Request for Member Banning...

  • 88 Replies
  • 7148 Views
*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #60 on: January 18, 2014, 01:41:12 PM »

Sceptimatic is a different case but I would judge him to be about 110 with good logical sorting but bad mathematics holding him back still though many of his observations are interesting and valuable to the point that he is good at overcoming real life problems with abstract solutions just like Mr. Eisenstein lol.


I'd guess sceptimatic's IQ at 85, or the bottom of the "average" rating.  He apparently doesn't even understand the very basic tenets of physics or mathematical theory that even a high-school kid can grasp.

And I have to disagree that he's "good at overcoming real life problems".  It's the real life issues and their complexities that repeatedly confound him.  He's incapable of even comprehending the theory of gravity for example—although to everybody else here, that's not a problem LOL.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #61 on: January 18, 2014, 03:07:45 PM »
Is this the insult sceptimatic thread now?
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #62 on: January 18, 2014, 04:16:12 PM »
Is this the insult sceptimatic thread now?

I'm not sure that was an insult.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #63 on: January 18, 2014, 04:19:59 PM »
You're not sure what was an insult?
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #64 on: January 18, 2014, 04:23:20 PM »
You're not sure what was an insult?

The descriptions of sceptimatic here present.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #65 on: January 18, 2014, 04:32:38 PM »
ausGeoff's last post was meant as an insult.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #66 on: January 18, 2014, 04:53:19 PM »
ausGeoff's last post was meant as an insult.
perhaps.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #67 on: January 19, 2014, 04:30:22 AM »
ausGeoff's last post was meant as an insult.

Nope; not at all.  I was only reporting things exactly as I see them.  Nothing more, nothing less.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #68 on: January 19, 2014, 04:41:53 AM »
ausGeoff's last post was meant as an insult.

Nope; not at all.  I was only reporting things exactly as I see them.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm tempted to agree with you ausGeoff. My seven year old has worked out how camera exposure and what happens if you take a picture of a bright object and dim object at the same time. Something that Sceptic refuses to accept.

This pushes me more towards the hypothesis that he is just a bad troll. What adult in this day and age has not used a camera of some description?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #69 on: January 19, 2014, 05:05:22 AM »

What adult in this day and age has not used a camera of some description?


I'll be generous of spirit for a moment, and assume that most if not all flat earthers have used a camera.

Their problem is that many (apparently) have very little understanding of the propagation of light, how it's recorded by the camera's lens and sensor, and how lenses, prisms and/or mirrors work in cameras and lenses.  They also have an issue with reflection and refraction, depth of field and focal plane.  All basics, but necessary to correctly assess and interpret a phtographic image.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #70 on: January 19, 2014, 08:43:36 AM »
ausGeoff's last post was meant as an insult.

Nope; not at all.  I was only reporting things exactly as I see them.  Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not how it works. You created this thread to call for sceptimatic's banning, then you proceed to insult his intelligence. That's not reporting. You don't know sceptimatic. This isn't Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense where you can insult people to your heart's content.

If you think sceptimatic has broken the rules of this forum, then it would be appropriate to report on that. Discussing his IQ is irrelevant and is only meant to be mean. You are attempting to bait him into an argument.

This thread should have been closed days ago. We could use a couple more moderators who haven't abandoned FES for the other site.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #71 on: January 19, 2014, 10:09:08 AM »
you proceed to insult his intelligence.
That's the bit I disagree with.

Discussing his IQ is irrelevant and is only meant to be mean.

Can't disagree with that though.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #72 on: January 19, 2014, 05:05:01 PM »
ausGeoff's last post was meant as an insult.

Nope; not at all.  I was only reporting things exactly as I see them.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm tempted to agree with you ausGeoff. My seven year old has worked out how camera exposure and what happens if you take a picture of a bright object and dim object at the same time. Something that Sceptic refuses to accept.

This pushes me more towards the hypothesis that he is just a bad troll. What adult in this day and age has not used a camera of some description?
 

I will apologize for going back to the old thread about how amateur radio operators were able to determine the distance from the earth to the moon in "Moon Bounce."

But this turned out to be a classic example of FE trollling. They just said "It's impossible." It wasn't just sceptimatic that does the trolling. Of course this was a subject not as familiar as photography but it was a case in which if you don't know anything about a subject you aren't interested in knowing how it works and don't want to know how it works.
This seems to be the impression I got from all the trollling, de-railing, etc. that went on for quite some time on that thread.

If we're going to suggest banning sceptimatic and sculelos for the contents of their posts, we might as well include a whole bunch of other FE's. But again, we shouldn't request banning sceptimatic for that very reason. IMHO this website was supposed to be created for Flat Earthers, but it seems it is evolving more  into a Round Earth Forum.
But the Flat Earthers should still have their say to present their theories on a Flat Earth.

I realize I am taking a 180 degree turn on my suggestion about banning sceptimatic, but I am withdrawing my suggestion for banning sceptimatic. He should remain to provide plenty of material for debating. And I think "We should agree to disagree agreeaby" without a lot of name calling, vulgar language, etc. that both FE's and RE's seem  to display .

You can consider this posting just another case of a great big "IMHO" . Also just some more fuel to the fire for FE's to consider RE's to be weird. LOL.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

QuQu

  • 231
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2014, 03:15:39 AM »
The fact that there is a question in the FAQ "Is this site a joke?" "This site is not a joke." proves that this site is a joke. Therefore no one should be banned. And yes, no name calling referring to members (except sceptimatic ofc, he is a great test subject)

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2014, 03:31:16 AM »

That's not how it works. You created this thread to call for sceptimatic's banning, then you proceed to insult his intelligence. That's not reporting. You don't know sceptimatic. This isn't Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense where you can insult people to your heart's content.

If you think sceptimatic has broken the rules of this forum, then it would be appropriate to report on that. Discussing his IQ is irrelevant and is only meant to be mean. You are attempting to bait him into an argument.


Oh dear..... I've obviously struck a raw nerve with this chick LOL.  Maybe she's sceptimatic's girlfriend?  Or his mommy?

Who could know what's started this over-the-top defense of another member who's been insulting nearly everybody else here for weeks?  And what she doesn't know of course is that I was asked specifically by a moderator to post this thread in the "Suggestions & Concerns"  forum.

But then she obviously never lets common logic get in the way of a good rant.  Tsk, tsk my dear.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2014, 03:53:40 AM »
Maybe she's sceptimatic's girlfriend?

Now this one. This one's definitely insulting.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2014, 04:12:11 AM »
Space Cowgirl is mommy to many of us.  But, that is beside the point. 

aufGeoff, this is a serious forum.  Let's treat each other civilly. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2014, 04:44:27 AM »
Space Cowgirl is mommy to many of us.  But, that is beside the point. 

aufGeoff, this is a serious forum.  Let's treat each other civilly.

Is there any particular reason that sceptimatic's not being held to this standard of civility—despite (presumably) numerous previous warnings?    And haven't I—in the past—fully supported the meaningful content of the FE site as being an important objective?

It would almost seem as though the REs are more interested in upholding the values of the site than many of the FEs in fact.

And I don't really think anyone could agree that suggesting that another member has an IQ of 85 (which is within the "normal adult limits) is insulting, or that claiming they have a very poor knowledge of science and maths as necessarily uncivil.

Both could be true, and in fact do apply to millions of people the world over.  What's the big deal with sceptimatic?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2014, 04:53:14 AM »
I was referring to you calling Space Cowgirl "this chick" and then suggesting that she is another member's girl friend or mommy. 

She was asking you to be less insulting, so you decided to start insulting her instead.  Sceptimatic made a thread for you in the Angry Ranting forum.  You can be as insulting as you like there. 

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2014, 05:01:56 AM »
Sceptimatic made a thread for you in the Angry Ranting forum.  You can be as insulting as you like there.

I didn't realise this.  Thanks.  I'll check it out.

(In Australia, "chick" is a common and not derogatory term for a young woman.  As in "The guys were checking out the chicks at the beach."  Or "Miranda Kerr is one hot chick".)

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2014, 07:47:54 AM »

That's not how it works. You created this thread to call for sceptimatic's banning, then you proceed to insult his intelligence. That's not reporting. You don't know sceptimatic. This isn't Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense where you can insult people to your heart's content.

If you think sceptimatic has broken the rules of this forum, then it would be appropriate to report on that. Discussing his IQ is irrelevant and is only meant to be mean. You are attempting to bait him into an argument.


Oh dear..... I've obviously struck a raw nerve with this chick LOL.  Maybe she's sceptimatic's girlfriend?  Or his mommy?

Who could know what's started this over-the-top defense of another member who's been insulting nearly everybody else here for weeks?  And what she doesn't know of course is that I was asked specifically by a moderator to post this thread in the "Suggestions & Concerns"  forum.

But then she obviously never lets common logic get in the way of a good rant.  Tsk, tsk my dear.

Oh dear... You are a ridiculous hypocrite.

If sceptimatic is insulting you in another thread (outside AR or CN) then you should report his insulting posts. Attacking me for pointing out your hypocrisy just makes you look like a butthurt little baby.

Which moderator told you you should start a thread in S&C to talk about sceptimatic's IQ? Could you link to the post? Obviously I'm too illogical to search for it myself.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2014, 08:06:21 AM »

Obviously I'm too illogical to search for it myself.


LOL.  You said it sweetheart!

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2014, 09:13:01 AM »
It's a good thing the FES doesn't ban people for making stuff up to get others banned.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2014, 09:36:06 AM »
It's a good thing the FES doesn't ban people for making stuff up to get others banned.

It doesn't? Things sure have changed.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40498
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #84 on: January 20, 2014, 10:23:29 AM »
Who are you, fappenhosen? You seem so familiar. TELL ME  >:(

Are you Crusty? I miss Crusty.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2014, 11:16:39 AM »
It's a good thing the FES doesn't ban people for making stuff up to get others banned.
 

It's a good thing that the FES doesn't ban people for making up anything.
You notice I didn't mention any names. ;D
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #86 on: January 28, 2014, 03:19:20 PM »
Guys, wrap it up. Im locking this thread at 11 pm EST.

Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2014, 05:13:15 PM »
Guys, wrap it up. Im locking this thread at 11 pm EST.
 

QED
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Request for Member Banning...
« Reply #88 on: January 28, 2014, 08:14:22 PM »
BAMMED