Posts by shadoworca3

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around why you didn't just start your own formal complaint thread instead of jumping onto the one started by Ryan Ward2, which was shut down specifically because the underlying racism wasn't sufficiently addressed.
By doing that, you essentially linked your own grievance to his in a way that draws a direct comparison between the two cases.

The core premise of your argument—which is essentially the guiding thread for most racist ideologies—is the claim that evolutionary theory (a concept you've incorrectly conflated with Darwinism) necessitates a natural law of discriminating against those deemed "different" or "weaker," which in practice translates to targeting Black people, Jewish people, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women...
I have already attempted to explain to you on two separate occasions within this thread why modern evolutionary theory does not support your position, yet you have chosen to ignore my points entirely, opting instead to turn this discussion into your own personal platform for racism.

How could I possibly permit you to propagate the idea within the Natural Science department that female higher education is the primary driver behind declining birth rates and the supposed crisis of Western civilization?
It would be deeply humiliating to allow my colleagues to witness me permitting such rhetoric, and frankly, I would be too ashamed to look my own children in the eye years from now when they ask why I didn't take a stand against such views.

Ultimately, your thesis is a scientific failure, and quite frankly, it hits a moral low that I had sincerely hoped I wouldn't have to encounter again, let alone be forced to intervene in and issue sanctions against.

electricbison21 said:Regarding the whole peer review process... I'll give you that! 🙂

But if that's the case, why are topics like: Nibiru, time travel via black holes, and NLO sightings from September 2013 still sitting right there in the Astronomy section without being locked down or moved elsewhere?

Is anyone planning to actually address this issue?

Since the Astronomy subforum is managed by Astronomy enthusiasts, they would likely have a more definitive answer for us, though I do notice that the Nibiru thread has been closed while those other two have evolved quite naturally into discussions about physical phenomena and optical illusions.

Ultimately, any given thread can turn out great or go south depending entirely on who decides to chime in. You'd be surprised how some threads end up being surprisingly insightful, while others... well, they just don't go our way. 🤦

electricbison21 said:Greetings,

I find myself somewhat perplexed by the moderation regarding the aforementioned PDF, which leads me to two specific questions:

1. What exactly is the level of expertise held by the moderator of this PDF?

The moderators here at the FBI generally dedicate their time to research, technical, or educational projects throughout America or abroad, with the exception of Frogger, who unfortunately spends most of his time working in hospitals.

However, that isn't actually a significant factor. We don't rank any forum member or moderator based on their academic credentials; we judge solely on the quality of what they write.

electricbison21 said:2. Why would a topic such as paranormal activity be moved over to the PDF Alternatives section after ten years?
Why am I asking? It seems logically sound that things like telekinesis and telepathy would be automatically discredited and labeled as "paranormal." But, having jumped into this thread today after seeing this post—as follows... several members were steering the conversation toward relevant unorthodox science, even citing the controversial scientist Rupert Sheldrake. Not long after that... well, we all know how it goes; the thread was moved to Alternatives. I kindly request that this topic be renamed to THE BRAIN and moved back to the main FBI PDF.[/INDENT]

Since you are relatively new to the FBI, you aren't yet familiar with our editorial policies.
Topics like this simply fit better within the ecosystem of the Alternatives section, where they tend to thrive much more effectively. Over here at the FBI, they just tend to spark arguments, drama, and bans...

electricbison21 said:I have to ask: is it truly possible that in the 21st century, certain people still act as if we are living in the Middle Ages? Is it skepticism? Or perhaps the stake?

Skepticism is a highly sought-after commodity here at the FBI. 👍
As for stakes, we only light those when we're feeling cold and have an excess of organic waste to burn.

electricbison21 said:The reality of the situation is that we are witnessing nothing less than the active disqualification and outright mockery of legitimate scientists.

Let’s be clear: there isn't a single peer review published scientific paper in existence that validates the reality of telekinesis or telepathy. If anyone actually manages to publish such findings, you can bet your life it will become a permanent sticky thread on the FBI forums.
Until that day comes, it remains nothing more than

I don't want to be overly dramatic, but it is truly harrowing to read how you trade children's lives for God's mercy—or rather, for a ticket to paradise.
It seems you couldn't care less that those innocent Egyptian children were slaughtered, simply because, apparently, old Yahweh couldn't find any other way to punish parents. How dangerous your delusion regarding this God (this vengeful, son-killing matricide) actually is becomes glaringly obvious from your posts, where you openly admit that you would even commit slaughter if your God commanded it.

What is even more dangerous, though perhaps not immediately apparent, is that you don't actually mourn your own children who would have perished under what you consider F. Chief's curse; instead, you only mourn yourself. It is the quintessential (Nicole James)ian reaction of a psychopath.
On second thought, your sickness isn't caused by faith or Yahweh. If he didn't exist, you would simply find some other figure from a different mythology and seek justification for your pathology within them.

@Nick
Kudos to you for choosing which forum members need to be stripped of their partiality or slapped with a permanent ban.

Arthur Flores2 said:Since Nicole James can't seem to explain why I was hit with a second suspension, he's calling in shadoworca3 to dig up posts from my first one—which happened years ago—just to muddy the waters regarding how things actually unfolded. Those old posts were written back when the religion sub was at such a low point that people were actually permitted to call for the deaths of believers' children (my own children, specifically...), to which I naturally responded, albeit somewhat reluctantly and with restraint.

It was never allowed on Reddit to call for anyone's death, let alone the death of a child, especially yours. Perhaps some believer might try to justify the slaughter Yahweh carried out against the firstborn in Egypt.
Oops, looks like you were right there among them. 😲

As for your pathetic claim that people were calling for the death of your (religious) children, I can only suggest that you are either imagining things or suffering from pure paranoia. The reality is that you were actually praising the act of God's mercy when He was striking down the Egyptian firstborn, to which F. Chief replied:

F. Chief said:Well, what can I say? May God reward your children in that very same way...

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=101

Arthur Flores2 said:.And because of my complaints, the religion sub was finally restructured into something decent, though I paid for that victory with a second suspension that Nicole James was unable to explain...

This is starting to look like pure egomania—not the kind where you're impressed by moderator Nicole James, but the clinical kind you read about in medical textbooks.

You didn't change or restructure a single thing; you were suspended for much more mundane reasons.

Arthur Flores2 said:By the way, speaking of spreading hate, shadoworca3 is a moderator who tried to push the idea that it was acceptable to call the Virgin Mary a WHORE...

I would like to reiterate my previous points regarding his moderation style and his attempt to argue against the Virgin Mary:

Even if someone were to argue that Mary was not a virgin, one has to wonder why shadoworca3 feels the need to immediately label her a slut , which is arguably the most degrading insult a woman can face. It is pure malice when someone calls a prostitute a slut, let alone when they target a figure held sacred by millions. Based on shadoworca3's logic, I suppose it wouldn't be an insult to call any other woman on this platform a slut if it could be proven she wasn't a virgin. Therefore, what we see here is that the moderator, shadoworca3, is actually prone to trolling, essentially watching to see how he can make fools out of us believers....

Once again, you have missed the point entirely. This discussion was centered on a believer's request that users shouldn't post criticisms against church officials on the forum. My response was simply that one can, and indeed should, be allowed to criticize anyone—especially public figures—provided that arguments are presented. For instance, I noted that you can even critique Mary if you back it up with reasoning; otherwise, it's just considered harassment punishable by a fine of 35 or 45 points.
Of course, it won't click for you because, due to your emotional colorblindness, you fail to realize that if you are permitted to criticize Ivo Sanader, Ivo Josipović, or Zoran Milanović,... then you are equally permitted to criticize Vladimir Bojanić, Pozaić, the Pope, or that whole host of mythological figures, including Mary.

That fundamental concept is known as freedom of speech, and it is even enshrined in the Constitution.

Steven Clark2 said:Furthermore, I find myself wondering whether the worldview you advocate for enjoys any sort of "special protection" within our society. If it doesn't, I'm curious to know why you believe that is the case. Arthur Flores2I mean, seriously, did they really make him wait two and a half months just to get a response to his request to return to the religion PDF? The man is openly and publicly critiquing the very worldview you represent. You might argue he’s just "throwing around phrases," but I don't see how "throwing around phrases" is a punishable offense when it comes to faith—so why should it be treated as a crime if someone does the exact same thing to any other belief system? We talk about sacred cows all the time, yet everything is perfectly fine right up until someone decides to touch the icons, the messiahs, or the sacred cows of atheism. 😁 Why is it... Parsifal I was hit with a permanent ban back in the day, but then somehow it got downgraded to a partial one—all within that same religion? I can't help but wonder why that would be the case. Tony So, they handed out a partial ban over that same religious topic? Honestly, it feels incredibly unjust. You simply shouldn't be allowed to drive people away from an online community just because their perspectives clash with your own worldview. It’s fundamentally wrong to censor users for expressing views that differ from yours; you don't have that kind of authority.

We aren't talking about some kind of persecution against believers here. This is simply about removing individuals who use their platforms to spread nothing but hate and intolerance through their writing and viewpoints. You mentioned the trio of Arthur Flores2, Parsifal, and Tony, but honestly, you could pick almost anyone else from the banned list; if you took just a few minutes to search through their post history, you would quickly realize exactly what is going on.
Here are a few examples of posts written by Arthur Flores2 (the more unpleasant ones have been deleted).

Arthur Flores2 said:The various nations that God commanded to be destroyed within the pages of the Bible are truly grotesque, and in my view, they deserve nothing less than death.

If I had been born back in those days, I would have followed God’s commandments without a single moment of hesitation. I would have personally dealt with every last one of those idolaters worshipping the golden calf—taking them out one by one—and then I wouldn't have stopped until everyone else was gone too. They would have scattered before my path like ants running for cover.

We are currently living through an era defined by God's mercy, yet we must remember that we previously lived through an era of God's justice—and that period was just as profoundly sacred as the one we inhabit today.

Long live PBS and those upcoming footage clips depicting the absolute catastrophe involving the Egyptian firstborns!

I honestly have zero patience for those self-proclaimed wizards and charlatans...

Arthur Flores2 said:Based on my own personal walk through life, I’ve come to realize that atheists tend to be nothing more than the most mediocre, unremarkable crowd you could ever encounter.

It seems to me that almost every spineless, slimy, and self-important freak I have encountered throughout my life shares one singular, unmistakable characteristic...

They claim to have no belief in God...

There are certainly exceptions to the rule, I suppose. However, most of those outliers aren't actually atheists, even if they insist on calling themselves that. We see the exact same pattern playing out here on this subreddit as well.

I wouldn't bother engaging with Parsifal. He has demonstrated time and time again through his countless posts that he is fundamentally incapable of meaningful dialogue; he simply refuses to listen to anyone else, choosing instead to relentlessly hammer away at his own broken arguments without showing even the slightest hint of a desire to evolve or change his mind.
There was this one instance where he actually lost a bet, the kind where he was obligated to wire money over to some atheist organization—I suspect it might have even been part of Nicole James’s group. 😍He flatly refused, and once he did, we were more than justified in calling him a liar. Honestly, it didn't seem to bother him one bit.

I remember a discussion we had once where Tony was attempting to justify that specific passage from the Old Testament, the one where Yahweh sends bears to maul forty-two children simply because they were mocking a local prophet for being bald.
It’s the people who try to justify such behavior that truly frighten me.
Unfortunately, you were even among those ranks.

Ultimately, you actually told him himself that he was beneath the level of the Unknown—which, ironically, would be considered a compliment coming from Tony. You see, the Unknown only ever responds to religious contradictions or the moral depravity stemming from religious teachings by quoting their own holy books back to them.

This is what you wrote to Tony:

Steven Clark2 said:You haven't even offered any better discussions yourself. While I am always open to meaningful dialogue, given the way you express yourself, you aren't capable of facilitating better discussions either; your posts consistently lower the quality and standard of our discourse.

I didn't even see this thread or your replies a year ago. And frankly, the point isn't to trade insults, but to have an actual discussion.

Tony, you should probably sort out your own issues and viewpoints before labeling someone else a cultist, because you aren't any better. Of course, if you could present your arguments and stances clearly, I would find it a pleasure to read them and share my thoughts. How can you not grasp that your posts are beneath the level of the Unknown and those like him? My friend, anything can be said in a more pleasant manner without resorting to primitivism and verbal insults.

And he hasn't changed one bit. 🤷

As far as we moderators at NASA are concerned, it’s perfectly fine. 🤷

You’re more than welcome to challenge Soljačić with actual arguments since he’s a public figure, but let’s not turn on the other members here. It just breeds unnecessary hostility, turning our discussion threads into gladiatorial arenas where the actual point of the conversation gets completely lost in the noise.

Now, I won't pretend you were the only one playing a condescending tune—even if you were leading the orchestra, I would have handed out warnings immediately if that were the case.
After that initial warning, you didn't exactly stick to the sheet music, but since there weren't any truly jarring notes, we'll leave things as they are for now. Just know that moving forward, any further dissonance will result in an immediate ban and thread closure, regardless of who starts it.

It really is quite straightforward: when you encounter someone holding an opposing viewpoint, rather than resorting to those petty little jabs—suggesting they aren't bright enough to grasp the concept—it is far more productive to simply provide a reasoned, logical rebuttal explaining exactly where their reasoning fell short.

For instance, in your previous post, you went so far as to imply that I lacked the mental capacity to recognize your condescension without being pointed out, all while dragging politics into a conversation where it has absolutely no business being.

Well, sure, she’s a beautiful fiancée, and on top of that, she’s a hardworking and honest woman. 🙂
I just hope the kids take after their mother in looks and inherit their father's intellect. 🙂

Carl Brown66 said:It is quite apparent to me that you are a product of a system designed to teach children one of the most monstrous and unscientific lies ever conceived, all while presenting it as established fact. My dear slycrane94, you might be exceptionally gifted in mathematics or physics, but it is truly staggering—to the point where I struggle to find the right words—that people living in 2024 are still victims of such relentless indoctrination regarding a subject that modern genetics, molecular biochemistry, and related disciplines have already thoroughly dismantled. These fields have effectively demolished it as the most proven scientific fraud and hoax in history.

Let us recall what William A. Williams wrote at the beginning of his remarkable article back in 1925:

It is obvious you haven't actually read any of that text, considering you are rambling about things like "populations of 5 to 20 inhabitants"—what on earth are you talking about? The author demonstrates that according to Darwinian evolution, there would have been so many humans living on Earth by now that they would be difficult to fit even on Jupiter, let alone all squeezed onto our ordinary little earth. It is honestly sad to see you choosing to comment on something you haven't even read. Then again, shadoworca3 did the same thing; all he read was Daniel Chavez14's appeal to close the thread, whereas you seem to have just looked at the smiley faces in shadoworca3's post and decided that was enough to claim everything in a text you didn't even skim is unscientific.

As for limiting one's knowledge to such low-quality sources, you should know that I possess more books on this subject at home than you have likely seen on the entire internet. The reason I quoted that specific text was to show people just how many years we have been lagging behind the facts regarding evolutionary theory—facts that were even 100 years ago well known. Based on those very facts, one could have rejected this disgusting scientific forgery, born of a deeply disturbed and malicious mind, with total certainty even a century ago.

Today, after everything discovered at the molecular (DNA) level since the early 1990s has indisputably proven Intelligent Design within the fundamental biological structures of living beings, attempting to defend something as obscure and unscientific as Darwinian evolution is a sign of profound self-delusion. It is the worst kind of indoctrination. Any person who continues to defend such a demonstrably loathsome lie while simultaneously believing they understand what science is (or should be) ought to be so ashamed that they never attempt to write anything related to science ever again.

Since faith is not the result of critical thinking based on facts and logical conclusions, neither can the mental squabbles of faith, creationism, or pure idiocy be analyzed that way. It is a matter of emotion or the irrational part of the human psyche, which rational arguments struggle to reach, if not fail entirely. Therefore, I believe it is pointless to analyze or critique anything in your text.

It is like trying to explain to a friend who has been madly in love for three weeks that his fiancée is simply someone who wasn't picked up off the street because people didn't have enough cash to buy her two shots and a beer.
I can only wait for the first wave of romantic madness, driven by phenylethylamine, to pass—that is, to wait for his body to adjust and hope he doesn't hit the endorphin phase that triggers deep attachment. If he’s an endorphin guy, then he’s a lost cause. 🤷

Your infatuation has been going on for quite some time now, and while I have absolutely no intention of standing in your way, I do ask one thing: please refrain from projecting your feelings for her onto the PZ. 🙂

Carl Brown66 said:Oh, you skeptic, are you really underestimating shadoworca3's intellect to such an extent? I know deep down you aren't actually questioning his brilliance, but since we've narrowed our choices down to "Option A or Option B," and the only remaining path is to underestimate my own intelligence, I simply have to lodge a formal protest. Honestly, do you truly want me to die laughing?

And now, once we’ve had our fill of entertainment, perhaps a moderator might finally step up and do their job...

Allow me to introduce His Excellency—not Cardinal Richelieu, mind you, but rather the illustrious Cardinal shadoworca3.

God help us, you see, we let you post under various aliases on this forum as long as your topics remain engaging.
It’s perfectly obvious where this is headed, and frankly, the outcome is predictable. Usually, it only takes about two sparse sentences for me to realize exactly who I'm dealing with. Without needing any heavy lifting or deep analysis, I just get this sudden chill in my lungs and a surge of heartburn in my stomach, and I know immediately that it’s either you or one of your many clones.
In reality, Skeptic actually did us a favor by letting you stay, if only because you provided a bit of amusement. 😍

rowdydrifter22 As I was reading through the discussion, I couldn't help but notice what rowdydrifter22 had to say about the situation. It really strikes me that we need to look at this from a much broader perspective if we want to find any real clarity.
Of course I’m not defending those kinds of people, but I would suggest that you refrain from fueling those "cut it off at the root" style debates in spaces where such discussions simply don't belong—a sentiment, I believe, that you would actually agree with.

As I have already suggested, you all are more than welcome to debate the merits of lunar reforestation if you truly wish, provided that you refrain from trolling this particular thread.

If I ever encounter someone peddling the idea of orgone or "free energy" within a serious discussion about renewable energy sources, I find myself at a bit of a crossroads. In my estimation, such an individual is either intentionally trolling the community or they are fundamentally disconnected from how physics actually works. If that situation arises, I feel it is my responsibility to step in, offer a polite warning, and ensure we clear up the misconceptions once and for all.
If this isn't really your cup of tea, feel free to just keep scrolling past.

rowdydrifter22 said:In the meantime, I intend to offer some suggestions regarding the topic that has been slated for discussion at those upcoming sessions.

I truly appreciate the advice you offered, but unfortunately, the application was turned down. ☕

rowdydrifter22 said:If you feel like picking this back up later, please feel free to start a new thread over on the alternative board. Let's title it "Orgone: A Question of General Culture" so we can dive deep into the subject properly.🤣
lp,

If you take a look over at Alternative, you’ll find hundreds of discussions just like this one—if not even more intense—and the community there is incredibly well-versed in these topics. It's a sharp contrast to people like Lord Nelson and a few others who clearly haven't done their homework; they end up looking quite ridiculous when they try to throw around jargon or phrases they don't actually understand.
Well, now they’re finally going to find out. 🤷

hollowtrucker77 said:I don't see any issue with pulling free energy straight out of Oregon
but I am a bit concerned that we might deal with an eruption in Ecuador first

😍 😬
All of this simply serves as a testament to how little people actually grasp the concepts being discussed here, let alone the sheer magnitude of the nonsense being floated.

Ultimately, it becomes quite clear that a solid education was absolutely essential.

rowdydrifter22 said:Come on, please stop trolling this thread.
Nobody cares about your frustrations regarding Orgone or similar nonsense—including making public statements about your stance just because you've imagined some imaginary connection to the concept of "free energy."

It seems you aren't quite as informed as you think, as you clearly don't realize how many people actually subscribe to ideas like Orgone, free energy, Joe Cell, and other such absurdities. If you look at alternative media outlets, you will find entire forums dedicated to these exact delusions, where massive groups of people—this "free energy" crowd—cling to conspiracy theories and chant mantras about free, limitless energy being withheld from us by evil governments, the Illuminati, or even reptilians.
There are also plenty of naive individuals, much like in the example above, who don't even understand what they are talking about but insist on using those specific buzzwords.
Unfortunately, one finds such people even among academics and politicians.

As a moderator here at PZ, my responsibility is to nip such nonsense in the bud. That is exactly what I have done. This thread can now proceed with a more normal discussion. Tell me, if you were the moderator, would you really allow such things to be promoted?
I intend to keep asking Oštrić about this until he provides a clear answer, because as someone who isn't just an environmentalist, but an ecologist, an energy expert, and a philosopher... he ought to be knowledgeable about these matters and voice his opinion, especially since nearly a quarter of the posts in this thread belong to him.

rowdydrifter22 said:Just warn the users and delete the posts instead of piling on and calling for discussions about terms that are wildly off-topic.

Perhaps once you are a moderator or an editor for a sub-forum, you can act however you please. In my view, understanding concepts like Orgone and free energy is vital, not just for future discussions, but for general cultural literacy.

By the way, it's Orgone, not Oregon.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:Why on earth did you decide to single out just those three specific words? If you actually look back at my previous post, I covered much more ground than that. Beyond those few terms, there is a whole host of people—who, from what I’ve gathered while digging through Google on this subject, seem to be constantly looking toward Tesla—who are essentially trying to reverse-engineer his patents or hunt for answers to the questions he left unanswered.
It seems you’ve gone ahead and lumped me into that particular crowd simply because I brought up the concept of free energy and decided to have a bit of fun with a thread about potential alternatives to electricity, especially after I dropped a link regarding orgon.😁
So, just how much of a certain type of person are you actually? (I really shouldn't even be putting it that way, honestly.) 🙄

I’m not entirely certain if there is any real point in me bringing this up, but I suppose I should give it a shot regardless.
If I have somehow managed to make you look a bit heavier. The conversation surrounding free energy continues to grow, and I find myself increasingly preoccupied with how this concept will eventually impact the general population. It isn't just about the technology itself, but rather the profound shift in our societal structure once we move away from traditional utility models. We are looking at a fundamental transformation in how everyday Americans interact with resources, and I believe we need to prepare ourselves for the sheer scale of that transition. That simply means my warning applies to that specific situation. You should disregard everything else and stop trying to use those other points as an excuse. It’s fundamentally the same logic you see when someone tries to defend themselves in a courtroom by arguing that while they might have committed a crime yesterday or the day before, they were actually quite a decent person on all the other days.

When it comes to your constant joking around regarding orgone, you really don't have the kind of reputation that would allow you to get away with that sort of mockery—in fact, it’s quite the exact opposite.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:To me, Tesla stands alone as a true scientist—the only one who genuinely sought to gift the world the concept of free energy. As for all the junk being peddled under that label these days, frankly, that’s not my concern.
We should never be so quick to dismiss anyone who genuinely strives to leave this world better than they found it. History has shown us time and again that a vast number of breakthroughs—whether they involve revolutionary new materials or life-saving medicines—often occur by pure accident. In many cases, these discoveries aren't even made by career scientists or those with formal academic credentials. If we look at someone like Bill Gates, who didn't follow the traditional university path, isn't he living proof that brilliance doesn't always require a specific degree?

There are numerous discussions on the PZ forums where we have thoroughly laid out the reasoning behind why Tesla was both a brilliant engineer and a rogue scientist. The pursuit of free energy, along with the various new-age enthusiasts who follow his legacy, represents nothing more than a scientific blind spot that serves no practical purpose; in fact, such pursuits can only lead to intellectual infection.

Ashley Martin2 As it turns out, what was said is...
You aren't going to pull that kind of nonsense with me. If anyone here is twisting the truth and spreading lies, it’s clearly you—and it doesn't stop there. You’re actually trying to lean on your position of power to threaten me, despite the fact that you don't have the slightest clue who I am or what I stand for.

If you’re going to go around accusing someone of lying, you really ought to specify exactly what the lie was; otherwise, it just comes across as a baseless insult, which usually results in an immediate ban. So, I'm sitting here waiting for the specifics. 🙂

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less about who you are or what your life looks like in the real world; making threats is an empty gesture if you aren't coming from a position of actual power. 🤷
Technically, this should be considered a request, though I would much rather call it a warning, since you haven't actually been issued a red card yet. You only receive the penalty once you decide to turn a deaf ear to the warnings.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:There you have it, just as I thought. Your little froggy compadre sent me the exact same message. Honestly, am I even on a standard forum anymore, or have I somehow slipped into some sort of black hole?

You’ve wandered into the Natural Science subforum, where you aren't allowed to spout nonsense without consequences.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:And who exactly is telling me this? Is it the individual whose signature identifies them as an "inquisitor"?

😕
My own signature states:
The Greenov Rule of Debate:
"Anything is possible, provided you don't know what you're talking about."

Nicholas Reyes86 said:If you scroll back through the thread, you'll see exactly who initiated the attacks and what triggered them.

Zachary Mendoza2 gave you a warning regarding organic matter, while my issue was with the free energy crowd.
Yet, you persisted by resorting to insults involving Cerberus and similar comparisons.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:After I pointed out that three-phase power isn't necessary for my house or my building, that group attacked me—and you're doing the same thing now—questioning how I could possibly know nothing about three-phase power.
Even if I don't, shouldn't I still be entitled to express my own opinion?

To make matters worse, those who insisted that alternating current is indispensable actually disqualified themselves by bringing up HVDC technology, which, according to the very link they provided, offers distinct advantages over the system they were defending.

If you are truly intent on spreading the truth, then share it equitably with everyone, and start by being honest with yourself.

That has absolutely nothing to do with why you were issued a red card.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:Essentially, after the moderator launched an ad-hominem attack against my person and my subsequent response to that provocation, he handed me a red card. Given that I remained strictly within the bounds of the discussion in the PDF I was referencing until I was goaded by such a brutal assault, I am formally requesting that this penalty be rescinded.

Here is the specific post that caused shadoworca3 to lash out at me simply because I made a mention of the free energy population:

The bolded text indicates the exact part that sent him over the edge, along with his reaction:

When I warned you, I very clearly bolded three specific words from your post— free energy population.
Why are you suddenly bolding entirely different sentences now?
a) You fail to grasp the distinction between actual scientists and the crackpots obsessed with orgone and free energy machines (perpetual motion machines of the second kind).
b) You edit, distort, and lie because you assume we are too dim-witted to see through your tactics.

Regardless of the outcome, your future on PZ isn't looking particularly bright.

Nicholas Reyes86 said:And here is my rebuttal to the blatant and mindless insults directed at me, which ultimately resulted in my red card:

Your reply was completely off-topic and laced with insults that smacked of trolling, which is precisely why you were penalized.
You referred to those attempting to explain the benefits of three-phase power as nothing more than lackeys for the current electrical grid and called them narrow-minded for failing to grasp your supposed "depth"... or whatever other dimension you claim to inhabit. Honestly, from an outsider's perspective, it's obvious you aren't an expert. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of conservation of energy disqualifies your argument entirely. 😉

Moving forward, please be advised that any attempt to label fellow forum members as "narrow-minded," "small-thinking," or "lackeys," or any further invocation of orgone and free energy, will result in a ban from PZ.

Walter Brooks5, just to clear things up, I wasn't the one who signed off on your ban from the IRS; that was actually Zachary Mendoza2. However, the moderation team had already reached a consensus: if you kept up this specific pattern of behavior, you would be cut off. Since you didn't heed our warnings, Zachary followed through on what we all agreed upon. I was away from the forum for an extended period at the time, and since this was his first major call, he didn't realize he needed to send you a formal notification beforehand.
I sincerely apologize for the procedural slip-up, but the penalty itself stands.

PS, I’m pretty sure I spotted a clone of yours over on the IRS boards.
Don't even think about it.

Drew Jones6 said:If Bozanic had gone on such a fierce rant and someone labeled him a Taliban, it might actually make sense just based on surface-level appearances. But even then, you’d first have to look at whether what Bishop Pozaic is saying holds any water—is his message actually true, or is he speaking the absolute, unvarnished truth?

Look, being intense doesn't mean someone is lying. Does anyone remember how fierce Pope John Paul II used to get when he spoke? I personally remember him giving this sermon in Sicily where he went absolutely ballistic defending the fifth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," while taking aim at the mafia.

But then, the same guy knelt down in Auschwitz and prayed with total humility and burning passion for the victims of the Holocaust.

So, just because someone speaks with intensity like Bishop Pozaic, it doesn't automatically make them a Taliban. Honestly, if people are quick to throw the "Taliban" label at someone as mild-mannered as Bozanic without any real substance, I shudder to think what they’d reflexively scream at Bishop Pozaic just because of his aggressive tone.

You can't judge someone based solely on their temperament or tone—at least not when dealing with serious people. Yet, I've already seen political commentators claiming that Bishop Pozaic’s performance was almost impossible to top.

Maybe we should be asking a different question entirely:

Can someone even call themselves a decent human being if they *don't* react exactly like Bishop Pozaic did when their own children's mental and physical health are under attack?

Morality isn't just a right; it's an obligation. When someone's fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened—especially when those rights involve the well-being of our own kids—nobody has the right to stay silent. You shouldn't even be "mild" in your protest; you need to be sharp and loud.

That is the real truth behind this whole situation that’s been kicking up a massive dust storm in America over the last few weeks. And thank God for Forum.hr.

Look, some people argue that the Church's opposition to children exploring sexuality or homosexuality is an act that goes against not just tolerance, but actual scientific research.
So, the question remains: am I supposed to put my faith in Bishop Pozaic, or in the scientists? 🙄>