.

What I claim for the view in UniKEF is unmistakeable and is not what Yuriy claimed I said and for which he made personal attacks.

His response follows:

Lair can have a good memory:
"That was not my statement" Really?
Let us read again:

///// The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. /////**************************************************

*********Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states.

Notice that he cites the paragraph from the paper but stops my statement midway completely altering the meaning of my statement. This is deliberate. An attempt to tell a lie and yet he has the audacity to call me a liar while doing so. This is wholly unacceptable of anyone, particularily of anyone supposedly educated and a professional.

If this is not sufficient, he then reposts this same distortion (5) more times in its exact above format and makes no contribution toward the issues raised in the thread which deals with other scientific views and test data.

This sort of distortion and unwarranted diversion and disruption of serious topics of interest is untenable. If we each had the ability to ban posters and hide such trash from others, this site would soon be free to actually have intelligent discussions.

Such posters would soon learn that if they want their opinion considered it would have to be made in a respectful way which was on topic.

Moderators jobs would certainly be relieved.

I support this idea.

A thread starter does not "own" the thread, and should have no say in who can and cannot participate in it.

Clearly Moderators could not be blocked but something must be done for the intrusive conduct of certain members that do nothing but disrupt threads and contribute nothing but personal insults to a discussion.

See my above post regarding Persol and Yuriy. There is no way that I or anybody should have to tolerate being called a liar and other names for the shear enjoyment of such abusive posters.

In the example I just gave Yuriy launched his campaign of attacks with his first post. He repeated the same deliberate falsification of my post 5 times.

He gentlemen is the liar here and I do not tolerate such abusive BS. I will respond in kind but that distracts the issues to be discussed. If people here want to have these little ego pissing contests then fine but you are accomplishing asolutely nothing by doing so.

I fully agree!

Nobody seeks the soap box from which to lie. Moderators would still be in a position to control content. However posters such as Persol and Yuriy could be kept from trashing a thread simply because they disagree with a particlular view.

I voted for the idea. There are just some people that mess things up.

But it was a rash decision. So what if the thread starter doesn't want to hear from that poster? What about others who participate in the discussion?

that all the pseudosci and religious folk who don't want to hear any counterevidence/facts, so they can boil in their falcified (sp) fat.

It is always good to be reminded that your view is not necessarily the correct one. Many things we don't want to hear are necessary knowledge.

that all the pseudosci and religious folk who don't want to hear any counterevidence/facts, so they can boil in their falcified (sp) fat.

I'm afraid you are spouting unqualified objection. Some of what was posted was infact quotes made by Einstien. These references were well placed scientists 50 in the one mentioned above. This is not an issue of selective theory advocation but the ability to rationally discuss any theory even the sacrosanct Relativity.

The following was the Einstein quote:

************************************************
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_4.html#SEC4

Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
*************************************************

Now tell me that such a man just before his death making such an admission regarding his life work is not something that should be considered and discussed.

Do you still want to assert that my goal is to post crap? Hardly.

It is always good to be reminded that your view is not necessarily the correct one. Many things we don't want to hear are necessary knowledge.

I certainly have no objection to being shown in error or for being given useful information. My objection is the outlandish conduct of certain members that do nothing but deliberately attack personalities and make no real contribution to a discussion.

People that distort and lie and drag the thread off topic so that the issues never get discussed.

I oddly like this idea too, if it's possible it would be fun to try for a few weeks at least.

Maybe you could earn the right to block people from your threads, say, by winning so many arguments. Once you've proven you're a level above the bottom you should be able to keep the bottom from ruining your threads.
It's happened to me a few times, great subjects degrade into people "chatting" for many pages about LOLs and good times, it's very irritating and at a forum dedicated to intelligent discussion you'd think the intelligent wouldn't have to put up with that.

I oddly like this idea too, if it's possible it would be fun to try for a few weeks at least.

Maybe you could earn the right to block people from your threads, say, by winning so many arguments. Once you've proven you're a level above the bottom you should be able to keep the bottom from ruining your threads.
It's happened to me a few times, great subjects degrade into people "chatting" for many pages about LOLs and good times, it's very irritating and at a forum dedicated to intelligent discussion you'd think the intelligent wouldn't have to put up with that.

Thanks for the support but I don't think a litmus test of superiority to earn the right would work. In the case I mentioned above Yuriy repeated the same irrelevant question multiple times inspite of I having addressed his concern.

Who decides who won the arguement?

Frankly certain rules could apply.

1 - The thread starter could not delete any posts. Blocking a poster that had respectfully made a counter point would ultimately backfire on the person blocking further posts of such a poster. It would show intolerance to an alternate view.

2 - Perhaps an offender would have to receive one warning by the thread starter before he could block if the offense was repeated.

i.e. -"Do not drag this thread off topic. Start a seperate post"

"Do not call me a liar". "Do not insult my intelligence", etc., etc, and if it then continues blocking would be in order.

i voted yes, but i think itd be best to add
whoever started the thread and one/two other members must ban the person
and
mods can unban the people

good idea

Surely the best way to deal with the person opposing your views is to deal with each objection contructively. If your truth stands, it will stand in spite of their objections?
I am no scientist but I am sure this is what proving theories is all about. Surely the theory only exists because you disagree with the objectors in the first place and can prove your theory against each and every objection with evidence? This is what I am told continuously anyway in the Religion forums. Luckily I only have to point at the butterfly to prove that my God exists ;)

peace

c20

i voted yes, but i think itd be best to add
whoever started the thread and one/two other members must ban the person
and
mods can unban the people
good idea

free speech anyone? oh right... I forgot. Now we have Patriot Act. No need for free speech. Nothing to see here, move along.

Maybe we should shoot ourselves right away? Divine silence then it would be.
:m:

When I think of the parapsychology section, I hope the skeptics would just quit going there.

stupid idea, and unless some major changes has been made to the forum software since last i used it, not possible.

I think there should be a modification to the ignore list script so that the posts from a person on your ignore list are made completely invisible (rather then a post saying "this person on you ignore list, If you wish to see the post click here" this could allow others to see the offenders post at there will, but allow you to not even be aware of those posts existence… well not aware until someone replies to them or starts quoting them.

I'm 100% sure that if brought in this feature will be missused.

http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc161.gif

I think there should be a modification to the ignore list script so that the posts from a person on your ignore list are made completely invisible (rather then a post saying "this person on you ignore list, If you wish to see the post click here" this could allow others to see the offenders post at there will, but allow you to not even be aware of those posts existence… well not aware until someone replies to them or starts quoting them.

That is the problem with the current "Ignore" option. Not only do others continue to see unchecked responses. that is you simnply allowing distortion to prevalid but that also others will respond to such posts and by "Reply" their comments become exposed to you as well.

I think an extension of the "Ignore" function where the thread starter could put that offendor on "Ignore" to ALL and could perhaps further select to allow or not allow others to see the post would be quite flexable.

I'm 100% sure that if brought in this feature will be missused.

http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc161.gif

Would there be a tendancy of some to abuse such a power. Most likely. There would be those that simply blocked opposition to their views. However,
that does not preclude such a poster having been wrongfully blocked from opening their own thread to carry forth their own view on the issue.

The good aspect of such a system I think out weighs the negative.

1 - Any blocked poster could still respond but in a seperate thread started for his rebuttal. Other members would then be able to choose which line of thought that were most comfortable with.

2 - It would stop the distraction in any one thread and the counter thread if opened could and most likely would block the original blockers from posting. That should eliminate or at least mitigate the personal attacks and name calling and enhance remaining on topic.

3 - Moderators would still have the obligation to insure that such oppositional posts were being conducted in a reasonable manner - i.e. - Devoid of personal slanders and unwarranted personal comments but actually addressed the issues scientifically or at least in proper tone.

4 - The bottom line I believe is that even the abuse of such system would be preferrable to the current situation where personal attacks are the modius operandi of several members and where issues never really get discussed.

It is disheartening to see that such supposedly educated and professional people feel their only response must be an arrogant, egotistical, authoritative positon of "If you don't agree with me you are an ignorant, lying asshole," etc.

How about this compermise: there could be a option below banish were we put a member on forum ignore; that person is on the ignore list of all members. Of course only a supermod could do this.

How about this compermise: there could be a option below banish were we put a member on forum ignore; that person is on the ignore list of all members. Of course only a supermod could do this.That idea would work, but would once again require coding.... I doubt anything comes out of this at all. On a side note, I thought this was how banning currently worked. You can still read all you want, just not post.

In the case I mentioned above Yuriy repeated the same irrelevant question multiple times inspite of I having addressed his concern.And this is a perfect example of why the system would not work. Yuriy pointed out almost imediately that the system didn't deal in anyway with compresibility (or any of the other attributes it supposedly as). MacM never actually answered, and just said that the ether didn't need to be compressible.... yet the paper he was trying to support said very clearly that it WAS compressible. Knowingly or not, MacM's statement was a lie/distortion of what the paper actually said. I invite you to actually read the thread before you vote:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42429

Mind you that MacM has started dozens of similar threads, just about all of which misrepresent what the research in question actually says. In every single case his distortions are pointed out, but he rarely (if ever) actualy admits it... and continues to promote his warped version of the research.

Give him and others the power to block anybody who points out and argues about their errors the power to block, and you might as well take Sci out of the name.

I never said anything would come out of this, the chances Porfiry would do something because of this are astronomically small.

MacM, how about this why don't you just ask a mod to delete the offenders post?

Generally the posts which make fun of him come after the posts which point out his mistake. No mod I know is going to delete the first.

The final post before he claimed to put me on ignore and start this thread was:

There is no fucking missing issues of compressabiliaty of Ether because there is no requirement to have compressability of Ether you fucking lame brain.
My god, at least read your own links:
The ether is instationary and compressible.
And GET describes only these general, basic steps of freedom: density, velocity, stress. No please explain how there "is no fucking missing issues of compressabiliaty".

He'd ignored this question through the entire thread, and when he didn't have any excuses to make himself right, he stuck his head in the sand.

Even if JamesR or another mod deleted the personal attacks on MacM, the thing that set him off would still remain. If this was inacted, MacM would just 'ban' people from his thread who pointed out the mistake... and then he'd go back to claiming he was right.

The difference with the forum ignore is that the ignored member does not know everyone is ignoring him. Banished people know they are banished, and they usually come back with a vengeance!

Lol. Would be an interesting experiment to see how long someone would talk to themselves...

I never said anything would come out of this, the chances Porfiry would do something because of this are astronomically small.

MacM, how about this why don't you just ask a mod to delete the offenders post?

That wouldn't happen. I also want to point out that I have been here two years and I have consistantly, and still respond to any poster that posts useful information. I have responded to James R when he has opposed everything I say. This is not about having to answer tough questions. This is about abuse and deliberate efforts to slander and supress topics.

The offendors game plan has worked. James R closed one thread, and the topic never got properly discussed, just because of the abuse. Yuriy seems to want to dictate what properties an Ether must have. Those are clearly unknown and experimental data that produced a correct result without certain properties claimed by Yuriy to be required would suggest that it is Yuriy and the property requirement that is in error, not the experiment.

That was the situation and that was my response.

Further more. The point would be that there were errors in Einsteins original work. Suppose people had shit canned Relativity when it was discovered that the universe was not static but expanding. Einstiens own admitted greatest error.

Finding something in a text which could be an oversight or mis-statement, when the paper is based on 18 years of data collection and produces a correct result, is not refutting the work. It is knit picking and finding excuses.

But even that could be dealt with in a proper atmosphere but being called a liar, idiot, fool, etc, etc, and refusing to actually discuss any merits of such work is not refuting such work.

Hell, we even had a long arguement over a year ago when I found Brian Greene had mis-stated a principle of Relativity in his "Elegant Universe" dealing with String Theory.

Should we not then trash can all his work? He clearly doesn't understand Relativity (or so it would go had I or one of my references made such a screw up). But they defended him for weeks. I finally prevailed by bringing in outside physicists which agreed with my appraisal.

The point is there are two standards. One for Relativists and another for those that oppose Relativity. Brian Greene or Einstein himself can have errors but others that have spent years collecting data and write a report which has something unclear, much less grossly wrong, and it is all over you are an idiot., etc. The results of the experiment bedamned, it never even gets looked at.

The paragraph where Yuriy pointed out n>m, that is a mismatch in operators in two formulas was entitled "Short Description". I take that to mean "Generally" and means they deliberately had not included each and every detail.

Electric Fetus is a PRON artist. SCIFORUMS is a PORNO SITE and GoofyFish is the owner of it. So who do U wana blame.

MACM Imagine what will happen to JamesRs threads.

c20 and avatar. in theory, this will not be used to block out opposing ideas, it will be used to block spam. but i spose im prob being naiive thinking itd work

Electric Fetus is a PRON artist. SCIFORUMS is a PORNO SITE and GoofyFish is the owner of it. So who do U wana blame.

MACM Imagine what will happen to JamesRs threads.

That wouldn't concern me. Infact, I just realized that he now operates in the simular manner I have suggested. He has at least twice deleted my post from his thread claiming it was off topic because I had made a challenge. :D

That I believe was the abuse mentioned ealrler above.

I did not know Goofyfish own the site! Also who are you talking about me or goofyfish because this is all new to me.

Raw has his undies in a bunch over your avatar. Just ignore it.

:m: Peace.

Well maybe, but then would'nt I be a porn artist not a "pron" artist? :rolleyes:

If a post is not connected to the thread topic it can be deleted as "Off-Topic" in many cases I have tried to split such posts off into new or other threads, and in most cases I have left off-topic post be as there are so many of them, but I get complaints about it no matter what action I take.
In the volunteer work of moderator we can never be right: someone will always object to any act we do. We are demonized and slandered, and many hate us as if we were politicians. In most cases the rate of objection is greatly exaggerated for the abuse/decisions made by the moderator… except in Xev’s case perhaps. :D

I also want to point out that I have been here two years and I have consistantly, and still respond to any poster that posts useful information.Well no... you haven't. You only ever give lip service, rarely actually answering a question. The few times you do answer you are generally corrected... and then you try and back out of your previous statement. Your GED thread is a very good example. Yuriy made a very simple question... what about compressibility? You flipped saying that he was making stuff up and trying to drag you off topic... at which point the thread went down the shitter.

The fact is that you were wrong, and compressibility WAS an issue. If you would have actually read your own link and answered the question the thread would have stayed civil (until you started to lie and distort again... which inevitably happens in your threads).

But even that could be dealt with in a proper atmosphere but being called a liar, idiot, fool, etc, etc,Liar - countless times
idiot - complete inability to read YOUR OWN links. Inability to remember what your previously claimed your theory said... etc etc.
fool - posting a link to any geocities site that agrees with you, and taking that as scientific evidence

and refusing to actually discuss any merits of such work is not refuting such work.Yet another reason you are a liar, idiot, and fool. Almost every single time you post a link, sombody is guilable enough to try and discuss it with you. As your GED thread showed perfectly, you never actually address the person's questions... and when you do it is stuff that you made up or distorted from what the work actually says,

Should we not then trash can all his work? He clearly doesn't understand Relativity (or so it would go had I or one of my references made such a screw up). But they defended him for weeks. I finally prevailed by bringing in outside physicists which agreed with my appraisal.This falls under the 'idiot and liar' category. Your question to us was ill-posed and ill-defined. Your 'outside physicist' said nothing contray to the argument at the time.

Brian Greene or Einstein himself can have errors but others ...and it is all over you are an idiotYour mistakes are extremely basic, and you still make them after you've been explained what the mistake was. Look at how many damn Twin Paradox posts you have. The issue has been explained to you by dozens of people hundreds of times.

The paragraph where Yuriy pointed out n>m, that is a mismatch in operators in two formulas was entitled "Short Description". I take that to mean "Generally" and means they deliberately had not included each and every detail.You can take it however you want. The simple fact is that other relevant equations were nowhere to be seen. Your flying off the handle about the compressibility is another example.

You didn't actually go back and look at waht Yuriy pointed out... you completely ignored him and sayed he was trying to divert you. I suppose we can add paranoid to the list.

Well maybe, but then would'nt I be a porn artist not a "pron" artist? :rolleyes: It's computer porn where there all wear glow in the dark outfits....

If a post is not connected to the thread topic it can be deleted as "Off-Topic" in many cases I have tried to split such posts off into new or other threadsLike your last three posts:) (and mine one)

It's computer porn where there all wear glow in the dark outfits....

Explain? :confused:


Like your last three posts :) (and mine one)

Exactly, if the supermods want they could delete them, cite them as off-topic as their excuse and they would be 100% correct in their actions, no legitimate objection could be made.

pron... tron... Ah! forget it!

Pornographic tron... now your scaring me :eek:

You're not alone.... you're not alone.

Well no... you haven't. You only ever give lip service, rarely actually answering a question. The few times you do answer you are generally corrected... and then you try and back out of your previous statement. Your GED thread is a very good example. Yuriy made a very simple question... what about compressibility? You flipped saying that he was making stuff up and trying to drag you off topic... at which point the thread went down the shitter.

The fact is that you were wrong, and compressibility WAS an issue. If you would have actually read your own link and answered the question the thread would have stayed civil (until you started to lie and distort again... which inevitably happens in your threads).
Liar - countless times
idiot - complete inability to read YOUR OWN links. Inability to remember what your previously claimed your theory said... etc etc.
fool - posting a link to any geocities site that agrees with you, and taking that as scientific evidence
Yet another reason you are a liar, idiot, and fool. Almost every single time you post a link, sombody is guilable enough to try and discuss it with you. As your GED thread showed perfectly, you never actually address the person's questions... and when you do it is stuff that you made up or distorted from what the work actually says,
This falls under the 'idiot and liar' category. Your question to us was ill-posed and ill-defined. Your 'outside physicist' said nothing contray to the argument at the time.
Your mistakes are extremely basic, and you still make them after you've been explained what the mistake was. Look at how many damn Twin Paradox posts you have. The issue has been explained to you by dozens of people hundreds of times.
You can take it however you want. The simple fact is that other relevant equations were nowhere to be seen. Your flying off the handle about the compressibility is another example.

You didn't actually go back and look at waht Yuriy pointed out... you completely ignored him and sayed he was trying to divert you. I suppose we can add paranoid to the list.

This is good. I need not respond here. You are making my case for me.

For anybody that might really give a shit, let me suggest that you can evaluate the facts for yourself.

Thread - Flawed Starting at Post

Thread - UniKEF Starting at Post

Thread - GPS Starting at Post

Thread - RTT [Starting at Post

Thread - Twin Starting at Post

Thread - JR Starting at Post

Now all these thread involve the same issue of time dilation by SRT. In all these threads Persol has contributed nothing of technical value and has posted unending personal attacks as his defense for the theory of Relativity.

It is becoming clear why so much effort is being made to silence me. Yuriy is calling for major changes to stop me from posting. If I am in error it would be a piece of cake to simply post the correct method for calibrating GPS clocks.

I have posted information by those involved which show that it does not use SR (Einstein Relativity) but LR (Lorentzian Ether Theory) to make it work.

They have wanted to claim GPS as one of their proofs of Relativty but it turns out it actually invalidates SR and they can't stand that. Old MacM must be trivialized at all costs. HeHeHe. Good luck. Your backs are against the wall guys. You can't escape. Just give it up. It only hursts for a little while.

You will feel better when you come clean and start telling the truth.

READERS:

Just to clarify who is correct here and offset the feloneous personal attacks that have been made.

**************************************************
The only relavistic pre-adjustment made to clocks in GPS has nothing to do with relative velocity time dilation affect between clocks.

The clocks are designed to lose 38.4 micro-seconds per day to compensate for "Velocity Relative to Earth" and "Gravitational Red Shift" due to altitude.

The system uses LR not SR by referencing the earth's central inertial frame (its pole) and not motion between orbiting and surface clocks.

See "Time and Position" on page 11.:

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf

Further these predesigned alterations in earth bound and orbiting clocks operate on a system of UT (Universal Time) and remain within 2 nano-seconds of each other. Tick rate remains fixed from prelaunch to orbit with the exceptions of the designed offset for compenstions as stated. The clock does not slow down due to any velocity relationship to any other clock, only the earth. The clocks are updated each second using earth based UTC:

See Page 8 "Introduction"

http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/usccs.pdf

Relativists claims of any SR time dilation affect due to relative velocity between clocks is simply false - a lie by liars. Foxes guarding the hen house.

All personal attacks leveled at me and my understandings are clarified here.

They are propaganda and BS.

********************************************

Now all these thread involve the same issue of time dilation by SRT. In all these threads Persol has contributed nothing of technical value and has posted unending personal attacks as his defense for the theory of Relativity.Lol... I see, so you're allowed to insult us... but the other way around and somehow we are wrong?

You argue about your same misunderstand OVER and OVER again... and then call anybody who disagrees with you an idiot. Then you start to cry when we return the favor? What a fucking hypocrite.

They have wanted to claim GPS as one of their proofs of Relativty but it turns out it actually invalidates SR and they can't stand that.You seem to be mistaken. We can't stand you CLAIMING that. If you actually had anything to backup your case nobody would mind... but you don't. You just post links to anybody that you think agrees with you and say "RELATIVITY IS DEAD". Then when questioned you just completely ignore the problems pointed out and keep claiming your view is right.

And that's the reason we call you a kook and make fun of you. Nobody can debate you on a rational level because you simply ignore anything you don't agree with. We might as well have some fun making fun of you until we get you so upset you hit your computer, and hopefully break it.



As for your links, they've been discussed in other threads... stop spamming the forum.

Electric Fetus is a PRON artist. SCIFORUMS is a PORNO SITE and GoofyFish is the owner of it. So who do U wana blame.

I think somebody forgot to take his pills.

MacM:

Why on earth are you carrying arguments about relativity into this thread? Please post them in an appropriate location. Then you might get some responses.

MacM:

Why on earth are you carrying arguments about relativity into this thread? Please post them in an appropriate location. Then you might get some responses.

I agree. However, if you care to look you will see it starts Here
by Persol making another personal attack and telling everyone that I don't know anything and that I don't know what I'm talking about and then refers to a thread saying Yuriy has proven me wrong.

That is simply false. That thread is open and noone has invalidated anything in that thread. Such distortion and lies cannot be left unchallenged. So I posted the links here to prove Persol is just a liar.

As far as getting somewhere. Ha. The three musketeers don't even try to discuss things they merely make false statements, declarations that they are right and ignore any actual data put before them. I only continue it that it affords me the opportunity to continue to post FACTS which others can then see for themselves.

JAMES R

If I were GoofyFish, Then U would have been kicked out of SciForums Long Time back.

Before I get kicked out have I joined http://www.scienceforums.net/.

U cant stop evolution of science in humans anymore JamesR , Tell those aliens U r working for that humans now have services of Raw Think Tank. Albert Eienstien thought humans would nuke their own world . But humans are evolving and we will claim our share of space whether U like it or not. Stop mingling in our evolution, we have right to evolve.
Get the hell off our planet.

U all will love this one

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38786

It's a stupid idea, being able to ban people from a thread. It's just a power trip from someone to lazy or stupid to set up their own forum, or someone who feels they're not popular or interesting enough to attract people to their own forum, so they need to assume control of someone elses.

Simple answer. Get therapy MACM. Learn to deal with differing opinions.

RawThinkTank,

Please don't advertise for other forums, especially our arch-nemeses forum. :D

note the diffrence between us and them:


discussion of all things scientific with the highest degree of integrity and respectability.

While we are more like "discussion of all things scientific with a reasonable and lax degree of integrity and respectability."

Get the hell off our planet.

I don't think anybody else is on your particular planet, RawThinkTank.

It's a stupid idea, being able to ban people from a thread. It's just a power trip from someone to lazy or stupid to set up their own forum, or someone who feels they're not popular or interesting enough to attract people to their own forum, so they need to assume control of someone elses.

Simple answer. Get therapy MACM. Learn to deal with differing opinions.

It might be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about. The fact is I have a forum, I've managed it for three years. UniKEF happens to be the #1 rated physics forum on MSN out of approx 250 physics forums.

I have another web site without members which outlines my theory.

If you should ever decide to see what it is like to participate in discussions you might find it can be done with grace.

Nobody ever calls another member names on my site. I have yet to have to have acted as a moderator.

There are numerous posts on my site thanking me for the site and how I manage it.

In addition to my own views in fact I host an "Alternative Theories" area and have dozens of people participating. Only a few are in anyway simular. Most are lay persons with really kooky ideas. But I do have some professionals and published people that participate.

I generally don't debate with them but when I see something that can be clarified I diplomatically interject that information. I mostly give them food for thought and let them assimulate that into their thinking.

You are really off base on this one.

Right so;


I have another web site without members which outlines my theory.

means I'm "off base" with;


not popular or interesting enough to attract people to their own forum

does it?

So you've got your power trip, you've got your own forums. They're different from SciForums, let that be eh? Or does the world have to live up to your own personal, arbitrary standards?

Right so;

means I'm "off base" with;

does it?

So you've got your power trip, you've got your own forums. They're different from SciForums, let that be eh? Or does the world have to live up to your own personal, arbitrary standards?

My post was in RESPONSE to this:


It's a stupid idea, being able to ban people from a thread. It's just a power trip from someone to lazy or stupid to set up their own forum, or someone who feels they're not popular or interesting enough to attract people to their own forum, so they need to assume control of someone elses.

Simple answer. Get therapy MACM. Learn to deal with differing opinions.

Totally off the wall and false innuendo. This thread is to explore how to deal with persons that do not know how to have a discussion but think they are smart by being smart mouthed and that openly and deliberately post in threads for the intended purpose of trashing the thread.

They are either to stupid or don't realize or may not have enough consideration or care, is that others may like to actually have a discussion.

I deal with differing opinions 100 times a day and never do so in the manner you and others have just demonstrated. You should really be proud. Good job.

Trashing threads because you don't agree is childish and defeats the purpose of even having a forum. Don't particpate if you don't agree.

This thread is to explore how to deal with persons that do not know how to have a discussion but think they are smart by being smart mouthed and that openly and deliberately post in threads for the intended purpose of trashing the thread.
What if the maker of the thread doesn't know how to have a discussion?
Happens frequently here.

Trashing threads because you don't agree is childish and defeats the purpose of even having a forum. Don't particpate if you don't agree.

Depends what you call 'trashing', and realistically, how you expect it to be dealt with. Offending posts can be deleted if a mod agrees it breaches site rules. Repeat offenders can be banned. I don't think you can ask for more. Is getting a bit testy and personal with people who repeatedly post easily refuted trash, 'trashing'?

Any measure to ban or prevent someone from posting can easily be circumvented by mutiple registration, so ultimately, all your proposal would do, is stifle debate, and give the kooks a chance to proselytise, and dodge difficult questions for a while. These places cannot strongly enforce any rule, and exist solely because of the good will of the participants. What perhaps you don't see, is that the bargain is 'I won't rubbish and belittle you, if you don't post preposterous nonsense'. Seems the kooks don't live up to their side of the bargain, so get belittled.

You can wish for liberal Utopia, where everybody thinks everybody has the right to say whatever they want, and never get called stupid, but that isn't human nature, and the fact that you think youneed to exclude people to attain your ideals says a lot.

Anyway, you can impose your own rules on your own forum, if they support that option. If they don't, write your own BBS, but just stop whining about this one.

What if the maker of the thread doesn't know how to have a discussion?
Happens frequently here.

HeHE. We might agree. It is his thread however. Plus as indicated other could open counter threads to post their comments. It simply seperates the wheat from the chaff and members or readers would have an option of which line of thought they wanted to purse.

In the alternative to something like this the other possibility would be to adapt a strict code and inforce it of deleting all posts that are off topic and/or purely personal attacks.

That science forums place looks like so much fun, I can even find Pangloss on it. Looks like he moved from here to there.

Which forum started first? dont worry, I'm not going to jump ship, this forum is more interesting.

Ours came first. I told spuriousmonkey to go there months ago because he didn’t like me scaring way smart-asses that he wanted to sucker up to, but he didn’t stay there long, I wonder why?
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/member.php?userid=282
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4187

I don't think anybody else is on your particular planet, RawThinkTank.

I was talking about traitors like U and Albert Einstien, U people are working for those alien trying to direct humans science in wrong direction and avoid humans like plague but then this planet also have Rationalists evolved from humans. So beware Aliens or prepare for Your extinction. Im justa preview of thing to come Mr.

RawThinkTank,

Please don't advertise for other forums, especially our arch-nemeses forum. :D

note the diffrence between us and them:



While we are more like "discussion of all things scientific with a reasonable and lax degree of integrity and respectability."

U look very beautiful , no need to expose

Raw think tank, if your a preview of what is to come, its obviously armaggedon.

But seriously, why is einstein a traitor? IS it because you cant understand what hiw work was about?

Raw think tank, if your a preview of what is to come, its obviously armaggedon.

But seriously, why is einstein a traitor? IS it because you cant understand what hiw work was about?

I do understand.

But due to his brains wash of your specie, My messages are ignored.