Since the jerkoff sockpuppets Mollypants and Bivalves are apparently welcome by rpenner to run rampant as if this were their private sandbox ...
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 03:13 PM)
Since the jerkoff sockpuppets Mollypants and Bivalves are apparently welcome by rpenner to run rampant as if this were their private sandbox ...
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
Even if the Neg is Justified in it's body, or justifiable?
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
Even if the Neg is Justified in it's body, or justifiable?
Is this because you don't feel that they have provided adequate reasoning for their negs?
I felt offended by the level of rudeness and arrogance I noticed on this forum at first, but now I hardly notice it. Thankfully people aren't as mean to me as they used to be. I don't mind a humorous jab when there's humor in it, though. As long as the humor outweighs the cruelty. At this point, though, I would think there was something wrong with people if they didn't post insulting critique.
At least the general intelligence level of posts is high. That is a rare value in an online discussion forum.
At least the general intelligence level of posts is high. That is a rare value in an online discussion forum.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 5 2009, 05:20 PM)
Even if the Neg is Justified in it's body, or justifiable?
Regardless of the reason they give it. They are both sockpuppets of other users that accumulated enough warnings for their bad behavior here. So they create new names and keep dropping their smelly turds all over the place? Perhaps they're slightly better behaved than their previous incarnations. That matters little to me and so this thread is an attempt to reach out to others who may feel the same way.
If the moderation here had fulfilled it's function this wouldn't be necessary.
And yes ... it's not the most high-minded thread I've ever created. Oh well ...
Regardless of the reason they give it. They are both sockpuppets of other users that accumulated enough warnings for their bad behavior here. So they create new names and keep dropping their smelly turds all over the place? Perhaps they're slightly better behaved than their previous incarnations. That matters little to me and so this thread is an attempt to reach out to others who may feel the same way.
If the moderation here had fulfilled it's function this wouldn't be necessary.
And yes ... it's not the most high-minded thread I've ever created. Oh well ...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 5 2009, 05:22 PM)
Is this because you don't feel that they have provided adequate reasoning for their negs?
No. It's because they apparently believe they are the primary arbiters of what belongs here and what doesn't. They are typically the first to rate nearly any first time poster. First time posters here make a wide range of stupid mistakes and whether or not they have something useful to add to a discussion they can be assured that their mistake will meet with a neg from these two children.
No. It's because they apparently believe they are the primary arbiters of what belongs here and what doesn't. They are typically the first to rate nearly any first time poster. First time posters here make a wide range of stupid mistakes and whether or not they have something useful to add to a discussion they can be assured that their mistake will meet with a neg from these two children.
Well...
I'm not real fond of the language used in your opening post. I have yet to neg anyone, not even Uba, in that sort of language.
However....
In my opinion, negs mean very little other than popularity. I consider the source of the neg and often I find it more honorable to get a negative comment from someone I have little respect for than if that person gave me a positive comment.
For example... I note that both of us have received negative comments by WTC Control Demolished. I believe that should be a source of pride rather than irritation. If I had received a positive comment by this person, I would hang my head in shame.
I have received negative comments by both sides of the religious divide, something again which gives me pleasure rather than pain.
I suggest that you consider the source rather than just the words.
If I get a negative comment by some illiterate fanatic or fastidious crank... I would consider that an achievement.
If I were to get a negative comment by someone I respect like Alpha or Rpenner (or for that matter MP), I would look at my behavior quite closely and review my facts with a critical eye.
Maybe we should all do so more often.
I'm not real fond of the language used in your opening post. I have yet to neg anyone, not even Uba, in that sort of language.
However....
In my opinion, negs mean very little other than popularity. I consider the source of the neg and often I find it more honorable to get a negative comment from someone I have little respect for than if that person gave me a positive comment.
For example... I note that both of us have received negative comments by WTC Control Demolished. I believe that should be a source of pride rather than irritation. If I had received a positive comment by this person, I would hang my head in shame.
I have received negative comments by both sides of the religious divide, something again which gives me pleasure rather than pain.
I suggest that you consider the source rather than just the words.
If I get a negative comment by some illiterate fanatic or fastidious crank... I would consider that an achievement.
If I were to get a negative comment by someone I respect like Alpha or Rpenner (or for that matter MP), I would look at my behavior quite closely and review my facts with a critical eye.
Maybe we should all do so more often.
Rob:
I apologize to you for the lack of decorum with regard to language. However, I really felt the strongest possible words were necessary here. These two children have been negging me for no other reason than I've continued to challenge them for their behavior.
In general, I don't look to my feedback rating for much reason except (as you mention) in the hope that I don't receive neg from a respected member. In general, the only negative rep that bothered me was for an argument where I couldn't convince trout with regard to some minor but specific word usage (a simplification of the issue for sure).
So overall, with those three exceptions, I accept and can own my reputation for whatever it is. But this isn't about my reputation. Specifically, it is with regard to the feedback they gave the new user who was simply trying to bounce ideas around for his sci-fi story. Whether or not that particular user understood the principles or even the suggestions/direction made to him certainly didn't justify the negs both of these miscreant little babies gave him. I'd pos'd somebody yesterday for the same reason (I don't remember who).
So this thread is a natural outgrowth of all that. I certainly don't expect to change anyone's mind with regard to either of these turd throwers. Instead it's just a small attempt to get others to adopt the same technique which in the long run will (in my less than humble opinion) provide some small measure of additional fairness.
I apologize to you for the lack of decorum with regard to language. However, I really felt the strongest possible words were necessary here. These two children have been negging me for no other reason than I've continued to challenge them for their behavior.
In general, I don't look to my feedback rating for much reason except (as you mention) in the hope that I don't receive neg from a respected member. In general, the only negative rep that bothered me was for an argument where I couldn't convince trout with regard to some minor but specific word usage (a simplification of the issue for sure).
So overall, with those three exceptions, I accept and can own my reputation for whatever it is. But this isn't about my reputation. Specifically, it is with regard to the feedback they gave the new user who was simply trying to bounce ideas around for his sci-fi story. Whether or not that particular user understood the principles or even the suggestions/direction made to him certainly didn't justify the negs both of these miscreant little babies gave him. I'd pos'd somebody yesterday for the same reason (I don't remember who).
So this thread is a natural outgrowth of all that. I certainly don't expect to change anyone's mind with regard to either of these turd throwers. Instead it's just a small attempt to get others to adopt the same technique which in the long run will (in my less than humble opinion) provide some small measure of additional fairness.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 03:32 PM)
They are both sockpuppets of other users that accumulated enough warnings for their bad behavior here. So they create new names and keep dropping their smelly turds all over the place?
And of course you can prove this yes?
And of course you can prove this yes?
uaafanblog,
I was prepared to discuss my feedback to you in a civil manner. It is important for you to understand, that you, yourself, have posted negative feedback with little or no provocation. I believe you can count on one hand the number of posters I have given negative feedback to. You were one of them.
I was prepared to discuss my feedback to you in a civil manner. It is important for you to understand, that you, yourself, have posted negative feedback with little or no provocation. I believe you can count on one hand the number of posters I have given negative feedback to. You were one of them.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 5 2009, 09:13 PM)
Since the jerkoff sockpuppets Mollypants and Bivalves are apparently welcome by rpenner to run rampant as if this were their private sandbox ...
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
Wow. You're really unstable. Not only do you follow me from thread to thread making trolling posts, but you even start a thread to badmouth me. I am nobody's sockpuppet, every single neg I've ever given has been for a good reason (even if I don't bother to explain it), and I have the common sense and integrity to not compose threads whining and bitching about people's attitudes, while simultaniously calling them "vilecunts," or "turd throwers."
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
Wow. You're really unstable. Not only do you follow me from thread to thread making trolling posts, but you even start a thread to badmouth me. I am nobody's sockpuppet, every single neg I've ever given has been for a good reason (even if I don't bother to explain it), and I have the common sense and integrity to not compose threads whining and bitching about people's attitudes, while simultaniously calling them "vilecunts," or "turd throwers."
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 5 2009, 06:09 PM)
And of course you can prove this yes?
I don't know if I can prove it or not.
There is one instance I read where rpenner directly asked bivalves if his new moniker was an attempt to avoid moderation of the GeoffMollusc account which bivalves answered with a plea and some sort of response to only use the bivalves account.
In the other turd throwers case, when I last accused him of being BDW and incorrectly asserted that BDW had been "banned" (which we all know he is anyway ... regardless of proof) he immediately switched accounts to BDW to answer and say he'd never been banned.
In GeoffMollusc/bivalves case, I think that's some sort of proof. Perhaps rpenner can correct me if I'm wrong there. In BDW/MollyPants case it's purely circumstantial. I'd imagine if I wanted to spend any time researching the case, that a some other correlations would turn up. But I won't.
The point here is that they're clearly welcome by our esteemed moderator to continue their activities. Fine and dandy. I see no reason why I shouldn't be free to encourage other posters who see things the same to adopt the same feedback policy that I have with regard to them.
Derek:
You can feel free to neg me anytime you want. There's more than a couple of propositions that I've seen you make here that I virulently disagree with but other than the ease with which you threw around the word coward I can't remember any particular hypocrisy on your case. I don't quite understand the reason for your post in this thread but of course you're entitled to have your input. In the grand scheme of things this place would be better off with 50 people like you versus either one of the posters in question. And yes ... I'd say that my use of the feedback system has been inconsistent at best both in terms of giving positives and negatives. In some sense, I hope that I as time as past I've evolved somewhat with regard to it's use. If not, then perhaps its a sign of some minor hypocrisy on my part. I hope not. But (and I've said this here before) all us humans incorporate some variable levels of hypocrisy from time to time.
I don't know if I can prove it or not.
There is one instance I read where rpenner directly asked bivalves if his new moniker was an attempt to avoid moderation of the GeoffMollusc account which bivalves answered with a plea and some sort of response to only use the bivalves account.
In the other turd throwers case, when I last accused him of being BDW and incorrectly asserted that BDW had been "banned" (which we all know he is anyway ... regardless of proof) he immediately switched accounts to BDW to answer and say he'd never been banned.
In GeoffMollusc/bivalves case, I think that's some sort of proof. Perhaps rpenner can correct me if I'm wrong there. In BDW/MollyPants case it's purely circumstantial. I'd imagine if I wanted to spend any time researching the case, that a some other correlations would turn up. But I won't.
The point here is that they're clearly welcome by our esteemed moderator to continue their activities. Fine and dandy. I see no reason why I shouldn't be free to encourage other posters who see things the same to adopt the same feedback policy that I have with regard to them.
Derek:
You can feel free to neg me anytime you want. There's more than a couple of propositions that I've seen you make here that I virulently disagree with but other than the ease with which you threw around the word coward I can't remember any particular hypocrisy on your case. I don't quite understand the reason for your post in this thread but of course you're entitled to have your input. In the grand scheme of things this place would be better off with 50 people like you versus either one of the posters in question. And yes ... I'd say that my use of the feedback system has been inconsistent at best both in terms of giving positives and negatives. In some sense, I hope that I as time as past I've evolved somewhat with regard to it's use. If not, then perhaps its a sign of some minor hypocrisy on my part. I hope not. But (and I've said this here before) all us humans incorporate some variable levels of hypocrisy from time to time.
QUOTE
Wow. You're really unstable. Not only do you follow me from thread to thread making trolling posts, but you even start a thread to badmouth me.
YOU calling me unstable is rich. Follow you from thread to thread? That's hilarious. You're in every thread. And as is clear, this isn't a thread "to badmouth you". Did I "badmouth you" in it? Yep. It's a thread to encourage others to counteract your ongoing use of the feedback system which discourages anyone who oversteps whatever bounds you've decided violate the culture of this place. You seem to enjoy somehow intimidating new posters in particular (and I'll readily admit many new posters make some ridiculous first posts here).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wow. You're really unstable. Not only do you follow me from thread to thread making trolling posts, but you even start a thread to badmouth me. |
YOU calling me unstable is rich. Follow you from thread to thread? That's hilarious. You're in every thread. And as is clear, this isn't a thread "to badmouth you". Did I "badmouth you" in it? Yep. It's a thread to encourage others to counteract your ongoing use of the feedback system which discourages anyone who oversteps whatever bounds you've decided violate the culture of this place. You seem to enjoy somehow intimidating new posters in particular (and I'll readily admit many new posters make some ridiculous first posts here).
I am nobody's sockpuppet,
Yes you are.
QUOTE
every single neg I've ever given has been for a good reason (even if I don't bother to explain it),
I have no doubt your twisted rationalizing makes this true from your perspective. That's kinda sad.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| every single neg I've ever given has been for a good reason (even if I don't bother to explain it), |
I have no doubt your twisted rationalizing makes this true from your perspective. That's kinda sad.
and I have the common sense and integrity
You don't have the common sense to follow mommy's advice when she told you "if you don't have anything good to say then say nothing at all". And to claim "integrity" in any way when it's clear that you avoided banishment by creating a new account is ironically funny. Thanks for the laugh Mr. Integrity.
QUOTE
to not compose threads whining and bitching about people's attitudes, while simultaniously calling them "vilecunts," or "turd throwers."
Jealous much? Wish you'd thought of "turd thrower"? And again, for emphasis (since your insipid mind can't grasp this), this thread isn't whining or bitching about your attitude. It's clearly an appeal for others who feel the same way I do to use the feedback system to counter your ongoing negativity which in my view makes this place less welcoming than it otherwise could be.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 07:08 AM)
Derek:
You can feel free to neg me anytime you want. There's more than a couple of propositions that I've seen you make here that I virulently disagree with but other than the ease with which you threw around the word coward I can't remember any particular hypocrisy on your case. I don't quite understand the reason for your post in this thread but of course you're entitled to have your input. In the grand scheme of things this place would be better off with 50 people like you versus either one of the posters in question. And yes ... I'd say that my use of the feedback system has been inconsistent at best both in terms of giving positives and negatives. In some sense, I hope that I as time as past I've evolved somewhat with regard to it's use. If not, then perhaps its a sign of some minor hypocrisy on my part. I hope not. But (and I've said this here before) all us humans incorporate some variable levels of hypocrisy from time to time.
It appears that you think you have now chosen a noble course. The defense of those whom are indefensible.
But my problem with you was a comment you made about a young girl? Some individuals are potential targets simply by their celebrity. But regardless some level of decency is required in a civilized society.
You can feel free to neg me anytime you want. There's more than a couple of propositions that I've seen you make here that I virulently disagree with but other than the ease with which you threw around the word coward I can't remember any particular hypocrisy on your case. I don't quite understand the reason for your post in this thread but of course you're entitled to have your input. In the grand scheme of things this place would be better off with 50 people like you versus either one of the posters in question. And yes ... I'd say that my use of the feedback system has been inconsistent at best both in terms of giving positives and negatives. In some sense, I hope that I as time as past I've evolved somewhat with regard to it's use. If not, then perhaps its a sign of some minor hypocrisy on my part. I hope not. But (and I've said this here before) all us humans incorporate some variable levels of hypocrisy from time to time.
It appears that you think you have now chosen a noble course. The defense of those whom are indefensible.
But my problem with you was a comment you made about a young girl? Some individuals are potential targets simply by their celebrity. But regardless some level of decency is required in a civilized society.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Dec 5 2009, 10:53 PM)
It appears that you think you have now chosen a noble course. The defense of those whom are indefensible.
But my problem with you was a comment you made about a young girl? Some individuals are potential targets simply by their celebrity. But regardless some level of decency is required in a civilized society.
I don't recall, doubtless that means it was quite some time ago (though I'll admit my memory isn't what it once was).
And no, I don't think my course here (in this or any thread) has any noble function in any way shape or form. I came here originally to learn. I try to limit my participation to subjects where I feel I have something relevant to say and/or to represent viewpoints which I hold as important.
As I hope I've made clear, there are many new posters here that make ridiculous first posts and quite often deserve the loads of negs they receive. I think it's clear that the point of this thread is very specifically limited to two posters in particular. I cannot classify their behavior with regard to feedback as anything other than unfair.
This thread is only to encourage others who feel the same way I do about these two posters to counteract their ongoing negativity in the feedback system. In that sense, your observation that some level of decency is required is dead on right. Such levels are entirely subjective though ... and from my perspective both of the named posters exceed it regularly enough for me to rationalize starting this thread.
But my problem with you was a comment you made about a young girl? Some individuals are potential targets simply by their celebrity. But regardless some level of decency is required in a civilized society.
I don't recall, doubtless that means it was quite some time ago (though I'll admit my memory isn't what it once was).
And no, I don't think my course here (in this or any thread) has any noble function in any way shape or form. I came here originally to learn. I try to limit my participation to subjects where I feel I have something relevant to say and/or to represent viewpoints which I hold as important.
As I hope I've made clear, there are many new posters here that make ridiculous first posts and quite often deserve the loads of negs they receive. I think it's clear that the point of this thread is very specifically limited to two posters in particular. I cannot classify their behavior with regard to feedback as anything other than unfair.
This thread is only to encourage others who feel the same way I do about these two posters to counteract their ongoing negativity in the feedback system. In that sense, your observation that some level of decency is required is dead on right. Such levels are entirely subjective though ... and from my perspective both of the named posters exceed it regularly enough for me to rationalize starting this thread.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 08:09 AM)
I don't recall, doubtless that means it was quite some time ago (though I'll admit my memory isn't what it once was).
And no, I don't think my course here (in this or any thread) has any noble function in any way shape or form. I came here originally to learn. I try to limit my participation to subjects where I feel I have something relevant to say and/or to represent viewpoints which I hold as important.
As I hope I've made clear, there are many new posters here that make ridiculous first posts and quite often deserve the loads of negs they receive. I think it's clear that the point of this thread is very specifically limited to two posters in particular. I cannot classify their behavior with regard to feedback as anything other than unfair.
This thread is only to encourage others who feel the same way I do about these two posters to counteract their ongoing negativity in the feedback system. In that sense, your observation that some level of decency is required is dead on right. Such levels are entirely subjective though ... and from my perspective both of the named posters exceed it regularly enough for me to rationalize starting this thread.
Well, do you retract some of your earlier slurs?
(I understand the purpose of this thread. And I believe it is pointless).
And no, I don't think my course here (in this or any thread) has any noble function in any way shape or form. I came here originally to learn. I try to limit my participation to subjects where I feel I have something relevant to say and/or to represent viewpoints which I hold as important.
As I hope I've made clear, there are many new posters here that make ridiculous first posts and quite often deserve the loads of negs they receive. I think it's clear that the point of this thread is very specifically limited to two posters in particular. I cannot classify their behavior with regard to feedback as anything other than unfair.
This thread is only to encourage others who feel the same way I do about these two posters to counteract their ongoing negativity in the feedback system. In that sense, your observation that some level of decency is required is dead on right. Such levels are entirely subjective though ... and from my perspective both of the named posters exceed it regularly enough for me to rationalize starting this thread.
Well, do you retract some of your earlier slurs?
(I understand the purpose of this thread. And I believe it is pointless).
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 02:13 AM)
Since the jerkoff sockpuppets Mollypants and Bivalves are apparently welcome by rpenner to run rampant as if this were their private sandbox ...
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
I simply don't know what you mean? - I've always considered myself an affable, gracious, most civilized type and possess an exceedingly refined genteel nature that others find pleasant and engaging.
Sweet dreams.
It occurs to me that a collective effort on the part of reasoned folks here can counteract at least some of the shite with which they foul this place. So from now on, anytime I happen to notice that they've given ANYONE negative feedback for ANY REASON, I will give that person positive feedback for no other reason than to counter theirs.
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
I simply don't know what you mean? - I've always considered myself an affable, gracious, most civilized type and possess an exceedingly refined genteel nature that others find pleasant and engaging.Sweet dreams.
MJ has been here as Mj for over a year and a half. He's posted 4 times as many posts as you have, UAAFB.
So who is he supposed to be a sockpuppet of?
So who is he supposed to be a sockpuppet of?
I believe he is rpenner. That is how he avoids banishment.
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 5 2009, 11:28 PM)
MJ has been here as Mj for over a year and a half. He's posted 4 times as many posts as you have, UAAFB.
So who is he supposed to be a sockpuppet of?
A post count argument? That's supposed to mean what?
Your question has been answered above but I'll say it again ... BDW.
So who is he supposed to be a sockpuppet of?
A post count argument? That's supposed to mean what?
Your question has been answered above but I'll say it again ... BDW.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Dec 5 2009, 11:27 PM)
Well, do you retract some of your earlier slurs?
(I understand the purpose of this thread. And I believe it is pointless).
Which earlier "slurs" are you asking about? So far, you've mentioned something that I said about some young girl and have been entirely unspecific. You don't have to search it out ... just tell me what you remember me saying. I'll happily address it ... but as I said above I don't remember the instance you mentioned.
And sure ... perhaps it is pointless. But maybe ... just maybe ... one other person will counteract some unfair neg feedback that one or both of those posters has given. In that case, it served some relatively minor purpose I suppose.
(I understand the purpose of this thread. And I believe it is pointless).
Which earlier "slurs" are you asking about? So far, you've mentioned something that I said about some young girl and have been entirely unspecific. You don't have to search it out ... just tell me what you remember me saying. I'll happily address it ... but as I said above I don't remember the instance you mentioned.
And sure ... perhaps it is pointless. But maybe ... just maybe ... one other person will counteract some unfair neg feedback that one or both of those posters has given. In that case, it served some relatively minor purpose I suppose.
QUOTE
A post count argument? That's supposed to mean what?
It's more of a time argument.
You are saying that MJ is actually another poster using a different name then previously. But since we are all using made up names, and MJ has been posting with is current name for over a year and a half, claiming that he's really another made up name seems sort of lame. And pointless.
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 6 2009, 12:13 AM)
It's more of a time argument.
You are saying that MJ is actually another poster using a different name then previously. But since we are all using made up names, and MJ has been posting with is current name for over a year and a half, claiming that he's really another made up name seems sort of lame. And pointless.
It would be pointless if the previous name didn't have an 80% warning and his current name has a 20% warning. The new account is the method to get around moderation. Like I said, (if you had read the whole thread) rpenner appears to be ok with it. In that case, fine and dandy. I'm not the moderator.
But as a member in relative good standing I don't think it's out of line to encourage other posters that feel the same way as I do about these two posters to use the feedback system as I've described. <----- not saying that again since it's like the 3rd or 4th time.
Hi uaafanblog,
I take the OP as a manifestation of integrity/altruism - never a bad thing (unless you lack one or both qualities).
It is unfortunate that any attempt to deal with what Mr Homm described as "nonsense" just seems to add to it.
-C2.
I take the OP as a manifestation of integrity/altruism - never a bad thing (unless you lack one or both qualities).
It is unfortunate that any attempt to deal with what Mr Homm described as "nonsense" just seems to add to it.
-C2.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 08:08 PM)
I don't know if I can prove it or not.
There is one instance I read where rpenner directly asked bivalves if his new moniker was an attempt to avoid moderation of the GeoffMollusc account which bivalves answered with a plea and some sort of response to only use the bivalves account.
In the other turd throwers case, when I last accused him of being BDW and incorrectly asserted that BDW had been "banned" (which we all know he is anyway ... regardless of proof) he immediately switched accounts to BDW to answer and say he'd never been banned.
In GeoffMollusc/bivalves case, I think that's some sort of proof. Perhaps rpenner can correct me if I'm wrong there. In BDW/MollyPants case it's purely circumstantial. I'd imagine if I wanted to spend any time researching the case, that a some other correlations would turn up. But I won't.
The point here is that they're clearly welcome by our esteemed moderator to continue their activities. Fine and dandy. I see no reason why I shouldn't be free to encourage other posters who see things the same to adopt the same feedback policy that I have with regard to them.
So, in other words.
You've got no proof, and you have no intention of trying to prove it.
All you have is an assumption.
So what if Bivalves is Geoff Mollusc? What has that got to do with the price of fish? Do you have some sort of proof that Geoff Mollusc was a sockpuppet of Mjolnr Pants?
There is one instance I read where rpenner directly asked bivalves if his new moniker was an attempt to avoid moderation of the GeoffMollusc account which bivalves answered with a plea and some sort of response to only use the bivalves account.
In the other turd throwers case, when I last accused him of being BDW and incorrectly asserted that BDW had been "banned" (which we all know he is anyway ... regardless of proof) he immediately switched accounts to BDW to answer and say he'd never been banned.
In GeoffMollusc/bivalves case, I think that's some sort of proof. Perhaps rpenner can correct me if I'm wrong there. In BDW/MollyPants case it's purely circumstantial. I'd imagine if I wanted to spend any time researching the case, that a some other correlations would turn up. But I won't.
The point here is that they're clearly welcome by our esteemed moderator to continue their activities. Fine and dandy. I see no reason why I shouldn't be free to encourage other posters who see things the same to adopt the same feedback policy that I have with regard to them.
So, in other words.
You've got no proof, and you have no intention of trying to prove it.
All you have is an assumption.
So what if Bivalves is Geoff Mollusc? What has that got to do with the price of fish? Do you have some sort of proof that Geoff Mollusc was a sockpuppet of Mjolnr Pants?
I am curious uaafanblog.
Are you objecting to MP's posts or his use of the feedback system?
If the former, I don't really see the problem. I have not seen all of MP's posts obviously, and I sometimes object to some of the language used (much as I object to the language you have not ceased using in this thread)... however I have yet to see him post something that I consider overly objectionable. Many of his posts have been very informative, which is largely the reason I am here... for information.
If the latter, it's a rather puerile point. The feedback system is only really a measure of how popular your views are. Depending on whom the reviewer is, it can be a measure of how rational your point of view is... often in an inverse correlation if you happen to irk the more fanatical set.
Assuming that the new posters are adults, I think most people should be able to handle the occasional negative comment. If not... they have a much harder lesson to learn if they ever actually reach for academia or even the workplace.
RE the sockpuppet claim.
It is a staple of every competitive area, whether in sports, academia or even social gatherings that people always feel that the arbiters are biased either against them or with someone else.
In competitive martial arts, it is a common, in fact regular, feature to have people complain about the judges. This is why I prefer full contact over point fighting when I compete. It's harder to claim injustice when someone is unconscious. It removes doubt and clarifies matters greatly.
It's too bad we can't do that here. There have been several instances where it would have been handy.
Are you objecting to MP's posts or his use of the feedback system?
If the former, I don't really see the problem. I have not seen all of MP's posts obviously, and I sometimes object to some of the language used (much as I object to the language you have not ceased using in this thread)... however I have yet to see him post something that I consider overly objectionable. Many of his posts have been very informative, which is largely the reason I am here... for information.
If the latter, it's a rather puerile point. The feedback system is only really a measure of how popular your views are. Depending on whom the reviewer is, it can be a measure of how rational your point of view is... often in an inverse correlation if you happen to irk the more fanatical set.
Assuming that the new posters are adults, I think most people should be able to handle the occasional negative comment. If not... they have a much harder lesson to learn if they ever actually reach for academia or even the workplace.
RE the sockpuppet claim.
It is a staple of every competitive area, whether in sports, academia or even social gatherings that people always feel that the arbiters are biased either against them or with someone else.
In competitive martial arts, it is a common, in fact regular, feature to have people complain about the judges. This is why I prefer full contact over point fighting when I compete. It's harder to claim injustice when someone is unconscious. It removes doubt and clarifies matters greatly.
It's too bad we can't do that here. There have been several instances where it would have been handy.
Uaafanblog, don't adopt red headed problem childs, unless they belong to you.
Good luck.
Good luck.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 6 2009, 02:13 AM)
I encourage others to join me in picking up the turds that these two children leave in the sandbox. Don't even comment if you don't feel like it. Just hit that positive button anytime you see this vilecunts leave a neg for anyone. Even if the ***** they negged deserved it.
So , what's your problem? It is obvious that you are a crank ready to jump to defend the other cranks in this forum. You made that pretty clear, look at your haste to help out the Jack Heathcock crank.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Dec 6 2009, 05:03 PM)
This is why I prefer full contact over point fighting when I compete.
I agree. Point doesn't take into account power or ability to take a punch. It only requires speed.
I agree. Point doesn't take into account power or ability to take a punch. It only requires speed.
And so it carries on..
QUOTE (Trippy+)
Do you have some sort of proof that Geoff Mollusc was a sockpuppet of Mjolnr Pants?
That must have taken a lot of integrity.
-C2.
That must have taken a lot of integrity.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 7 2009, 07:02 AM)
And so it carries on..
QUOTE (Trippy+)
Do you have some sort of proof that Geoff Mollusc was a sockpuppet of Mjolnr Pants?
That must have taken a lot of integrity.
-C2.
*** are you on, or on about?
That must have taken a lot of integrity.
-C2.
*** are you on, or on about?
Your post:- obfuscation*.
My post:- sarcasm.
*from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obfuscation
obfuscation:- To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
My post:- sarcasm.
*from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obfuscation
obfuscation:- To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 7 2009, 07:45 AM)
Your post:- obfuscation*.
My post:- sarcasm.
*from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obfuscation
obfuscation:- To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
I'm familiar with the meaning of obfuscation.
You're effectively accusing me of being a liar.
So, asking someone to provide proof of an accusation is Obfuscation?
Really?
Asking someone to clarify why they think what they do is making the situation confused, opaque, or difficult to understand?
You live in a strange strange world.
My post:- sarcasm.
*from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obfuscation
obfuscation:- To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth" (Robert Conquest).
I'm familiar with the meaning of obfuscation.
You're effectively accusing me of being a liar.
So, asking someone to provide proof of an accusation is Obfuscation?
Really?
Asking someone to clarify why they think what they do is making the situation confused, opaque, or difficult to understand?
You live in a strange strange world.
And you continue...
Has anyone (apart from yourself) ever suggested the Mollypants and Bivalves are the same person?
-C2.
Has anyone (apart from yourself) ever suggested the Mollypants and Bivalves are the same person?
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 7 2009, 07:53 AM)
And you continue...
Has anyone (apart from yourself) ever suggested the Mollypants and Bivalves are the same person?
-C2.
Actually, I just went back and re-read the conversation I was having with uaafanblog, and as it turns out, I misread something uaafanblog posted, and we were initially talking at cross purposes.
A simple miscommunication, which falls far short of justifying your accusations of deliberate dishonesty.
Has anyone (apart from yourself) ever suggested the Mollypants and Bivalves are the same person?
-C2.
Actually, I just went back and re-read the conversation I was having with uaafanblog, and as it turns out, I misread something uaafanblog posted, and we were initially talking at cross purposes.
A simple miscommunication, which falls far short of justifying your accusations of deliberate dishonesty.
Instead of stating your belief that bivalves and Mollypants are not the same person you asked for proof of something that (it seems) you know to be false - this isn't getting any better.
-C2.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 7 2009, 08:53 AM)
Instead of stating your belief that bivalves and Mollypants are not the same person you asked for proof of something that (it seems) you know to be false - this isn't getting any better.
-C2.
What are you going on about?
You're making less and less sense.
I misunderstood what uaafanblog was saying.
I thought he was asserting that MP and George Mollusc were the same person.
I asked him to prove that assertion.
As it turns out, I misunderstood what he was saying.
Seriously. You're making oceanic basins out of golf course divets.
Man up, admit your assertion that I was being deliberately dishonest was mistaken and move along.
-C2.
What are you going on about?
You're making less and less sense.
I misunderstood what uaafanblog was saying.
I thought he was asserting that MP and George Mollusc were the same person.
I asked him to prove that assertion.
As it turns out, I misunderstood what he was saying.
Seriously. You're making oceanic basins out of golf course divets.
Man up, admit your assertion that I was being deliberately dishonest was mistaken and move along.
Sufficient obfuscation for today - thanks.
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 7 2009, 09:19 AM)
Sufficient obfuscation for today - thanks.
So asking someone to provide proof of an allegation that I believe to be erroneous is obfuscatory?
Really?
English is your first language isn't it?
Again, with the provably (and proven) allegations of deliberate dishonesty.
Please, either back your allegations with proof, or stop making them.
So asking someone to provide proof of an allegation that I believe to be erroneous is obfuscatory?
Really?
English is your first language isn't it?
Again, with the provably (and proven) allegations of deliberate dishonesty.
Please, either back your allegations with proof, or stop making them.
I should start a new thread, a la Coberst, entitled "Is Physorg Becoming a Cult of Personality? Led by MjolnirPants." There seems to be some precedent for it...
There's two discussions currently ongoing about me personally, and I honestly couldn't count the total number since I've been here. It must be in the dozens, at least.
I'm a bit pleased that I'm capable of convincing so many people to talk about me, but I'm also a little disturbed by how much some of those people seem to care about it. I understand that in puberty, it's normal for people to develop strong attachments to celebrities or fictional characters. I cannot tell you how common it is for me to overhear people discussing the merit of the two romantic interests of the lead character in the new Twilight movie. Some go on and on about how great one is, while some vociferously trash one, and some engage in a combination of both.
But the thing is, all these people I overhear are young girls. Teenagers, mostly, though a few might be in their early twenties. All seem well-dressed and to come from well-off families.
If someone doesn't like me, they don't like me. That's fine by me, I don't like everyone here. But to create entire threads about it and engage in trolling? It really does not reflect well upon someone who purports to be an adult (even if by favorably comparing themselves to others whom they label as immature or young) that they shows the same behavior as a teenage girl.
There's two discussions currently ongoing about me personally, and I honestly couldn't count the total number since I've been here. It must be in the dozens, at least.
I'm a bit pleased that I'm capable of convincing so many people to talk about me, but I'm also a little disturbed by how much some of those people seem to care about it. I understand that in puberty, it's normal for people to develop strong attachments to celebrities or fictional characters. I cannot tell you how common it is for me to overhear people discussing the merit of the two romantic interests of the lead character in the new Twilight movie. Some go on and on about how great one is, while some vociferously trash one, and some engage in a combination of both.
But the thing is, all these people I overhear are young girls. Teenagers, mostly, though a few might be in their early twenties. All seem well-dressed and to come from well-off families.
If someone doesn't like me, they don't like me. That's fine by me, I don't like everyone here. But to create entire threads about it and engage in trolling? It really does not reflect well upon someone who purports to be an adult (even if by favorably comparing themselves to others whom they label as immature or young) that they shows the same behavior as a teenage girl.
QUOTE (Trout+Dec 6 2009, 08:36 AM)
So , what's your problem? It is obvious that you are a crank ready to jump to defend the other cranks in this forum. You made that pretty clear, look at your haste to help out the Jack Heathcock crank.
Your perceptions about who is a "crank" are seriously flawed. Jack may certainly lack some necessary understanding and honestly failed to communicate clearly. But he certainly isn't advocating for some view based on little or no evidence. Cranks do that. Dummies don't. So at worst Jack is a dummy. And in my book that's a couple of steps above crank.
But there's no surprise you'd call him a crank. You call me a crank. And I've never come close to being one. Have I defended some viewpoints or posters that might be cranky? Yeah. I have. Have a couple of those instances been misguided? Probably so.
But in the face of the continued arrogance of certain elements here I feel justified for having tried.
Your perceptions about who is a "crank" are seriously flawed. Jack may certainly lack some necessary understanding and honestly failed to communicate clearly. But he certainly isn't advocating for some view based on little or no evidence. Cranks do that. Dummies don't. So at worst Jack is a dummy. And in my book that's a couple of steps above crank.
But there's no surprise you'd call him a crank. You call me a crank. And I've never come close to being one. Have I defended some viewpoints or posters that might be cranky? Yeah. I have. Have a couple of those instances been misguided? Probably so.
But in the face of the continued arrogance of certain elements here I feel justified for having tried.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Dec 7 2009, 02:17 AM)
Your perceptions about who is a "crank" are seriously flawed. Jack may certainly lack some necessary understanding and honestly failed to communicate clearly. But he certainly isn't advocating for some view based on little or no evidence. Cranks do that. Dummies don't. So at worst Jack is a dummy. And in my book that's a couple of steps above crank.
Sure he is. Dishonest as well.
Yes, quite a few (bukh, RseCheck and now, Jack come to mind).
Sure he is. Dishonest as well.
QUOTE
Have I defended some viewpoints or posters that might be cranky? Yeah. I have. Have a couple of those instances been misguided? Probably so.
Yes, quite a few (bukh, RseCheck and now, Jack come to mind).
QUOTE (Trout+Dec 6 2009, 08:42 PM)
Yes, quite a few (bukh, RseCheck and now, Jack come to mind).
I don't think you see it; but, much of what I see from you tells me that you absolutely don't believe that anyone with less than a substantial physics background can make any salient observations about the matters discussed here. I think that's a shame. And at the risk of repetition ... I fully recognize that lots of absolute twaddle shows up here.
But I disagree that my engagement of anyone you've listed makes me a crank or by any means encourages them. How often do you see me preface nearly every such encounter with an acknowledgement of my ignorance. I make a concerted effort to be a question asker versus an answer giver with regard to any substantive physics discussion (most of which I just read). And I don't think I've ever challenged your observations regarding someone else's twaddle. In fact, the only argument we had was basically with regard to a "word".
I readily admit that I want the universe to be smaller and that I "believe" electricity plays a larger role in things than we currently understand. But I don't propagate those views. I don't answer JoeBlowNewUser's Big Bang questions by jumping in and saying it didn't happen. If I get into a physics discussion (rarely) I discuss things from the Standard Model's perspective. So, yeah; like I said ... I may have some "cranky" ideas but I'm not a crank. If I wanted to have a pissing contest, I'd call you a Big Bang Dogmatist. But I don't. Continue to call me a crank as you wish ... you're wrong to do so. And once again, this thread really has nothing to do with that.
You discard things out of hand. Pearls can be found in rotting oysters. It's nasty to have to go through them. One's hands end up stinking. But wouldn't you rather have smelly fingers and a pearl than no stink and no pearl? <--- rhetorical
I don't think you see it; but, much of what I see from you tells me that you absolutely don't believe that anyone with less than a substantial physics background can make any salient observations about the matters discussed here. I think that's a shame. And at the risk of repetition ... I fully recognize that lots of absolute twaddle shows up here.
But I disagree that my engagement of anyone you've listed makes me a crank or by any means encourages them. How often do you see me preface nearly every such encounter with an acknowledgement of my ignorance. I make a concerted effort to be a question asker versus an answer giver with regard to any substantive physics discussion (most of which I just read). And I don't think I've ever challenged your observations regarding someone else's twaddle. In fact, the only argument we had was basically with regard to a "word".
I readily admit that I want the universe to be smaller and that I "believe" electricity plays a larger role in things than we currently understand. But I don't propagate those views. I don't answer JoeBlowNewUser's Big Bang questions by jumping in and saying it didn't happen. If I get into a physics discussion (rarely) I discuss things from the Standard Model's perspective. So, yeah; like I said ... I may have some "cranky" ideas but I'm not a crank. If I wanted to have a pissing contest, I'd call you a Big Bang Dogmatist. But I don't. Continue to call me a crank as you wish ... you're wrong to do so. And once again, this thread really has nothing to do with that.
You discard things out of hand. Pearls can be found in rotting oysters. It's nasty to have to go through them. One's hands end up stinking. But wouldn't you rather have smelly fingers and a pearl than no stink and no pearl? <--- rhetorical
You know... I am going to defend uaafanblog's point in a limited fashion here because I think he has a point in this last post.
I do not think it is a bad thing to have people ask stupid questions or even post ridiculous theories... with one proviso.
When someone who actually knows what they are talking about, or even someone who responds with a fact based argument, shows the theory to be false... it should be incumbent on the poster to either withdraw, respond with verifiable facts or be kicked out.
Being ignorant is not the problem. Staying ignorant is.
Also, there are a number of counter arguments that are fallacies that cranks love to use that should also never be allowed.
1. Scientists don't know everything so I might be right.
2. Einstein (or scientist X) believed in thinking outside the norms so I am doing like him.
3. Current science is wrong.
I am sure there are a few more that should simply be driven out of forums like this. Anyone else got any?
I do not think it is a bad thing to have people ask stupid questions or even post ridiculous theories... with one proviso.
When someone who actually knows what they are talking about, or even someone who responds with a fact based argument, shows the theory to be false... it should be incumbent on the poster to either withdraw, respond with verifiable facts or be kicked out.
Being ignorant is not the problem. Staying ignorant is.
Also, there are a number of counter arguments that are fallacies that cranks love to use that should also never be allowed.
1. Scientists don't know everything so I might be right.
2. Einstein (or scientist X) believed in thinking outside the norms so I am doing like him.
3. Current science is wrong.
I am sure there are a few more that should simply be driven out of forums like this. Anyone else got any?
Suprisingly i was -ve'd by the OP in my 1st few weeks of posting over a missunderstanding.....
I even returned the +ve..
This thread makes me laugh
I even returned the +ve..
This thread makes me laugh
QUOTE (Matador+Dec 8 2009, 11:05 PM)
Suprisingly i was -ve'd by the OP in my 1st few weeks of posting over a missunderstanding.....
I'm a flawed, imperfect human being.
I'm a flawed, imperfect human being.
Quite understandable. We all make mistakes. 
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.