TO: JamesR Sciforums.com Administrator FR: William L. Mansker Ph.D. DT: 11/07/12 RE: Moderator Behavior on Sciforums First, thanks for your attention in this matter. I believe your efforts at Sciforums are commendable, arduous, and you likely do not receive many accolades for those efforts. Excuse my extensive verbosity. I have a relatively continuing issue with the behavior toward me proffered by Prometheus. The result is that I receive periodic ‘warnings’ from him and he has temporarily ‘banned’ me on at least two recent occasions. If I recall, correctly, his warnings and bans are for “trolling and posting meaningless (or useless) content”. Let me assure you that ‘trolling and posting meaningless content’ are in never in my mind as I post what I consider to be ‘meaningful’ within the context of the thread topics; and I never have intended to be ’trolling’ for attention or diversion in any of my posts. It appears to me (i.e., IMPO; ‘In My Personal [or Professional] Opinion’) that Prometheus is selectively and aggressively applying his authority as a moderator , for whatever purpose, to undermine any member opinions or concepts that are not in agreement with his personal , professional , or philosophical ideologies. I recently posted my CV in the “About the Members” forum (Thread entitled: “Howdy! . . . This is me”. MY purpose in posting the CV was only to state my level of expertise as a scientist and to assuage those suspicions from (mainly from moderators) that I do not hold a valid Ph.D. My academic development has been primarily in the earth sciences (BS, MA, and Ph. D). My academic and professional career includes research, publication in peer-reviewed journals, teaching at the Professor level , and consulting. My academic development also involved ancillary interests and coursework in cosmology. Please note that I am neither a theoretical physicist nor a mathematician – and I have never claimed such credentials within Sciforums. But, I AM an observational and deductive scientist and I do have the ability to make observations, reason, and synthesize original ideas; albeit some are not main-stream. All of my endeavors focus on the principle of ‘Multiple Working Hypotheses’, and I rigorously adhere to, and apply, the Scientific Method. I hope this narrative better explains, for the benefit or Administrators, Moderators, and Sciforums members, ‘where I am coming from’ within the context of the Sciforum media. In closing, my understanding (correct me if I have misunderstood) is that Sciforums is a venue for presenting, exchanging, and discussing scientific (mainly) “ideas”. Many Administrators, Moderators, and members are professional scientists with credentials; some are laymen seeking to further their knowledge base or to pose questions to enlighten their understanding of scientific phenomena. Sciforums is not a ‘peer-review’ platform, nor should it be; that task is better left to professional journals. It is a public ‘forum’. Please forward this to Prometheus. Thanks again and . . . Kindest regards, wlminex
Umm. It's our pleasure I guess... Normally I wouldn't bother making this remark but that first sentence is a peach: "relatively continuing," is a horrible mash. I presume you mean the issue has been going on for a while, but not continuously? The word you are looking for is sporadic. "behavior toward me proffered by..." makes no sense. Substitute the definition for proffered in and you have "behaviour toward me holding out for acceptance by..." You presumably mean "behaviour proffered" or "behaviour of prometheus towards me." Now, to the meat: When you post what passes in your head for your physics in the physics and maths forum, I give you a warning. When you continue to do that you get a ban. Not so long ago there was a thread about you in the moderators board and believe it or not, I was the one arguing against a permanent ban. My point was one of due process - if you continue to make meaningless posts (which is exactly what they are - lets call a spade a spade) in the hard science forums then you will be subject to moderation. Lets get this settled - are you talking of your personal of professional opinion? You are of course entitled to a personal opinion on anything you like, but if you are proffering a professional opinion (see what I did there?) then you a presumably claiming you have professional experience of what you are talking about. I see nothing in your CV about professional physics experience, or indeed internet message board management experience, so you can't have a professional opinion on this board or the physics board. That is intellectual dishonesty in anyone's book. I think it tells us exactly what we need to know - because you understand some earth sciences you feel you can make some ground breaking contribution to theoretical physics. I know next to nothing about geology but I can tell you right now that the scientific method as applied to geology is very different indeed to the scientific method as applied to physics. The majority of theoretical physics breakthroughs for the last century or so have come because people realised there we mathematical problems with previous theories, not because of an observation. Trying to come up with a theory of physics by (presumably) doing what you do in geology is such an epic fail I find it hard to believe someone that has a background in a science subject of any sort would do it. Another thing sciforums is not (at least, at the top of the board) is a sounding board for any fairytale that comes to mind. There are specific forums that are for specific discussion subjects. If you are pontificating in the way you like to do IYPO... then IMPO that counts as either off topic posting or meaningless post content.
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan
I am unsure why wlminex is banned again? From my understanding it was Read-only who should be banned from the latest toss up? Since when does Posting something correct require an invitation. Read-Only is having a "Temper Tantrum"? Again? Without proof Read-Only should not be so angry and harsh. Is there no civility here? First of all someone brought "Light in a vacuum" ito the thread, and Read-only said it just confuses matters. wlminex responded basically (correctly) that a vacuum would not affect the question of the OP. Then Read-Only lost it, and began rudely insulting wlminex. A practice that seems to be endorsed by the moderators here, as it was wlminex who was banned for reporting RO from the looks of things. That seems very unjust and moderately retarded. It may have been good for a chuckle on the moderators end, but it seriously makes you look like a child. Yet it appears (I'm guessing) that this recent ban was for reporting read-only? As an advocate of psychic phenomenon based on very high probabilities (even though this is not proof), I have been forced to look outside the box in terms of accepted principles and welcome new thinking even if wrong. I have seen enough psychic stuff work, that I am convinced it is skeptics who are the uneducated in all of this, and often feel sorry for their narrow views. It must be hard to live life not knowing. If brainstorming there is NO WRONG IDEAS or else brainstorming would not work. People would clam up and be too shy to say anything at all. I would hate to see that happen here. Even horrid ideas can make someone form a new perspective that could lead to (heaven forbid) original thinking. Forget wlminex. I've been officially declared, "nuttier than port-a-potty at peanut festival" by many here, yet I've likely drawn thousands of hits to this websites with my various posts. I don't claim to be a genius or a PhD, but I was a soil Engineer which basically means I know how to drive around the countryside and explore farms and do title searches. I never did my own lab work and all my writing was submitted to an Editor. Not exactly rocket science, but my gas was always paid for and it is mostly stress free unless you make a mistake. The job is mostly driving. My credentials would look more impressive than my abilities, and I know more about running Printing Presses and Bindery equipment because my family was involved in that as I was growing up. My computer skills are above average and can fluently program in several languages and design websites with PHP etc. I am sure there are better programmers here, but I know enough to get by. I am currently retired and dabble with hobby businesses, writing, and raising 3 kids. With all my controversial areas of thought I have only been banned once for spamming, although I made socks to bitch about it, and had ban extended. I do not care what you people believe, but I know telepathy is easy to do. EASY TO DO. That topic and others are delegated to "alternate Theories" and "pseudoscience", however if I am right (I am) then eventually telepathy will find its way into the physics thread. The real physics thread. The problem with science is that probabilities can never equal proof. We could EASILY repeat psychic experiments until the odds are 10 000 000 000:1 in favor of telepathy, yet science dictates that those 10 billion could be "flukes" and therefore not acceptable. Probabilities can be relied on in some areas of science for statistics, etc., however it can never be used to answer a hypothesis in the Scientific method. Probabilities means nothing in those instances, and the only true method to prove something of a psychic nature would be when we understand the mechanism behind telepathy and can actually measure it. We lack the ability to measure it, and that is its downfall. The internet may seem big, but do you know there is no place where people can discuss psychic science. Pretend for a moment that psychic science is valid, and you wanted to understand the how, why, where, whens of it. Where would you go to discuss it or attempt to find answers. There is no place. Any thread on any forum is often haunted by self-ordained psychic police who always say the exact same things? a) Prove it? b) Prove it to claim million dollar prize from JREF I again say the ONLY PROOF WILL BE ACTUAL MEASUREMENT. Nothing else; until that day comes will be sufficient. So..... I see much of what is frowned upon in physics is when the "Consciousness involved in Collapse" debate. Sciforums moderators have vehemently shown they stand behind any version that does not involve matter altering from our known reality. I know I believe that we live in "many worlds" (living out very possible action) until we are collapsed by wigner, and then wigner and I are collapsed by wigners friend and so forth. I further believe expectation/belief is involved in the collapse. I am not alone in this line of thinking and many respected physicists have sided with us as opposed to the "reality only" crowd. It is a debate that seems to contain woo. If you explained the "Many worlds Interpretation" to most however they would think that was woo also, yet it was heralded worldwide as a breakthrough concept (and still is). I think it is woo, and think it exists only on a smaller scale while living in schrodingers box. I am forced to look at ideas that support my support of psychic phenomenon. I cannot entertain any other options. So ... I hope science finds the ability to measure telepathy, and we can openly look at telepathy in the Physics Forum. It would be nice to be vindicated somewhat, however I feel I am privileged enough already to "be in the know". I think wlminex has been unfairly "Ganged up on" by moderators wishing to force their beliefs upon others. As long as controversy exists in the world about these topics then the same controversy should be allowed in the physics forum. I seem to recall Reiku constantly fighting for the Fred Wolf/Bell views, although it just seemed to draw anger from mods (even James on occasion). @ Prometheus, I was surprised to hear that you defended him against a lifetime ban. Maybe there is hope for you. This message was not directed at you, as I feel other moderators find the woo'ish (consciousness necessary for collapse) physics interpretations distasteful as well. We are not expressing original thoughts though, and this way of thinking is popular among many physicists. It always seems to be the same old argument. (Sidenote: I seem to recall correcting your language difficulties in the past and found the OP to be well written, it is somewhat distasteful for you to even respond to a complaint about you. If you felt correct in your actions you would not be as needy to defend yourself). Let's have debates won through articulation and not rudeness like read-only commonly resorts to. Ban him for a change. It is justified based on the comment I pasted above. lol. Yes; It would be funny. I can think of a Nobel Prize winner who has a PhD in physics who would be banned from the physics forum. I don't even have to name him and you know who it is. That's the point. Suck it up you (expletive deleted) know-it-alls.
Not that it is anything to do with you, but wliminex's ban has nothing to do with his exchange with read-only, and you are not privy to read-only's infractions.
So, why was he banned? Is it a top secret or something? He isn't able to say anything about it or argue against it since he is not here. Transparency and open forum explanations (from both sides before a ban) would help to improve the trust levels around here. PS: By the way, I haven't noticed James R around lately. Is he ok, do you know?
I think it should be noted for Wlminex benefit that the view he is a PhD has become more popular. A few senior members offered apologys on the moved "property of light" thread. Including this. Nice to see. I also apologize for being harsh on this subject, but rarely have I seen anyone reverse stance on sciforums. I hope Wlminex was able to view this as this likely contributed to his ban. The property of light thread was his last post, and I have one less person on my friends list. Nobody likes to be called a liar, and I hope the apology got to the right person. Kudos to RJBeery in bringing this to light, and the members who have apologized. Good luck Wlminex
Why would you say this, since I posted two posts above that wliminex's ban has nothing to do with his exchange with read-only. Also, why have you posted almost identical postings in three subfora? To clarify matters, wliminex was banned (repeatedly) because he clogged up the physics forum with garbage posts, posted links advertising his threads and a personal website and refused to change this behaviour after the full cycle of warnings and infraction points.
It was a long time in coming. The reasons for his ban is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, he posted pseudoscience in the science sections. If he really had a PHd and really wanted to contribute to science he may be able to in GEOLOGY - his physics contributions were about as useful as used kitty litter. <-- no humor here, just the facts...
@ Prometheus, You are mistaken. Previously I suggested it was his Property of light thread posting was involved in his ban. This was because it was his last posting. However he said nothing wrong. It was another member who started yelling, Then it turned out that member realized the PhD was likely real a few days later and posted the apology, @ Prometheus, When I suggested it was a valid property of light thread that got him banned, then you corrected me and said that had nothing to do with his ban. Now I suggested his alleged (but now shown as true CV) false CV contributed towards his ban, and you again say that had nothing to do with his ban. So it appears that neither his last post or his alleged fake CV had nothing to do with his ban. But I did say two different reasons both times, and I did not repeat my reasons. If this sounds like repeated stuff it is to repute your last post where you said I had previously said his CV was involved in his ban. I had not. Also this entire thread is about YOU treating Wlminex UNFAIRLY. You have admitted that you would ban a Nobel Prize winning physicist with a PhD in physics from the physics thread if he posted theories you disagree with, so your censorship is blatant. You cannot stomach any quantum explanations that deal with consciousness involving itself with math despite the fact that there is controversy about this in the world. If controversy exists in the world then there should be controversy allowed in the science forums. I think a moderator should move items in controlled moderation and keep conversations civil, but you lean towards censorship. You may recall one of our first run ins was when yo threw a consciousness thread into the cesspool, and James R rescued it and moved it up to alternative theories. The entire Alternative theories category was not needed until you began as a mod. I think it was created to satisfy you propensity for censorship. Also... It is very distasteful that you are even remotely involved in a thread meant to complain about you, never mind this much. It is as if you are making nonsense posts to draw attention away from the complaints against you. The fact remains that you just called a PhD a liar about his education and banned him for life from sciforums. At least some members were man enough to admit they were wrong in this matter and apologized. NOTE: If I moved the apology to the three threads concerning this it is because I think RJBEERY needs a pat on the back for uncovering the truth in this matter, and the subsequent apologies deserved to be read by Wlminex in case he still is following as an observer. He at least deserved to read his apologies directed at him. I did not mention names of who was apologizing in 2 of the threads. Also anyone not reading that thread and only following the other two related threads might not realize that the alleged fake CV is now more accepted as true based on RJBEERYs findings and the subsequent apologies by convinced members. So I commented on the CVthread to head off future controversy. yet the fact that Moderators allowed two threads that concern Wlminex and his ban to continue is not my fault. The diverted "property of light thread" and this thread are both on the exact same topic, and anyone following either thread deserved to know what RJBEERY uncovered. That is why.
All right. Let me state again that the CV thread and whether or not the CV is fake or not had nothing to do with wliminex's ban. There we a number of posts that were a bit further back that led to the ban in this instance. The reason it did not happen straight away is because I made a post in the mods forum to discuss wliminex and whether he should be permanently banned, as he was on 4 infraction points which is the threshold for a permanent ban. No, I didn't say that and I actually said the exact opposite of that. What I said was I wouldn't ban anyone for having different opinions to me. I would ban someone for posting pseudoscientific junk repeatedly in the physics and maths forum after repeated warnings. Of course, your opinion on what constitutes pseudoscientific junk probably differs from mine, and there isn't a great deal we can do about that. In physics and maths if you can point to an article in a well respected, peer reviewed journal with the topic you're discussing in it then the topic probably belongs there. There are three moderators of P&M, so you'd think that if your and wliminex's threads were valid at least one of us would have realised this. That's because any "quantum mechanics explanation for conciousness," that I've seen has been pseudoscientific junk. Essentially it amounts to doing this: Conciousness is ... blah blah blah ... psychology ... blah blah blah ... quantum ... blah blah blah ... wavefunction ... blah blah blah ... spirit ... blah blah blah ... trousers ... blah blah blah. You are taking two sets of words that have no relation to each other and randomly sticking them together as if they were strawberries and cream. The best way to make me look like an idiot is to prove me wrong by finding an article showing some relation between conciousness and quantum mechanics that's been peer reviewed and published in a good journal, of course. You make the mistake of assuming that actual scientific research is done on forums like this. It is not. These places are good for many things but original research is not one of them, despite what realityCheck thinks. That's also not true. Previously we had a single sub forum ("pseudoscience," which is still there) for pseudoscientific junk. For some reason I don't quite understand it was decided the pseudoscientific junk section needed more lines of demarcation, so now we have the "On the fringe," category, containing a number of subforums relating to different types of pseudoscientific junk. It seems now that we not only have more demarcation, but we also have more pseudoscientific junk. So you guys are allowed to roast me as much as you like and I am to have no right of reply at all? That seems quite a curious attitude for someone who is trying to paint himself as an anti censorship campaigner. A PhD is a degree. If you go back though my postings you will see that I never once called wliminex a liar. In fact, I was far more interested in the field of study, rather than the degree. For your proven lies against me I am expecting a full apology. Point 1: cross posting is against the rules on sciforums, so if I was feeling particularly petty I could have banned you for that. Please don't do it in future regardless of your rationalisations. Point 2: Wliminex cannot post, but he can still read the forum without restriction. Point 3: RJ's "proof" of the veracity of wliminex's claims does not prove the poster "wliminex" is indeed Bill Mansker. It is possible that some random quack has found this relatively obscure geologist and taken his details to use on forums like this. I'm not saying wliminex is not Bill Mansker, I'm just saying it's not been proven that he is Bill Mankser.
I apologize to you Prometheus if you were not among those calling him a liar. In fact; I also recall you stating you argued against a lifetime ban in his case. I was wrong to single you out here but more than a few were involved in the character assassination he had to endure and I thought you were one. Note: I will maintain the apology but your "Point 3" above seems awfully similar to the character assassination I was talking about. @ prometheus, YOU LIKELY DID NOT NOTICE THIS FOUND BY RJBEERY, https://sites.google.com/site/manskercablejig/ Now click on that link and notice the email address. The email address is "Wlminex@" using the exact same spelling he has used here for a number of years. I would think this rather persuading if not concrete proof. @ prometheus, You have been misspelling wlminex, but I assure you the spelling is identical to that used in the email of that link, and nt the spelling you have adapted (this one: wiliminex). @ prometheus, I apologized to you @Prometheus, I think you owe Wlminex an apology for at least your "Point 3 above" if nothing else. The evidence does seem convincing even if you are hard to convince. Not only would he need to assume the identity of a PhD, but would also be lucky enough to find one using the email address "Wlminex". Seems far fetched. Are you able to apologize?
I did see that link from RJ. I don't think you've quite followed my reasoning. I accept that Bill Mansker exists, is a geologist and has a PhD. I accept that wlminex (apologies for misspelling) claims to be Bill Mansker and in the balance of probabilities is him. I do not accept that it has been proven that Bill Mansker is wlminex. In order to get proof, we would need to have a picture with a hand written note or some such. For example: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is what I would expect from you. Shame. Lots of excuses and effort to prove you cannot be wrong. Even notarized signed documents might not be proof. Maybe it was identity theft that occured 20 years ago. You could keep expanding on this, but you know you are wrong. A few other people felt there was enough evidence to man-up. I am not sure how your reasoning explains that the real vs fake wlminex would both end up using the exact same email address spelling vs sciforums name, but I imagine it means you would need to accuse The later to noting a geologists email address and using it to create a sciforum character so that he can write in the physics forum. This is your logic here, not mine. How does any document prove that he is who he claims? He shows a degree with his name on it then you can keep claiming he is not that name. It's a never ending circle. I find a problem with your ethics as a moderator, and now as a person. You know you are wrong. I have a teenager that cannot understand your viewpoints at all. You are more intent on standing your ground than apologizing. I am proud my 14 year old son exhibits more common sense and manliness than you are showing. Well you're just that special I guess.
Hi prometheus. Nothing personal. Just what has 'come out in the wash' in open forum. If the shoe fits... and all that. It is 'the problems' we are 'roasting', not necessarily people (unlike some mod-trolls have done, as demonstrated/confirmed by "Mars Rover" experiment). Ok? Just because you seem to be forming part of the problem in many cases already observed/proven by experiment HERE, it is up to you to do what you think is right about your own part in any one instance. I, and I trust most here, just want improvements, not witch hunts on either side. And I have already in the past observed upon your negative attitude about 'doing science' and being mod here. Please again remember that this is not a professional peer review site/publication, nor a blog, but an open discourse on science whatever the matter may be. It appears that your idea of 'doing science' does NOT include open discussion of issus of interest to those who do not fully accept that things are all they could be with the 'orthodoxy'. Science DEMANDS constant review and discussion where something is STILL in contention.....just as you say...there is NO 'absolute proof', especially where the conventional theories are somewhat blurry on the boundaries of their applicability, hey? So if, as you seem to prefer, that all people here are only allowed repeat and regurgitate and agree on everything that orthodoxy has to say, without discussing the counterviews, then it will be nothing more than a HOMEWORK site or blog of like-minded adherents to the status quo. Yes? Discussing science and alternative views and possible new insights which may have a bearing on current interpretations of the observations IS an indispensable general ante/post part of 'doing science' process. The fact that you still don't get that, and preconclusionarily assume that nothing new can come of discussion sites such as this 'as advertised', makes the whole site ethos rather NEGATIVE doesn't it....and preconcludes that there is no point in joining such a site unless you are interested only in backslapping circle-kneejrk assumptive agreement without any dissenting/unusual provocative perspectives. Any 'mod' here who a priori expects that nothing new and important will ever come out of discussions here is already a dead end when it comes to 'doing science' himself, let alone the site. Such presumptive dismissal and disparagement of potential membership, and possible serendipitous synergies between them, would seem to defeat the raison detre of science sites and scientists whom you presume to 'moderate' with that absolutely counterproductive expectation of FAILURE of the site you are supposedly 'moderating'. Not good, no matter what your rationalizations for it may be. Nuff said. Take care. Cheers!
(facepalm) I am pointing out it's not proven, not that wlminex is not Mansker. It's what science does - have a conjecture, prove or disprove it with evidence. That's far less likely than someone with a theory to promote finding some details of a scientist online that you can impersonate which I granted above was fairly unlikely in itself. Unless you've received an email from him privately, you shouldn't know what email he used to create this account, so there's no reason at all why it shouldn't be fraudulent_teenage_crackpot@email.com or something. I could have set my username to be ProfBrianCox, thereby matching his twitter username but that doesn't mean I am really Brian Cox. Do you see that your argument has no logical support now? I think my position is clear. When I was a teenager I thought I was right about everything too. Now I'm an adult I look back on some of the things I thought and cringe about it, and I'm sure your 14 year old son will do the same thing. Let me ask you this: what do I have to apologise for? I've never said wlminex's CV was fake, but I have said that it has not been proven to be genuine. I honestly don't see how anyone could argue that position is even wrong, never mind ethically suspect. Quite. If you can't keep up with the argument then the insults come out don't they?
Remind us exactly what you think was proven with your mars rover account? If I recall correctly you created a sock account so you could post here while you were banned, which is against the forum rules so your ban was extended. I think the only thing mars rover proved was that you care deeply about rules being applied to other users but don't feel the rules should be applied to you. Another case in point was the first time you got banned, for posting a new thread so that you could have the last word in another thread that had been closed because it had descended into trolling. That is exactly, exactly what I said. See below for more. There have been plenty of occasions during my career so far as a scientist that I have discussed problems and topics with my colleagues and peers. The difference between the discussion that I am doing and the discussion you claim to be doing here is that one is informed discussion and the other is not. Not that there is anything wrong with uninformed discussion - I have had them plenty of times. What isn't ok is when you pass off an uninformed discussion as an informed discussion, which seems to be what you are doing. Not what I said. You've said this a couple of times, and it's still not true. I got my PhD last year and within a few months got a job doing physics research. My current work is nowhere near a dead end and I find it hard to image how you came up with the idea. As I've said, I don't see sciforums as a place where active research goes on (the challenge I put out to find a decent published paper that came from a forum collaboration still stands - research into behaviour of people on forums and such like doesn't count obviously.) Why so passive aggressive?
You are in denial. You are perfectly aware of my "Investigator" experiment over at physorg which proved the troll-mod pattern of behaviour there. You are now fully aware of the similar experiment as "Mars Rover" here at sciforums. You know full well that Tach was the troll and then both he and you 'made it all about the person', first he baited and insulted and trolled, then you obliged as 'mod' half of the mod-troll combo. The experiment was precisely aimed at determining whether the rules WERE applied properly. They were not. Tach was allowed to carry on (see the record) and then you came along and abused your position to oblige his TROLL and abusive tactics, using the excuse of "applying the rules" to ban the 'experiment name" but NOT the troll Tach in the first instance! Face it, it's all there for everyone to see. Tach trolled and was allowed exemption from 'the rules'; instead you and he connived to abuse your position and apply double standards and use 'the rules' excuse to ban the VICTIM of his trolling and baiting etc which was AGAINST the very same 'rules' which you so double-standardly apply when it suits! You're in denial, mate. Not a good state to be in for a supposed 'scientist'. Good luck with that willful choice. And the rules against 'opening another thread' are convenient to YOU when you abuse your position to abort and distort the conversation to make it so that the victim is DENIED RIGHT OF REPLY/CLARIFICATION under pain of banning when the former thread was closed BY YOU or an obliging 'mod mate' so that the victim is forced to risk bans in order to set the record straight (in that case I was replying to James R's post asking me something in open forum; and since I had no chance to do so in the original CLOSED thread I opened an 'overflow' and 'clarificaton' thread to tail off the 'unfinished business' LEFT HANGING by your premature closure. Naturally, being the troll-mod in that instance, you use 'the rules' excuse' to ban me for it, despite the fact that I was NOT opening a closed thread, but 'overflowing' an interrupted REPLY to James R et al so that I could not be accused of ignoring/avoiding their question! You seem determined to make it about yourself, don't you? Well, there it is. The shoe fits obviously: you apparently have no shame or scientific objectivity if this is the sort of expedient denial you bring to your forum interactions. Good luck. Really. No. That is the EXCUSE you use to 'justify' your NEGATIVE PRECONCLUSIONARY DISMISSIVE attitude regarding potential outcomes of discussions between members on this and other science open-discourse forums. There is a difference. I remind that discussions are not under professional 'dictating' what is valid idea or not BEFORE THE DISCUSSION is complete. Whereas YOU preconclude that, because the site is not a professional-dictated discussion site, then NO POSSIBLE new ideas worthy of discussion can ever occur here! Get a clue about your dismissive elitist exclusionary attitude before it skews your 'workaday' job, mate. If you as a supposed 'mod' on a science open discourse site hold such limiting negative attitudes BEFORE the natural conclusion of an open discussion, then how can you even pretend to objectivity or fair play. Well, you cannot, as demonstrated by my Mars Rover experimental results. And the sooner you get out of that state of denial, the better you will be at 'doing science' and 'doing your job' here and elsewhere. Good luck. Really. Rationalization for elitist exclusionary approach to open discourse much? Can't you see what you are doing? How many times in YOUR 'colleagues and peers' discussions does someone come in with jackboots and TELLS you that the discussion is CLOSED before the natural end of that discussion has been reached? Would you be angry if someone did that to YOU? And your DISDAIN for NON-professional discourse of NEW IDEAS which have not been discussed by professionals, who are at a present dead-end impasse THEMSELVES, is breathtaking in its arrogant disregard for the sometimes exceptional intelligence of the AMATEUR who in the past has shown to be very useful to the professionals when they were at an impasse because they were going down dead-end professional orthodoxy or too elitist to listen to alternative views from 'left field' and outsiders. Learn to use all mind/ideas potentials, not just the professional ones. You'll be better able to break through when it comes to a 'plateau' of thinking which science often finds itself when professionals and elitists think they have all the answers and no-one else can possibly 'intrude' in their 'domain'. Humility, not arrogance. And don't stop discussions just because they become 'inconvenient' to elitism and arrogance. Somewhere will come the 'aha' moment from synergy and discussion in MANY unlikely milieux, and not necessarily in the professional ones. But it is the natural implication of your whole history of ego-driven, power-tripping, arrogant-elitist rationalization and interference and bias and abuse of power and negative disdain for people, ideas and threads which you have had no compunction in skewing, intimidating, abusing the rules etc etc when inconvenient discussions became a threat to your mod-troll way of censorship and intimidation and closure of discourse using the usual 'expedient mod-troll tactics and double standard excuses for doing so. No more. Your game and dismissive attitudes and abuse of your position in conniving with trolls to distort the conversation and put victims behind the eight-ball, where any attempt at clarification and redress is used as a further 'excuse' to further ban, can no longer be tolerated by any decent member here, irrespective of qualifications to discuss in open forum. Deny the Mars Rover and Investigator evidence at your own risk to your reputation and integrity. You can change or you can further rationalize why you don't want to change. Your choice. But be aware that you have no more 'cover' for abusing 'the rules' for your own double standard and troll-mod ends to stifle proper discourse by ALL people of any ideas which may be of interest when professionals do NOT have all the answers, else we would have had the complete professional toe by now. You miss the point. It was your PRECONCLUSIONARY DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE of the POTENTIAL SYNERGISTIC OUTCOMES from open discourse by diverse minds in open forums that portends the 'dead end' where an advance may depend on some 'aha' moment which may not arise in your closed elitist mind/milieu given your demonstrated propensity for censorship, elitist preconclusion of threads/discussions by others who may have been of use to your thinking/synergy irrespective of provenance of the idea/discourse. If you learn from this then maybe it will stand you in good stead in your work and your own thinking towards your own toe hypothesis. Good luck. Really. Having no personal hard feelings while pointing out objectively the problems is not 'passive aggressive'. It is an ongoing cause for great regret that you STILL have that frame of mind where you consider other people are always being 'personal' and 'disingenuous' like you and your troll mates are when 'rationalizing' your own abuses and blaming the victims. Change that deplorable 'personal' mindset, quick, if you want to profess you are a scientist and not a mod-troll 'by preferred profession' like you seem to act like here so far. Anyhow. Improvement, not banishment, is the aim. Nothing personal. No grudges. Life's too short for such. For the sake of science and humanity at large wherever both are 'being done' for the advance of us all, together, irrespective of which perspective we bring to the mix! Good luck. Really. Cheers all! PS: I now leave the 'improvements' here to those involved who (as I do) also have goodwill and good contributions to make for the betterment of the site. I myself will be withdrawing from everyday internet posting again any day now to concentrate once more on toe work and life/family matters. So please don't take it amiss or personal in any way if I miss and do not respond to anyone over the next few weeks. Good luck and good thinking, everyone!
