You carried on a spam attack, using non-registered accounts because you were perma banned and you would not except the ban. The only thing you proved is that you're a spamming troll.
The record proves you lie. No ‘spammimg’ and no ‘trolling’ involved at all on my part. This was pointed out to brucep and you only recently. Yet you persist in your calumny and mischaracterization of what transpired and why. So much for your 'scientist' credentials/objectivity! The "Investigator" experiment (at physforum) proved the observation/problem with troll-mod pattern of injustice and biased bans by the sole moderator at physforum. The mod-troll transgression was ADMITTED and lame attempts to pass it off as 'humour' by some backfired badly on the "rpenner def3nse team". The posting campaign as "IN-Self-Defense" etc were re-instating the record that proved the mod lied, libelled and distroted/destroyed the record to suit his personal agenda. The only recourse left open was to post as unregistered (which IS ALLOWED by the physforum system) in order to accomplish the aim of self-defense against abuser of power and the record. Never mind, AlexG, everyone knows now that the facts never stand in the way of your 'drive-by' cheap shots based on misinformation and self-interested mod-troll agenda. Whatever integrity you may have started with has long ago evaporated in the miasma of your lies and false accusations and character assassination from malice and ego. Enjoy your ignominy and irrelevance in all this, mate; you certainly earned it, 'drive-by' lying like that again and again despite having the facts in front of you more than once, there and here! The fact that you are still not permabanned for your continual 'drive-by' misrepresenation of the facts there and here is testimony to the powerful hold which the troll-mod combo mentality has had here. Let's hope that will change soon and you are banned for your unconscionable 'personal' trolling and lies. Good luck. PS: Mods/Admin: How about it. Does lying/mischaracterizing etc trolling and harassing like that above from AlexG deserve a BAN 'by the rules'? Let's see you put your integrity where your professed 'by the rules mod actions' is. I'll be looking out for the improvement in fairness and justice standards here. Banning AlexG would be a good sign that you are fair dinkum in your willingness to improve the level of fair play going forward. If anyone has had too many chances to troll and insult and generally misrepresent others, its AlexG. So what are you waiting for? Notify him; and if he doesn't correct his behaviour....'apply the rules' to him. Let's see how he likes it when he finds out he is no longer a 'mod-protected' troll species. Cheers!
You created a sock on physorg and got banned there too huh? I didn't know that because I haven't posted there for ages since I realised it's basically a site for hacks and rpenner. In any case, you broke the rules therefore you got banned. It's as simple as that. Another thing to note is that you are not able to see action taken against other members unless you happen to see the ban list or the moderators make a post telling everyone, which I rarely do anymore. You have no way at all to see warnings, so in the light of all this, what makes you think that I took no action against Tach? On the other hand, you have failed to identify that you don't have a complete set of information. That doesn't look so good on you does it? I don't make the rules, but I do agree with this one. The point is that if I lock a thread that is nothing more than a troll fest and you can open another one to continue that trolling, as you have done at least twice on here, and I have no recourse to act on that then you could troll as much as you like. I had a genuine WTF moment when I read this. How is it me making me the subject of this thread when I am mentioned by name in the OP? All I see here is a lot of hot air about how original research can come out of e web forum. For the third time, prove it by finding a peer reviewed publication that has come out of an interaction on a forum. Calling creating a sock puppet account an experiment and saying you have results is ridiculous in the extreme as well. God it is exasperating reading your ridiculously long, error strewn drivel. I don't have anything at all against uninformed discussion, but I do object to people passing off that discussion as if it was somehow going to contribute something useful and original to science. It's not. The vast majority of conversations I have from politics to philosophy to sport to goodness knows what are uninformed, but usually they are useful to me because I learn something. The conversations you have on here are not informed on your part, and I'm not sure you learn anything so what's the point? This comment makes it clear to me that you don't know the first thing about physics. The current theories we have now that "only" explain one or a few of the fundamental forces are incredibly complicated. So complicated in fact, that the full spectrum of results they predict has taken almost a century of theoretical physicists working on them to extract. Every single sentence in this post is making me hold my head in despair for your sheer idiocy and arrogance. I am not working on a theory of everything (and actually have never worked on that). What makes you think that you have any hope at all of coming up with a theory of everything? Do you have any notion at all of how difficult the current theories are to understand, and you want to make a TOE? This is coming from someone who had quantum field theories routinely kicking my ass for 4 years - I am not claiming to be the smartest physicist there ever was, but I held my own, got the second most published papers in my cohort etc. Another facepalm.
I created a scientific EXPERIMENT which could not be logically conducted in any other way, since I was BANNED unjustly beforehand as "RealityCheck". I have explained this scientific necessity before, but you seem to prefer disingenuous shock and horror. In NO WAY was the "Investigator" name (get the clue in the experiment name "Investigator"?) any replacement for RealityCheck, because I REFUSED to come back there to continue under another name longterm. I also pointed out that the experiment name was NOT intended to continue. It was time-limited for experiment purposes ONLY....since I knew it was easy for a mod to check the ISP etc of "investigator" and see that it was me. And I insisted that RealityCheck was re-instated so the injustice of the sole mod behaviour could be discussed in open forum in the thread it occurred, so I would not have to post at a disadvantage as unregistered. If I wanted to make the usual 'sockpuppet', I would have to give up that pre-condition of re-instatement of RealityCheck. The Investigator was an experiment that could not be conducted any other way. So please spare me the usual 'the rules' excuses when convenient to you, because Investigator was created to specifically test the injustice that led to the original injustice and to confirm the mod-troll agenda/behaviour. It was successful. No amount of whingeing accusations crying 'sockpuppets' and 'rules' does anything but make you sound desperate and petty in your rationalizations trying to blame the victim while ignoring the injustice and reasons for experiment. If I wanted to actually make a sockpuppet for circumventing the rules for personal purposes, I would have used an overseas ISP. The further proof that I do not want to create a sockpuppet for evading detection on a continuing basis is that I always register as RealityCheck. Instead of registering as another name for the RealityCheck RE-INTATEMENT CAMPAIGN (the "Investigator" experiment was for proving the mod-troll problem only) and record-restoration, I chose to post ONLY as UNregistered until RealityCheck was re-instated, so NO 'sockpuppet' there either, because I made it quite clear who I was and why. So you again try to rationalize away your bias and unwillingness to acknowledge these obvious facts, and resort to mere "sockpuppet" as a convenient excuse to ignore the injustice which necessitated the experiment and its "name". As for Tach and your alleged actions there, he was NOT BANNED, was he? You now imply you 'warned' him, but HE DID NOT STOP, and YOU aided and abetted the SUCCESS of his trolling, baiting, inflaming and personalizing and insults etc etc. So the only effective remedy for such behaviour would have been a "little holiday" such as you seem all too eager to give others you don't like. You should have banned him clearly and immediately, since you are all too eager to use "past behaviour" as an excuse to ban others when it suits you. Next time do it right when it comes to Tach, else how will he ever change if 'warnings' is all you got but don't ban him like you would others 'in a trice' when it suits you? The very reason I already suggested that moderator actions/reasons should be made in open forum BEFORE any warning or infraction or ban, so that everyone can see what the action/potential ban is all about. As for the 'warning' allegedly given to Tach, it does not answer his continued and extreme blatant trolling, baiting, inflaming, insulting, personalizing and otherwise spoiling and poisoning the discussion/thread with his personal vendetta against Reiku or whoever. He shoud have got a BAN pure and simple, like anyone else would have if not 'protected' by a mod. You even JOINED his tactics by concentrating on the 'person' who was the victim of this trolls etc, and obligingly banned the experiment "Mars Rover" and let Tach off with his most eggregious behaviour which would have earned a ban if done by anyone else whom you dislike or is not protected by some mod. Everything should have been done in open forum so that all could have seen exactly what you did to Tach (if you really did 'warn' him behind the scenes) was INADEQUATE. Either way, your double standards use of 'the rules' has been all too readily observable by now, so the action/excuse of 'warning' him is too little too late by any FAIRNESS measure. Oh, so "...but I agree with this one." hey? That implies PREFERENCES regarding 'rules'. So you agree with those rules which you can use 'expediently' for YOUR purposes and hang the fairness and the facts, hey? That is the mentality which you keep betraying; a mentality that says "I am the judge and the rules are for ME to use and abuse as I wish". You apply those rules for people you don't like, but ignore them for people you PROTECT, in that case Tach. You have closed threads BASED ON TROLL FESTS INSTIGATED BY THOSE VERY TROLLS WHOM YOU PROTECT. Has the penny dropped yet? You OBLIGE THOSE TROLLS' AGENDA/BEHAVIOUR, and blame everyone else EXCEPT THE CULPRITS. Hence the observed MOD-TROLL PATTERN for clsing threads/discussions down, and THEN BLAMING THE VICTIM. Moreover, the threads I opened were because YOU CLOSED threads prematurely and left THE WRONG IMPRESSION because those whom the trolls and the obliging mods wanted to DAMAGE were DENIED RIGHT OF REPLY/DEFENSE against YOUR mod-troll actions/tactics. And like I said before, one of those threads was an 'overflow' to answer a question by James R etc in the thread YOU CLOSED PREMATURELY. If I had not answered, then you and uour protected troll mates would probably have come back with "You didn't you answer the question! See! See! you are a troll" etc etc. Get a clue to your own complicity in all this, and stop blaming your victims using lame rationalizations and characterizations based on 'the rules' which you conveniently abuse to 'justify' your biased takes on people and issues. As opposed to a non-genuine WTF moment? I was referring to my constructive efforts to bring about cognizance of the mod-troll combo problem GENERALLY. But you keep making lame rationalizations blaming the victim while excusing the trolls which have been allowed by mods to poison the site and people's interaction with it. That makes it ALL ABOUT YOU even MORE than the general problem my Mars Rover proved existed here IN GENERAL and not just regarding your part in it. I try to make it general discussion and you keep refocusing it on your own failings by coming back with lame excuses and blaming the victim. So I am obliging you, and have made direct accusations and observations of your failings more and more, since you don't seem to be getting the message of why the thread exists at all! You would have done better if you had apologized to those whom you affected adversely by your failures as mod; and then concentrated on making improvements in your mod fairness and objectivity, rather than make this thread MORE AND MORE about you through your intransigence and stubborn DENIAL of the facts which Mars Rover (and Investigator) Experiment elicited for all to see for themselves about the mod-troll combo tactics which you have been an all too willing party to until now. Perhaps you can change? I trust so. Your choice. A biased person always 'sees hot air' when reading others. It's a defining characteristic of one who is biased and preconclusionary. Are you that obtuse? Who knows where or when some germ of an idea is implanted in someone's mind? PRELIMINARY cogitations and exposures to other ideas make for SUBCONSCIOUS SYNERGIES which may not 'surface' till YEARS LATER when that mind has forgotten the initial impetus/synergy and could not tell you when it 'began'. History is replete with such anecdotes where ideas come out of 'left field' and the 'aha' moment comes all unbidden DESPITE the 'training' and 'professional discourse'. By presumptiously distorting and aborting potentially synergistic discussions you prevent possible synergies from happening. Effectively you keep making SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESIES by your PRECONCLUSIONARY INTERFERENCE and NEGATIVITY and UNFAIR/PREMATURE closing/distorting of threads/discussions. Get it? And it's not 'original research' that I speak of, it is ORIGINAL THINKING and brainstorming and diverse discussions/ideas and a 'milieu' which is conducive to ORIGINAL IDEAS COMING FROM THE SYNERGIES of otherwise 'whacky' and seemingly 'unorthodox' etc discussions/people. Intelligence and synergy works in many and diverse environments, not just the 'professional' ones. Use that RESOURCE rather than despise and dismiss it UNFAIRLY because of ego, elitist preconclusion and plain shortsighted troll antics to satisfy power hunger. Who knows how many have observed discussions here and elsewhere which have triggered a train of thought which otherwise may not have been triggered in their 'professional' milieu? Your dismissive and negatory attitude AS MOD to discussions/people on a general open science discourse site is WOEFULLY UNPROFESSIONAL and downright demeaning to the site ethos and its membership/readers. And the DAMAGE you do is INCALCULABLE in terms of what POTENTIAL SYNERGIES in members/viewers minds (amateurs, novices and professionals alike) you have PREVENTED by your cavalier disregard for fairness and objectivity in doing your job; and exacerbating that damage by YOU as mod conniving with TROLLS to abort. close and otherwise intimidate and distort the conversation. Not good, no matter what lame self-serving rationalizations you attempt to 'justify' doing that damage and allowing it to be done by those trolls whom you protect. As opposed to reading YOUR 'error strewn drivel'? And that about sums you up. You pretend to be interested but fail to see that your preconclusionary attitude prevents and aborts anything that might provide the 'aha' moment for someone ELSE not YOU. It is patently obvious that your attitude effectively PRECLUDES you ever having an 'aha' moment of great importance to the T O E process. This is a science DISCOURSE site where all sorts of people and ideas get thrown into the mix. Some are good some are bad some are crazy etc etc. BUT all are useful to one who is NOT preconcluding and dismissive of ANYTHING AT ALL ORIGINAL AND IMPORTANT ever happening because of the synergy among people and ideas/discussions. Something may be trivial to YOU, but IMPORTANT to someone else whose perspective is clarified or assisted by something missed by YOU. And when someone challenges the orthodoxy and claims to some new perspective and makes statements/claims/hypotheses in a certain instance/aspect which YOU may disagree with specifically about that aspect (and not just some 'general opinion' of the person which you may have from past exchanges on other aspects), then challenge in open forum and let the discussion go to completion so that we may ALL see the merits in the full context rather than you coming in and aborting/intimidating based on PAST impressions without any due regard to the SPECIFICS UNDER DISCUSSION in the NEW instance/aspect being discussed. If you can't disprove the other persons stance then don't interfere in any particular instance. Let the conversation go to completion and we can then all see what's what on it's merits, logic observational supports etc etc....OR not. Let the cards fall where they may if no-one is being rude etc. No. They are all PARTIAL THEORIES mixed with HYPOTHESES and CONJECTURES and ASSUMPTIONS. That is why we do not have the complete t o e from the professionals by now. Face it. Something is missing which would unify and complete the picture. Despite all the years and manpower and money, the problems are still there and the further the professional effort goes the more questions arise. There is always room for alternative efforts by anyone interested and dedicated enough to follow alternative viewpoints and review the orthodoxy. That is what science is all about. Orthodoxy is NOT 'science', it is the status quo which 'science' continues to improve upon from MANY angles and approaches. That is what pure research and theoretical speculations are all about. The 'complications' are there because we do NOT have that 'bigger picture', but fragments of it which do not yet fit together. The complete picture will come from a mind which will have (or has already had even as we speak) that 'aha' moment because of his/her willingness to listen to all ideas and use the synergy of same in his/her mind to 'connect the dots' following from a NEW assumption/idea which does not end up as a fractured picture like we have at present from the professionals. We have 'details' complex and innumerable, but we do NOT have the complete and simple big picture as yet that unifies everything. And that is the difference between you and me. You are negative and limiting of your and others intellectual potential. Intellect comes in many guises and places. History is replete with those who, as you would say: 'were not expected to come up with anything important'....but did nevertheless. Your own arrogance, elitist ego won't let you even try to understand the human potential for discovery in all sorts of ways/minds. Serendipity, synergy, applied intelligence by an amateur, professional training. All these things have their part to play. The fact that you don't even understand this tells that you ARE limited, else you too WOULD be trying to make sense of everything and be at least SUBconsciously working out a t o e of your own. But since YOU are not interested OR ABLE in working out the t o e, then you assume that everyone else is not interested or able to do so. Dismissive negativity and preconclusion about others potential much? Not a good look for a mod on a science discourse site. Ditto. Do better. That's all that is asked of you. Contribute positively not negatively as mod, for the reasons already explained. No hard feelings personally (really). For the greater good of Science and Humanity. Never ignore the 'Humanity' part. Good luck and all the best to you in future. Cheers!
You were banned, after many warnings, refused to accept it and carried out spam attacks against Physforum. No matter what bullshit you come up with, that's the reality of the situation.
What bullshit? I already posted a rebuttal to you earlier. The record speaks for itself, and the mod-troll transgression at physforum was ADMITTED by the perpetrators, then lamely 'rationalized' as 'humour', and finally.....PROVEN by "Investigator" experiment. No trolling or spamming or anything like you falsely accused me of was necessary or involved on my part at all. You and your mates on the other hand, did all the trolling and misdirecting you could to avoid facing the facts proven by experiment there. Some 'scientists' you are! What more do you need? Some 'scientist' you are....denial and lies and libel is what you relish as poisonous 'drive by' trolls are wont to do. Obviously. The fact that you are allowed to continue your 'drive by' trolling and mischaracterizing and lying about what happened is proof you are 'protected', since anyone else doing what you have been doing (DESPITE the EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN facts to the contrary) would have got a BAN by now. Case PROVEN. Again, by your very own trolling with impunity. Is a moderator going to 'apply the rules' fairly in YOUR case as they profess to do for others? Or is he going to ban the victim of your lying trolling and let you the troll off again. See the pattern which needs to be broken if anyone is to believe that the moderation here has learned the meaning of fair play? I assume you even know what the meaning of 'fair play' is. Not evident so far that you do. Let us see if the mods put their integrity where their rationalizations are, lying 'drive-by' troll.
