Abuse of Power by Kittamaru

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by The God, Aug 21, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Ref : Post #187 by Kittamaru in the thread http://www.sciforums.com/threads/if...an-it-be-pulled-into-blackhole.159765/page-10

    Kittamaru publicly put up in infraction comment that I am wrong.

    I asked him which statement of mine is blanketly incorrect. Only when she tells me about the inaccuracy, can I respond.

    Instead of substantiating which statement of mine is incorrect, she has blocked me from replying in that thread. This is absolute abuse of moderators power.

    In the past also I had highlighted that Kittamaru is prone to infracting contesting posters just to silence them even if their stand is OK.

    The moderation on this site is quite wanting but this has crossed all the limits, all those who can respond objectively are welcome to comment. Trolls and sycophants can stay away.

    PS1 : it is quite telling on Kittamaru's claim that despite her extreme willingness to purge my posts, she could not do so and expressed her helplessness in #187 in identifying any of inaccuracy.

    PS2 : In the PM I asked Kittamaru to highlight the inaccuracies in my posts in the same thread and open me so that I can respond, but she refused and hence I had to take up this way. If she further infracts me for this, then it's going to be further abuse of Power.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Lets deconstruct your little temper tantrum:

    Apparently, I am both "him" and "she"...?

    First of all, you linked to post 181 by me, in which I posted:
    There is no infraction issued there. The infraction was issued on your post here:

    It was issued because of your, frankly, abysmal attitude in the face of people repeatedly refuting what you are saying. You have continuously held this "holier than thou" attitude that everybody else on SciForums is stupid, and you alone know "the truth" of the universe... yet virtually every time you are challenged to substantiate your claims, you fall on your face.

    Incorrect - you were barred from the thread for two weeks for continuing to insult others and refusing to provide evidence to back your claims, despite requests to do so, even AFTER you were warned this would happen. Even after my public post (the one I quoted myself on above), your next response was:

    More ad hominem attacks against the membership, moderation, and administration team of this website.

    Given that you appeared to have no desire to actually participate in the thread topic with any sort of substantiating evidence, you were removed from the thread so those actually interested in holding a scientific discussion could do so.

    The only thing that has "crossed all limits" here is you, in that you have, once again, violated forum rules by airing your dirty laundry in public, instead of bringing your complaints to a moderator or administrator.

    Here, you are being dishonest and attempting to be deceitful about what I said - the reason I didn't just shitbin your posts is because doing so would leave a rather large gap in the thread that would throw newcomers off - it is better to let your posts stand so others can draw their own conclusions than to attempt to surgically remove your off topic whining. To be blunt - I don't feel like putting up the effort to help you save face.

    Actually, infracting you further is perfectly aligned with the forum rules you agreed to abide by when you signed up:

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    That all being said - since you apparently intend to be dishonest about what went down in the private message:

    I gave you one of the several examples of what you said that was disproved; your attempt to compare the Apollo 11 deceleration burn and insertion into lunar orbit to a random bit of space detritus being "captured" into orbit while passing through the solar system - namely, that in the example of Apollo 11, their deceleration burn was the action that resulted in them entering a lunar orbit, whereas Dave had made the point that an object on trajectory through the solar system is highly unlikely to simply be "caught" by a passing gravity well and wind up in Orbit (namely it will either swing around and slingshot out, or will be drawn into and strike the body that ensnared it). You attempted a red herring argument, were thoroughly refuted, and became increasingly hostile.

    This is the behavior that sees you running afoul of forum rules, as well as then doubling down on it by being dishonest regarding the events that happened.
    exchemist likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    The God, reading some of your posts I think they are harsh and maybe you should take a break.

    (I also feel on trial here too as, James R, used the words "hissy fit" of which I do once a week.)
  9. The God Valued Senior Member

    So more or less after so much of grandstanding by Kittamaru, he (I have to remind myself that it's 'he') has pin pointed two issues on which he feels I am wrong...

    I will answer both....
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    You continue to miss the reason why you were issued infractions... honestly, at this juncture, I don't have the give-a-damn to bother trying to explain it to you yet again.
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Do Not justify your rash act.
    I very clearly posted that I do not have any problem with your infraction, I had questioned your improper comment declaring my points as incorrect in your infraction comment.

    I asked you which statement of mine was incorrect, instead of substantiating your claim, you within 12 hours prevented me from responding there. That is abuse of Power.

    I cannot write a detailed post with my handset, let me get some time to sit in front of my desk, then I will respond to you and James on the two points finally posted by you.
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Seems like this should be taken care of in a PM. Aren't you at least a little bit embarrassed having another tantrum publicly?
  13. The God Valued Senior Member

    I had very clearly stated in OP that trolls and sycophants can stay away.
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    And yet you are here posting...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Seriously though, The God is probably the most disruptive and trollish person on this site as he rails against science. He openly attacks and tries to demean members and moderators for the crime of discussing actual science.
    It is quite beyond my capacity to understand why he is allowed to continue his 'contributions' to this site.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
    Kristoffer likes this.
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    The fact of the matter is (and what has you so bent out of shape) that there was no "rash act". They were justified, and your continual decision to actively flaunt the forum rules is doing you no favors.

    And yet here you are, claiming "abuse of power" and crying over them.

    And here you are, lying yet again.

    The initial infraction, issued on this post of yours, made 0610 8/20/2017:

    States quite clearly: Throwing a temper tantrum and hurling insults simply because you are proven wrong is not the way to debate science.
    This was issued 0920 8/20/2017.

    Your response to people calling you out on what you were saying was more insults, and ZERO substantiating evidence:
    Posted at 0804 8/20/2017

    I warned you, in thread, about this behavior 0924 8/20/2017:

    You then claimed nothing you said had been proven wrong.
    Except you have, repeatedly, been proven wrong. Conservation of Momentum is a thing, TheGod, and you cannot simply choose to ignore it. As with your attempt to use Apollo 11 to show a body being captured into orbit - this is a flawed comparison, as Apollo 11 was a POWERED orbital insertion, using onboard propulsion to slow to a speed allowing for orbital capture. It is not a random asteroid intersecting our solar system.

    You then started falsely attributing things to other members (myself included), and I challenged you to back your statements, both on what you are claiming others said, and on the physics you are claiming. You chose to do NEITHER, and instead posted more attacks, culminating in:

    That was posted 1026 8/20/2017

    I gave you until 0746 8/21/2017 that I barred you from the thread for your continued refusal to actually back your claims.

    So, you had significantly longer than 12 hours from the first warning - it was actually more than 24 hours.

    Will you, finally, actually cite some sort of source or show some modicum of effort in your post, or is this going to be more "you're all stupid, I'm the only one who is right" type stuff that we are so accustomed to seeing from you?
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Of course he won't. Everyone reading this knows that you are wasting your effort on him.

    I honestly do not know if he is a troll or just deluded and I honestly don't care.
  17. The God Valued Senior Member


    Took pains especially for you, so that in future you do not make vague statement that a poster is incorrect without substantiating.


    Can anyone, Kittamaru especially you, find fault with above??


    Kittamaru, Can you find anything amiss in above??

    [You may have problem with 1, but read on before you jumpt the gun, a bad habit which you have.]

    Now this was in response to DaveC continued invoking of third body. He failed to realise that my emphasis on initial position and velocity vectors covers every aspect of capture or flyby or strike. He diverted the discussion to fuel burning of Apollo without realising that in principle it meant creating the suitable initial condition. How does it matter if suitable capture (for orbit) conditions are present by chance or by fuel firing or with the help of other force (3rd body) or by electric field or by explosion. If an inbound object explodes near a central mass, it is quite likely that one of the fragment may have just the condition for getting captured in orbit. So his invoking 3rd body again and again was just myopic.

    Kittamaru, find fault with above??


    Again myopic, because he was talking about conventional fuel burning propulsion, so I stated

    Or for that matter billions of neutrinos from the Sun (James, do not jump that Neutrino is massless).

    This is where James R entered and fucked up the entire thread by his stupid condescending and arrogant post without even reading the whole exchange between me and DaveC. This is what happens when you visit a site after a fortnight and act as if you can grasp and respond at all the places.

    But I must credit him with a nice science statement of his
    This statement is more or less correct but irrelevant as he was associating the conventional propulsion, moreover photons when emitted do get into momentum conservation with the emitting body, kind of creating almost similar physics, an aspect possibly he missed, so his massless argument also fails, Neutrino.

    So Kittamru, any inaccuracy here too??
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    You stay away, your barking is of no help.

    But honestly I was happy with your involvement in that thread, not with the quality of your content but with the fact that you attempted to type some science away from your trollish single liners. You along with DaveC and Exchemist took more than 100 posts in an attempt to explain Gravity Assist to W4U, its a different thing you could not assist him. W4U talks of Tegmark and maths and Bohm Mechanics, he seems to have decent IQ, so you keep trying one day you will learn to assist someone.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Indeed I can - it's a red herring and has nothing to do with the original premise of what was being discussed. This was already explained to you.
    You initially posted this here:

    To which it was, yet again, explained to you:
    Thus, your argument is a red herring and contributes naught to the discussion at hand. You THEN diverged into:

    To which it was attempted, several times, to explain to you that the need for a third body to cause capture (as opposed to a strike or a pass through) is a requirement due to conservation of momentum.

    This appears to have come from here:

    Further pointless argument from you, as explained here:

    The discussion was already had - you are arguing for orbital capture, and then attempting to "proof" it using examples that would NOT result in orbital capture (such as target strike).

    Yet again, you demonstrate your inability to post without including attempted insults.

    Yes, the fault with what you just said is that you are, apparently, unable to ascertain why the fuel spent by Apollo 11 is important and changes the scenario entirely, or how there is a requirement for a third body to interact.

    And these are further red herrings, and have little to do with the discussion at hand.

    And once again, you resort to insults and ad hominem because you are incapable of making a scientifically valid point.

    The greatest failure I see here is that you have been allowed to remain at SciForums when all you seem capable of doing is hurling insults at those you disagree with (see your multiple examples above). I also notice you fail to even acknowledge your attempted deceptions regarding what was said by whom, or when.

    You are, to be blunt, a disingenuous troll that gives every appearance of only coming around to disrupt intelligent conversation with obfuscation and red herring. Not only that, but you incessantly derail the discussion at hand with subjects that are, at best tangentially connected, in an apparent effort to justify your positions (as you have done here).

    Furthermore, you have, yet again, provided not one iota of evidence to support your claims - I guess you expect us to take you at your word alone? Guess what - that's not going to happen, and that isn't how science works.

    If you have a problem with backing your claims with evidence, I suggest you take your posts elsewhere - perhaps Twitter or Facebook?
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    And here you are, yet again, insulting other members. Enough is enough! In your two posts, you have taken jabs at no less than five members!

    Edit - spelling...
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I know it is not up to me, but as you may be considering it, I'll just put on record that I would now be quite happy, personally, if The God were permanently banned, as I think it would materially improve the quality of discussion in the hard science sections.

    Addendum: oh well, 3 days is better than nothing!
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Given his stubborn refusal to amend his ways (despite having had 35 chances to do so prior to today, based on his list of historic infractions), I can only guess that it is an inevitable conclusion...
  23. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    My opinion aside... Wont the forum software automatically ban someone eventually?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page