Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

Keep the comments brief. Suggestions and Questions are ok, but try and avoid Discussions. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC!!!)" to topic title.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change previous edit to be in red.Edited by Admin, : Shorten title - I'm testing the theory that the admonition in the title that this is not a discussion topic is leading people to mistakenly conclude they shouldn't post here.

There is way too much snark in his posts; it is totally unproductive, and wears thin very quickly. Here's an example: Message 144

No, Tacky. Every experiment indicates waves thereby indicating there is a medium that allows the waving. No ether is postulated in the hypothesis. Your span of attention is too short. It is double helix ropes connecting all the atoms that is conceptualised, not ether as ether is contradictory too.

​

You are talking through your hat again. Photons are but mathematical entities. Remember, in the theory they are only counted and do not do any travelling anyway. It's waves again that propagate. That needs a medium necessarily. That is clear since there is no handless shake coming from you lot in my post. Only your usual spewing of second hand nonsense.

​

That is why the ropes are conceptualised rationally explaining a lot of phenomena as a result . If you can come up with a better explanation including a better fitting medium, please do. Until that time the Gaede's ropes trump anything else.

I really need someone to provide me a link where I can translate Alfred Maddenstein's posts from the original gibberish into English.That thread is in Is It Science?. The Alfred Maddenstein posts are more appropiate for Free For All.

It's elementary banking, Coy. You get interest on investments. In this case snark investors are numerous, the effort of you lot is collective, business is good. So interests are mushrooming and paid back galore.

The nature of gravity and physical architecture of light is a fundamental unresolved issue of science. Of course, it is free for all. You are welcome to contribute to the solution too. Might be harder than being a grass though.

Message 318
and the following 2 posts.Really?
How long must we have to put up with this with absolutely no moderator action?

Probably until someone complains.

I've been on it since Saturday. Kafh2u returned a few days ago and immediately began participating in nine different threads. I've been asking him to get on-topic in a couple threads, and I've asked him to cease participating in another couple, though he's arguing. I'm a participant in other threads and so have requested assistance from other moderators.In the meantime, it would help if members could just ignore the more off-topic or nonsensical posts from Kafh2u.

Just saw the thread for the unregistered to leave a message re Buzsaw.Touching gesture. I admit I started to choke up.Class act, Moose. Good show.

From here.Accusation of personal vendettas and calling other participants liars does not seem to be in keeping with treating other members with respect.

I'm currently on a train, but I would ask moderators to withhold judgement until I've had a chance to detail Rahvin's direct personal attacks in the same thread.

Please, do detail all of the personal attacks I've made in that thread. Please, feel free to quote them.Perhaps I should look through all of your posts in that thread as well, so we can see how many times you accused other participants of not simply being wrong, but of being liars.I have absolutely no fear of moderator action in that thread.

Well, I'm not sure that's a justified confidence.

quote:

---

You carry an awful lot of snark and hostility towards people with whom you largely agree

---

quote:

---

Seriously crash, it's like you read a single phrase of what I quoted and just ignored all of the rest. You noted a single reasonable set of observations and then disregarded all of the outlandish dialogue that was the entire reason for the post. It's like you're a poster child for confirmation bias here.

---

quote:

---

In any case, I see no point in continuing the discussion with you here - you seem to not even be able to acknowledge that some feminists have extreme views regardless of what I or anyone else says, and it's not really on-topic here anyway, just a small tangent at least in my case.

---

quote:

---

"Debating" with him ceases to be anything meaningful and diverges wholly into his equivocation and semantic games.

---

quote:

---

Crash, you are a textbook case of selective vision.

---

"Selective vision" being a form of intellectual dishonesty; Rahvin is literally calling me a liar here.For my own part, I apologize that Rahvin's repeated provocations caused me to post a single, intemperate response in a post addressed to someone else.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I believe that, to have literally called you a "liar," I would have needed to actually use the word "liar.""Selective vision" is more synonymous with "confirmation bias;" I am not in any way accusing you of being intentionally deceptive, which is what the word "liar" actually means, but am instead suggesting to you that your arguments stem from cognitive bias.It's rather like pointing out a logical fallacy. We do that here, on a debate forum. How passive-aggresive.In any case: Mods, I don't necessarily agree with the lack of action, but as this isn't a debate thread, I'll stop participating in this exchange.

Yeah but, you know, that's 'cause crash is a cunt... right? I mean, we all get that, don't we?- Oni