Posts by shadoworca3

Your little hearing spanned a total of 32 posts, consisting of 16 from you, 4 from me, 1 from Timothy Jackson2, 5 from Daniel Ward87, 4 from Nice, and 2 others.

The Partial ruling was assigned to you strictly according to the rules, and since your complaint regarding that decision—as well as my own perceived arrogance—has been denied, I have to wonder: what exactly is your next move?

First things first, go ahead and start your own thread so the administrators don't have to shut down lonetrucker4's topic just because you're trying to hijack it.

Keith Lee2 said:Look, here we go again!
I have already made it clear that I am lodging a complaint regarding your behavior—specifically, your arrogance
and the way you dismiss other members of this community.
I am not interested in hearing your explanations; rather, I am looking for someone who actually has the authority to put an end to such
conduct, provided such a person exists here.

First off, please take a moment to read the rules, particularly the section I have highlighted for you.

Guidelines for posting threads in the PŽK and KzB sections

Threads are opened exclusively for the purpose of appealing a ban.

The title of a thread regarding a moderator appeal, a warning, or a ban must follow this format: /subforum name, moderator's username, brief description of the issue/. Anything else will be moved to the Trash bin without any prior warning or consideration of the complaint, regardless of how valid it might be.
The opening post must be concise, coherent, and backed by solid arguments—including mandatory links.

The designated moderator handles the initial response, followed by the supermoderator.
The supermoderator issues the final decision after hearing both sides of the story.

In exceptional circumstances, the supermoderator may render a decision without waiting for the moderator's statement if they are already fully briefed on the situation and generally familiar with that specific moderator's conduct and style.

The supermoderator’s decision regarding appeals is final; therefore, requesting a higher level of review is not permitted and will not receive a response. The administrator will only intervene if they personally deem it necessary.

Regarding your complaint about the partial restriction and my supposed arrogance, the administration has already provided their answer.

To begin with, the opinion of a single administrator is sufficient, and there is no need to seek out a second one. This applies not just to this specific instance, but as a general rule.

Nice said:Furthermore, you were previously warned about the partial restriction. The moderators informed you of what would happen if you didn't adjust your behavior on the PDF, which you failed to do, so the partial restriction should not have come as a surprise. After repeatedly ignoring warnings despite the accumulated warnings and simply tuning out the announcement of this penalty, there was no other choice. Moderators are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the PDF and protecting the community, even if that means barring those who persistently violate the rules.

Daniel Ward87 said:With this, we have concluded this thread.

Keith Lee2 said:Since nobody has bothered to respond to my inquiry on the "Admin Questions" board for several days now
regarding this matter involving the same moderator, I am going to post the exact same request here to serve as further support
against the conduct of the aforementioned moderator:

Both myself and the administration—who already closed the specific thread regarding your complaint—have explained the situation to you once before.

I don't consider myself above anyone else, but the reality is that your Partial appeal went through the proper channels and was upheld by the administration.
The owner simply doesn't get involved in matters of this nature.

@lonetrucker4/">@@lonetrucker4

To begin with, I haven't been actively participating in this specific thread for quite some time; I have merely been observing from the sidelines. Your post, judging by the context, was dismissive and lacked any substantive arguments, which is why I issued a warning and provided an explanation.

lonetrucker4 said:Oh, how wonderful that on this American forum, we have universal experts on every global issue ready to explain everything to us poor, uneducated souls. 🙂

You are more than welcome to criticize whatever you like, but the one condition is that you must provide actual arguments.
Since you provided none, you receive the corresponding penalty.

EDIT by shadoworca3

Regarding your psychological arguments, you have to understand that within the realm of natural science, we deal with realities that do not shift based on public opinion, social trends, fashion, or personal sympathies. If the vast majority of scientific papers demonstrate that nuclear energy—even considering the Fukushima incident—is still roughly a hundred times safer than other energy sources and happens to be more cost-effective, then those facts should be what shapes public perception, rather than the other way around. For instance, I personally experience a sense of fear and unease when flying in an airplane, far more so than when driving a car, even though I am fully aware that my statistical probability of dying in a plane crash is also about a hundred times lower than in road transport. The root causes might lie in a fear of the unknown, a lack of perceived control, or perhaps the harrowing images the media broadcasts following aviation accidents... Those are subjects for psychology, but it would be absurd to demand that the natural science board ban air travel simply because of my personal anxieties.

In short, your argument regarding the psychological component is misplaced here. In fact, it misses the mark on several levels, but I won't dwell on that.

As for my supposed arrogance.
Only a handful of users have ever complained about it after being removed from the natural science board. These are typically the philosophical, religious, or fringe theorists who attempt to push their non-scientific views onto the science section. That isn't permitted here, and that has been the established moderation policy for a very long time.

Regarding casualharbor9, please refrain from intervening in matters you don't fully understand.
The post was made at 9:59 PM, the penalty was issued at 10:24 PM, and the edit (which involved obscuring the part that triggered the penalty) occurred at 10:51 PM. There was a twenty-five-minute gap between each action. 😉
The threat of receiving a partial ban from the science board was delivered at 12:33 AM.

I went ahead and deleted three other posts due to off-topic chatter just to avoid having to hand out further penalties.
And I stand corrected. ☕

Keith Lee2 said:I truly appreciate your honesty.
I can certainly wrap my head around the situation you've described, and I find myself fully agreeing with the choice you've made.
However, that entire situation actually unfolded back on August 11, 2011, regarding that specific discussion about the moon, when...
I finally decided to wrap up my conversation with @Servantes, essentially asking him to stop being so dismissive of everything I say.
He offered his sincere thanks to everyone in the conversation and took a moment to wish him nothing but genuine happiness and success in all his future endeavors.
Evo tog posta:

I was hit with a ban back on February 15, 2012, and honestly, it was all because I happened to weigh in on a completely different topic altogether.
I stumbled upon "Space-Time" after being invited by @Servantes, and I have to say, it’s been quite an interesting journey so far.
He also handed out bans, and I didn't even say a single word to @Servantes.

I’ve been "visio" since way before August 11, 2011. Honestly, we were all just waiting for that one final drop to tip the scale. If you want proof, you can find the records regarding this in the moderator archives over at PZ.
Sprečo is the living embodiment of everything we try to avoid on PZ. It really isn't any surprise that you decided to jump ship when the package deal went south.
He was issued a formal warning, but it clearly failed to have any impact whatsoever.

First off, just to keep things lighthearted and friendly,

Quote:

I suppose I should start by offering my sincere greetings to everyone here. kaže: I find myself caught in a bit of a dilemma regarding how I should interpret my previous thought: It’s best to view this as nothing more than the individual opinion and stance of a single participant within the discussion, or perhaps just one perspective among many. b) This serves as my perspective and position regarding the moderator's suggestion that I should refrain from contributing any further posts to this specific thread. shadoworca3 As stated by: No one has the right to tell you that you can't post on this forum unless you’re being outright abusive or just posting complete nonsense. Your writing doesn't offend anyone, but more importantly, it lacks any semblance of clarity. 😬

And then we move on to filing it through official channels.

@Sprečo
Up until this point, we’ve mostly just been joking around.
You spent quite some time acting as a bit of a spectacle—almost like a court jester—but that act has worn thin, and frankly, it isn't even entertaining anymore. You are welcome to continue your work within the realm of natural science, provided you stop peddling those vague, nebulous theories of yours and, even more importantly, quit linking to those crackpot websites.
If you truly find that you cannot function without it, there is an Alternatives subforum where you are more than welcome to do exactly as you please.
You should probably stop posting here immediately, because we are going to start flagging and deleting your posts, which will lead to a partial ban that prevents you from accessing the Natural Science section entirely.

This thread has turned into a complete dumping ground for crackpots, a few of whom have already been partially banned or permanently removed. Every single decision regarding these partial bans was made collectively by the PZ moderators and the administration, following our standard procedures before being carried out.

As long as I am serving as a moderator here, and while this current administration and ownership remain in place, there will be absolutely no pulling back your partial bans from PZ.

Keith Lee2 said:I wasn't just being difficult for the sake of it. PZ.
For the most part, I’ve participated in discussions where people were actually asking for a "different" perspective.
Take, for example, a thread titled "Is there a moon when nobody is looking at it," where the original poster was explicitly inviting
diverse viewpoints, only to start belittling my input later on.
After I pointed out that initial request for various opinions to the person who started the thread,
the moderator turned to me with nothing but condescension:

And then, right after I responded to him, he slapped me with a penalty.

Following that interaction, a user named @Servantes dared to point out that the moderator, shadoworca3,
was actually the one who deserved the penalty for that specific post, which resulted in him receiving a red card from the same moderator as well.

So, I have to ask—what exactly about my writing was the issue, if I may be so bold?
In general, speaking.
Perhaps the problem isn't my writing style or the way other users write when they receive penalties from shadoworca3,
but rather the sheer arrogance displayed by that moderator.

Let me explain this to you in a very honest and straightforward manner.
The person who started that thread is a skeptic who happens to be one of the premier physicists in America specializing in relativistic quantum physics, and arguably the leading expert in the country and surrounding regions regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically the Bohmov formalism. On top of that, he is a brilliant logician, and the philosophy of natural science is his favorite hobby outside of browsing Reddit.
He also possesses a certain mischievous wit, much like Sheldon Cooper, and when he complained to me that you were ruining his thread, try to deduce what my move had to be—remove you from the Natural Science section entirely, or risk losing him? 😕😉

Keith Lee2,
The Natural Science section of this forum really isn't the place for posters like you. Your contributions don't actually add anything of value; instead, they just serve as a breeding ground for nonsense—from a scientific standpoint—which inevitably leads to spam, off-topic tangents, trolling, and eventually, nothing but bans.
Perhaps your line of reasoning would find a better home in Philosophy or Religion, where you might actually find the validation you're looking for.
Staying here will only lead to disappointment. 🤷

We went through all that trouble filing complaints and practically begging you to stop, even going as far as warning you about the consequences if you kept trolling—but clearly, none of that made a bit of difference. 🤷

Now you’re going to try and claim you weren't just trolling, that you were simply sharing your thoughts and navigating some uncertainties, but let’s be honest—there is absolutely no other way to categorize posts like this than pure trolling.

You’re asking me to give you a simple yes or no answer, but I’ve always found that such binary choices rarely capture the full complexity of a situation.

Keith Lee2 said:Unfortunately, even applying the formula hasn't quite helped me resolve my dilemma, which brings me to the following point:

Does a point on the edge of a rotating circle actually move in relation to its center point?
It’s either spinning, moving, or standing perfectly still.

Once I manage to resolve this particular dilemma I'm currently grappling with, I will be in a much better position to provide a proper answer to the question you've posed.

Let me get back to you on that and provide a little more clarity.

shadoworca3 said:That’s correct; it rotates around its center point.
We can draw this conclusion because a rotating frame isn't an inertial system; it’s essentially "privileged" in its motion, which means the standard laws of special relativity—which strictly govern inertial systems—simply don't apply here in the same way.
The movements associated with rotation fall squarely within the classic realm of the Sagnac effect.

When you're looking at how GPS systems actually function, you really have to account for several complex variables to ensure accuracy. You can't just ignore the way time shifts due to the satellite's velocity, nor can you overlook the gravitational effects caused by altitude changes. Furthermore, one must factor in the Sagnac effect to compensate for the Earth's rotation.

And then you just go ahead and mess with my head. 😠
It’s a bit like being caught in that strange paradox where, if something is spinning fast enough, you can't actually tell whether it's truly in motion or just standing perfectly still.

Keith Lee2 said:The core of the question was whether it was actually in motion or simply standing still.

You’re absolutely right—it really does work better when things keep spinning.

I still haven't received a clear answer from you regarding whether things are actually gaining momentum or if we're just standing still.
It’s a fundamental principle, really: a point rotating around a central axis maintains a constant distance from that center, neither increasing nor decreasing its radius throughout the motion.

It appears that motion is entirely dependent upon the observer's perception; in other words, if the observer...
Keep a close eye on it. ...a point that revolves entirely around him. She’s going to hold steady. I suppose that's fair, but what if...
It seems like you might have sent an incomplete message. If there was a specific thought or post you wanted me to rework into my signature style, please go ahead and share it! I'm ready to dive in and craft something substantial once I have the details. Don't stare.Then, well... She’s definitely going to make that move sooner rather than later. Right through his line of sight.

That is merely one instance where I was personally involved, along with all the others who have stepped forward to file a formal complaint.

From this point forward, I intend to simply sit back and observe the discussion, following the flow of the conversation through quiet observation alone.
Don't worry too much about it; someone just like you will inevitably cross your path sooner or later, which should provide you with plenty of entertainment.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the exact same boat.😢

Take another look at my previous posts and tell me—do you actually see the point, or do I need to draw you a map?
If I had been here when you originally wrote that, I would have steered this entire conversation toward the exact direction you likely intended.
Your post was open to two different interpretations, which is why Aquafina and Timothy Jackson2 were hesitant before ultimately deciding to delete it.

So, are you going to keep whining and lamenting over a post that nobody regrets losing, or are you going to learn how to articulate your thoughts more clearly next time?

Make up your mind, because as far as I’m concerned, I am finished with this debate.

bluemason3 said:Am I being difficult just because I refuse to back down on a point?

Either I’ve actually violated some community guidelines, or posts are being deleted without justification simply because a moderator disagrees with a specific perspective. Honestly, what kind of mental gymnastics are required to justify that kind of behavior?

If you're claiming such a law exists, surely it shouldn't be that hard to produce it? It is entirely possible there is legislation out there, but the idea of a law stating that equating pedophilia with homosexuality (which is essentially the implication drawn from those comments) carries a two-year prison sentence seems highly improbable to me. I can almost picture some undercover morality police agent lurking in an American diner, listening in, only to swoop in the moment someone makes a controversial remark like, "well, they're all the same thing," and arrest them for a verbal offense. 😁
It also strikes me as quite curious how all those loudmouth pundits who publicly link the two so casually are still walking free. 😁

So, if you ask me, a law like that simply doesn't exist. 🤔

And now I'm labeled as the difficult one, rather than it being a case of everyone else just being exhausted? What kind of logic is that—where the winner is decided by whoever gives up first, rather than whoever is actually right?

Good grief, 😲 surely it's obvious to you that pedophilia will land you in prison while homosexuality won't. 😕

You have completely misunderstood the situation. ☕

Man, you're something else. 🤦
I have to wonder, how on earth have you managed to moderate all this stuff for so long? 🤷

It is quite possible that my colleagues haven't quite caught on to the fact that your perspective actually intersects with the natural sciences, specifically regarding evolutionary kin selection and its ties to sociobiology.
One could certainly draw parallels to the Dawkinsian concept of the Selfish Gene, though, moving forward, I think you really ought to present those arguments more clearly.
As it stands now, you're essentially equating pedophilia with homosexuality, which is a legal impossibility here in the States, and we prefer to stick strictly to the letter of the law. 🙄

Henry Hernandez7 said:Which mod is out here nuking posts on the WTO topic?
I’m betting it’s Sam Green73.
Seriously though, why are posts getting wiped when they actually add value—like my case where I was just telling some guy to actually read the thread before talking?

There is a natural science topic Soap and PIPA where people are discussing the WTO as well.
Give it a shot over there; you might get lucky and avoid a ban, or perhaps you won't... 😳😲

I truly regret not stumbling upon this discussion regarding homosexuality much sooner, as I would have steered the conversation toward more rigorous natural science perspectives to prevent these various misunderstandings from arising in the first place.

bluemason3 made an astute observation noting how societal attitudes toward homosexuality and pedophilia have shifted significantly throughout the course of history.
In certain historical societies, homosexuality was either tacitly accepted or even openly embraced, whereas in others, pedophilia—or what we define by that term today—was considered entirely commonplace. For instance, historical accounts note that Muhammad married Asia when she was only nine years old.

It is quite evident that varying socio-cultural contexts dictate vastly different approaches to the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia.
Where I believe bluemason3 erred, however, was in the assertion that homosexuality is evolutionarily useless simply because it does not result in direct offspring. If we look at the "kin selection" or "good uncle" theory, homosexuality can actually serve a vital evolutionary purpose. During periods of extreme scarcity, such as an ice age, the survival rate for a community's children remains incredibly low unless there are individuals who, while not producing their own offspring, dedicate their resources to helping raise their relatives' children. To put it simply, it is a strategic trade-off where quantity is sacrificed for quality, ultimately ensuring a greater number of surviving descendants in the long run.
Now, some might point out that in our modern, developed American society, we aren't exactly facing constant famine. Nevertheless, the need for the "good uncle" role is actually higher now than ever before. In a developed nation, the necessity of prolonged, expensive education and an extended period of childhood is a fundamental requirement for every child, which inherently demands the support of the broader community and those "good uncles."
Conversely, pedophilia stands in total opposition to the desirable extension of childhood; therefore, it will never be morally acceptable in any advanced society. This stands in stark contrast to homosexuality, which, as the demand for specialized education grows and the planet becomes increasingly crowded, may actually become a more advantageous characteristic for the species.

Attempting to grasp the moral values of a society through purely rational thought is a difficult, if not impossible, endeavor. These values are shaped by a complex blend of inherited cultural traditions and evolutionary pressures exerted through kin selection.
I hope this is clear, as I would prefer not to have to revisit those classic moral dilemmas—like whether to pull a lever to save five people at the cost of one innocent bystander, or the more harrowing scenario where a doctor sedates a patient to harvest five organs to save five other lives. Even though the mathematical outcome is identical, the perception differs wildly based on the context: we call the switchman a hero, yet we label the doctor a psychopath.

Ultimately, moral values are relative and contingent upon the broader needs of a society; in this framework, homosexuality is likely to become increasingly integrated, while pedophilia will remain—and already is—universally condemned.
Most people process this on an emotional level, reacting to trends and social shifts, which is a standard pattern of human behavior, whereas others are capable of approaching it with cold rationality.
The former group will inevitably react with outcry and panic, while the latter will maintain a calm, reasoned composure, and frankly, nobody is going to give a damn about the noise the first group makes. 😬

I suspect you might find much more helpful insights over on the Health & Wellness forum.

I’m more than happy to migrate our conversation over there if that works for you.

silvertiger11 said:I honestly used to think I was just seeing some film on my cornea or bits of dust floating around in there. 🤷

It really started getting on my nerves last year when the snow began to fall; looking out at a pristine, white snowy landscape made that "dust" impossible to ignore.

I recall watching this documentary where they mentioned tiny, shimmering white spots in the eyes as potential symptoms of mania or schizophrenia. I actually noticed something similar once after rubbing my eyes right before heading to bed. 😁

My own theory is that those little spots and floaters are just the result of minor circulation issues within the eye itself.
When I was a kid, I was convinced I actually had the superpower to see individual atoms. 😵